New Stream Licensing company

[sankt]

Now that the dust has settled down from the Swcast Licensing fiasco, there are some companies stepping up to fill the void. Stream Licensing offers ASCAP, BMI, SESAC & SoundExchange Stream Licensing for the United states. They are now accepting applications and have no thresh hold limit.
www.streamlicensing.com

[tuckerm]

Why is this in GD? And why do you keep spamming it to us?

[sankt]

This is the only time I have made mention of this company, please check my previous posts

This is not a shoutcast technical issue nor a winamp technical issue. That is why I posted it in general discussion

With RIAA on the warpath - and streaming reform a completely dead issue - I feel it is important that stations need to be made aware that there are now alternatives to Loud City ( Which is currently not accepting new clients BTW. )

Several prominent ShoutCast stations that chose not to license their content have recently been shuttered by RIAA / Sound Exchange. RIAA / Sound Exchange have also pledged to continue " monitoring " stations for compliance and enforce mandatory copyright payment.

Copyright enforcement is not going away anytime soon. Lobbying money guarantees that.

Broadcasters that wish to continue streaming in compliance have two choices:
1. License their stream individually and maintain the necessary paperwork.
2. Have a business streamline the process, take care of the paperwork and payment process.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by tuckerm

why is this in gd? And why do you keep spamming it to us?

Originally Posted by dro

i think tuckerm's point is more about the relevance of posting something to do with broadcasting that doesn't really fit in with the general flow of stuff which is posted in gd.

qft

[DrO]

i think tuckerm's point is more about the relevance of posting something to do with broadcasting that doesn't really fit in with the general flow of stuff which is posted in GD.


tbh, i'd have probably thought SCDisc is a more appropriate location for such information seeing how it's more closely related to SHOUTcast broadcasting then the general drivel in this part of the forum - especially as someone else has already posted a thread about it.

-daz

[Widdykats]

...."the general drivel in this part of the forum "
Excuse you....
Don't make me hurt you, DrO..*snicker*

[Mr Jones]

It's true though :-D

[Widdykats]

^Kitten pictures are very important..ok....Lemme put it this way...We are a community of sorts and we share some things here in GD(Love Of Animals, Food, Each Other etc) and that's a good thing.

[Mr Jones]

I never said it wasn't , anyone for dinosaur pics?

[Rellik]

Too bad the DJ/Listener Center subforum (or whatever it was called) was closed a while back, this might have been appropriate for it.

Wasn't it closed because it devolved into DJs spamming their radio stations?

In a way, it might be an idea to kinda bring it back, but only for discussing issues surrounding the operation of a streaming radio station(licensing, equipment, appropriate advertising(not spam), DJ techniques, etc.) Excluding SC technical issues of course.

[SorceryKid]

Greetings:

It is curious why the owner has filed an application for a Federal trademark on the phrase "StreamLicensing". Somehow, I do not expect that to get past the USPTO examiners.

--Randall

[fc*uk]

I have a feeling it was in part due to the success of apple registering "App Store".

Think of the damage the owner could do if allowed to get away with a trademark on "StreamLicensing". Ouch.

I too would think this will get shot down quickly.

[MarvinGlass]

Whether I receive a trademark on StreamLicensing or not is ultimately irrelevant to the service I offer which, as sankt notes, provides a way for small to mid-size broadcasters to get legal with very little hassle and at much less money than they will have to spend by going direct with ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and SoundExchange.

You may not consider this relevant to this forum, however, I suspect it is an issue that many need help resolving. Many stream hosting companies and forum moderators are helping spread the word because without this kind of service, a large number cannot afford to operate legally and consequently many of these webcasters go dark.

Marvin
http://streamlicensing.com

[SorceryKid]

Good point about the "App Store" mark. That was a very interesting legal snag!

Incidentally, I am informed that "StreamLicensing" was initially refused by the USPTO because of insufficient legal documentation. In re Marvin's remark, trademark registrations ultimately exist for the purpose of protecting and informing consumers. That is why applications are public information. So I believe it is not only relevant, but important to discuss in an open forum. I'm sorry if you disagree.

--Randall

[MarvinGlass]

Yes, I agree, it should be public knowledge. I think my thought is that while any company rightfully seeks to protect it's name, logo and trademarks, the registration success or failure of the StreamLicensing trademark does not impact the success or failure of our company. Either way we continue offering quality licensing service for small to mid-size Internet radio broadcasters.