Old 16th January 2004, 23:28   #81
Russ
Mostly Harmless
(Alumni)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally posted by someToast
Is it true in what I've been reading that BMI (and presumably ASCAP and SESAC) pays received royalties out to artists based upon their positions in popular music charts?
Yes it's true - the performing rights agencies pay out due to a number of factors, but mainly due to the artists' positions in the charts. However the artists have signed their rights over to them, so it's their own bloody fault .

For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave.
|Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
Russ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2004, 01:15   #82
smoothmusic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 49
Do stations pay royalties based on where they are located? What I mean is do stations based in the US, Canada, the UK, France pay the same people the same royalties? If not why don't we find the place with the lowest royalty rates, pool together, and install some shoutcast servers wherever that may be (outer mongolia, north korea, zimbabwe, columbia)?
smoothmusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 00:50   #83
smoothmusic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 49
no comments?
smoothmusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 00:56   #84
DJ Killer
Major Dude
 
DJ Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: O-Town FLA
Posts: 1,357
Send a message via AIM to DJ Killer Send a message via Yahoo to DJ Killer
where the stream originates from.

I Make. Perform. Mix. Play. Music.
DJ Killer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 01:22   #85
smoothmusic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 49
so are there any countries that don't pay royalties? The reason I am asking is because, why doesn't someone set up a bunch of servers wherever that might be and BMI, the RIAA, and co. can go screw themselves
smoothmusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 01:41   #86
DJ Killer
Major Dude
 
DJ Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: O-Town FLA
Posts: 1,357
Send a message via AIM to DJ Killer Send a message via Yahoo to DJ Killer
i just ignore them, let them whine at me... :P

I Make. Perform. Mix. Play. Music.
DJ Killer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 13:33   #87
jackherer
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 942
Who you pay royalties too has nothing to do with where the server is located or where you are streaming from. it has to do with where the person or company (an incorporated or Ltd company is legally clasified as a person in the UK and USA probably other countries as well). If you or your company is in the Uk you pay royalties to MCPS/PRS/PPL if your in the USA BMI/SCAP/SESAC/SoundExchange. If you wanted to do what you say you would have to eaither move to or set up a company in a country where there was no collection agenecies set up. You would probably still be breaking international copyright Law it's would just be up to the artists/record labels to try and collect their royalties on an individual basis.


Do not PM me for tech support !
jackherer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 14:16   #88
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Why do people still think SoundExchange is collecting royalties for the artists. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The RIAA and Soundexchange are one in the same. The RIAA collects royalties for it's members and no one else.

If you review a listing of RIAA members you'll notice that not one single artist is a member of the RIAA. Every single member of the RIAA are record companies. The list is on their site.

Sure, they claim they do all of this fighting in the name of the artists and that is a flat out lie. They work to insure their members (the record labels) keep control of the music industry and therefore control the money.

ASCAP, BMI and SESAC also do not collect anything for the artists. Their members are songwriters, composers, producers and the such. No artists there either.

I think SE might share a pittance with some major label artists as part of their agreement, but SE also takes a huge chunk of that royalty pie for 'administrative' costs, which is pretty much cash for their members.

I don't mind ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. Fees are reasonable and they are easy to work with. SE is a sham and should be outlawed as should the RIAA.

IMHO of course.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 14:38   #89
Russ
Mostly Harmless
(Alumni)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,319
I'm glad we aren't in the US - here in the UK we pay one very reasonable fee to the MCPS/PRS and it allows us unlimited internet broadcasting for any material released in the UK.

For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave.
|Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
Russ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 15:10   #90
jackherer
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 942
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Why do people still think SoundExchange is collecting royalties for the artists. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The RIAA and Soundexchange are one in the same. The RIAA collects royalties for it's members and no one else.

If you review a listing of RIAA members you'll notice that not one single artist is a member of the RIAA. Every single member of the RIAA are record companies. The list is on their site.

Sure, they claim they do all of this fighting in the name of the artists and that is a flat out lie. They work to insure their members (the record labels) keep control of the music industry and therefore control the money.

ASCAP, BMI and SESAC also do not collect anything for the artists. Their members are songwriters, composers, producers and the such. No artists there either.

I think SE might share a pittance with some major label artists as part of their agreement, but SE also takes a huge chunk of that royalty pie for 'administrative' costs, which is pretty much cash for their members.

I don't mind ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. Fees are reasonable and they are easy to work with. SE is a sham and should be outlawed as should the RIAA.

IMHO of course.
I don't diagree with the general content and tone of this post and i also think the soundExchange fees are unreasnable and they doo take a huge chunk for admin which includes all the bribes to congressman (party/campaign contributions) etc required to get this bullshit made law. I also agree that they are basically the RIAA, but .... they do give 50% of whats left directly to the artists (45% to featured artists 5% to session musicians)
see here http://www.soundexchange.com/royalty.html


Do not PM me for tech support !
jackherer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 15:39   #91
jackherer
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 942
Sorry to post again but just to nake sure that everybody understands copyright properly please read this.

Every musical recording embodies two distinct copyrighted works. The first is the underlying musical composition, comprised of the written notes and lyrics (for purposes of copyright law, the musical composition is referred to as a "musical work"). The copyright in the musical work is usually owned by the songwriter and/or his or her music publisher. The second copyrighted work is the actual recording itself - the sounds, including the recording artist’s interpretation of the musical composition, and the creative efforts of the producer, sound engineers and background musicians. (This is referred to in copyright law as a "sound recording.") The copyrighted recording brings to life the written notes and lyrics of the musical work. The copyright in the sound recording is typically owned by a record label.

In the USA BMI/ASCAP/SESAC collect performance royalties for the copyright in the musical work and SoundExchange collect royalties for performance copyright in the sound recording

Int UK PRS = musical work, PPL = sound recording

Most other countries have similar organisations.

Their are also mechanical royalties but you only pay these if you manufacture and distribute/sell CDs/MP3s/Vinyl or other media.


Do not PM me for tech support !
jackherer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 16:08   #92
lonely driver
Junior Member
 
lonely driver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In the land of lost dreams and broken hearts
Posts: 49
Send a message via AIM to lonely driver
crazy

its all cut throat bull crap, ive stated my thoughts earlier
My Earlier Post
I still say that If your non-profit then you really shouldn't have to deal with royalties

but I would like to hear a band that has recieved royalties from their record label saying that it helped them in some sort of way, like how much money could they recieve from just one station paying $200-400, even with the $2,000 from SE, We need to stop putting our heads up other people's asses.

oh and the day I hear this will be the day that I'm happy "omg thanks because of your station I sold over 1 kabillion copies, Keep it going I need another ferrari, oh wait BMI shut you down oh and RIAA is giving you fines, wow..that sucks for you... signed Johnny Good Band"
lonely driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 16:45   #93
urbansoulnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to urbansoulnation
Hey jackherer...Check your PM! Thanks
urbansoulnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 19:46   #94
MotherEarth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 111
Send a message via ICQ to MotherEarth Send a message via AIM to MotherEarth Send a message via Yahoo to MotherEarth
I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were a signed artist, I'd sure like to get the royalties I'm due.

If you are going to be an above-board, legitimate station, you have to (1) get those licenses (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC) and (2) play only music that you physically own, or that your collection of staff owns.

It isn't legal by the DMCA to go to, say, Kazaa, and download tracks you don't already own in some physical form (vinyl, 8track, cassette, cd).

That's why people are getting caught.

If you're gonna do it, you might as well do it right, or not do it at all.
MotherEarth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 23:20   #95
urbansoulnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to urbansoulnation
Motherearth I think most of us understand that. As much as I hate to, I soon will be dishing out the thousands to stay online even though I don't make a sigle dime off of this.

The problem is that no distinction is being made between some goofy kids with spare time on thier hands with a stream that has 10 listeners and stations such as HitzRadio with 1000+ listeners which are obviously doing this as more than something to fool around with in thier spare time.

I am sick and ******** tired of everytime this subject comes up somebody waves the "artists deserve thier royalties" flag as if we just want to steal money straight out of thier pockets like the record industry has gotten away with for YEARS. Its only gotten a little better in recent times but the grave yards of the formerly famous is scattered with the bodies of those who died poor while some record company executive stole them blind and spent the money on cocaine and mistresses.

I can assure you the record industry has done a helluva lot more damage to artists than some kid who is crazy about music and sets up a stream with 10 max users promoting artists that the corporates could give a **** about.

If I were an artist I would not spend my time trying to destroy music streaming technology or restrict it to the rich which is what those license fees do. 20 years from now we'll look back at this and laugh. Artists will DEPEND on Internet Radio to get thier music out.

This whole ******* conversation is rediculous. If I were in charge I would just give a blanket pass to anyone nonprofit with under 200 listeners to stream without licenses. That would give this technology a chance to grow and prospher. Then after several years put some standards in place that makes a distinction between hobbyists and those who are out to make a profit.

No that would make too much sense. Oh and it would take waaay too much power out of the hands of the recording & broadcasting (clearchannel and infinity) who if they had thier way 9412 and the rest of us would be non-existent. Would that benefit the artist? **** no. And I suspect that the powers that be understand this otherwise this whole shoutcast operation would be shut down faster than you could respond to this post.
urbansoulnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2004, 23:59   #96
MotherEarth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 111
Send a message via ICQ to MotherEarth Send a message via AIM to MotherEarth Send a message via Yahoo to MotherEarth
I am very sorry but I do not agree with you, and your rant leaves me thinking that you'd rather skirt the law than do the right thing.

It's about doing the right thing, after all. For the artists, their music is their livelihood.

We aren't talking paying the RIAA, we are talking paying the organizations that make sure the artist gets a return on their hard work.

If you set up your own FM transmitter and played tracks you ganked off of KaZaa, how long do you think that would last before you got taken down?

What makes you think you can get away with the equivalent on the Internet?
MotherEarth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 00:48   #97
urbansoulnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to urbansoulnation
Did you really read anything I just said?

Its that type of attitude that gets my temper boiling. You don't know me or anyone online here. Do not think for one second I would rather "skirt the law" than do the right thing. Did I not say that I intend to fully comply with the requirements when I raise the money? I take it that is not good enough?

Since you now have insinuated that I would rather break the law let me tell you something about "the law". There is a such thing that is called "the spirit of the law"...what the law was intended to do.

I do not think that the law was meant to make criminals out of everyone who wanted to play around with music streaming which is what shoutcast allows people to do. Instead the law (almost) makes criminals out of a 15 year old who wants to try his hand at broadcasting. Instead the law keeps honest people who want to pay but can't afford these exhorbitant fees out of the game.

Did I rant a little, yeah. 2500 may be a drop in the bucket to some but to me...thats hard earned money I could use for something else. Its way too high for the average shmo. Yet I will scrap up the money and pay it and you dare say I would rather skirt the law?

My post was all in good humor. If somebody out there took it the wrong way I apologize. But dude don't dare attack my integrity when you don't know me. I respect your opinion but I don't know you so I won't make jusdgements about what you would or wouldn't do.

You are WRONG to go there man. WRONG.
urbansoulnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 01:05   #98
MotherEarth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 111
Send a message via ICQ to MotherEarth Send a message via AIM to MotherEarth Send a message via Yahoo to MotherEarth
I agree with you on the height of the price and there are organizations out there working to bring it down for the Internet radio community.

I guess I just got irritated by the others who were suggesting ways to "put" BMI off, is all. Know what I mean?

I get especially irritated at stations that strive to be large, don't pay the fees, and play music they don't physically own. THAT is when I contend that they are taking bread out of the artists' mouths.

I am sorry if you took it the wrong way. I tend to be anal about doing things the right way.

Oh, and if you couldn't tell, I'm female. Not everyone in the Internet broadcasting industry is male
MotherEarth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 01:17   #99
urbansoulnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to urbansoulnation
Aight Aight my goof.

I guess since you are a gal we can kiss and make up...he he he.
urbansoulnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 01:19   #100
MotherEarth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 111
Send a message via ICQ to MotherEarth Send a message via AIM to MotherEarth Send a message via Yahoo to MotherEarth
*chuckles* sure, why not? :P
MotherEarth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 01:38   #101
jackherer
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 942
WEll i think that urbansoulnation has a point and this seems to be a very imotive issue and people tend to lose track of things with all the vitriol. I think the point is that whilst it is the law and it is only fair that artists get compensated for thew their work, in the USA the rates and especially the minimums are devicive and way out of propertion to the value of the work being used. They are designed to make it impossible for small hobyist and small comercial webcasters so that the big record companies can maintain a a five way oligopoly of all the music distribution. If the rates were something like 10% of revenue or 50c per concurrent listener per month, whirchever is the greater then i think that that people would go legit and it would make it easy and cheap to run a legal stream. I realy beleive that at these rates they would get more money because small webcasters would pay. they are about what you pay per listener if you have thousands of listeners charge for access to your stream and get over the huge minimum fees.


Do not PM me for tech support !
jackherer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 01:38   #102
Russ
Mostly Harmless
(Alumni)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,319
True, regardless of who you may dislike, the artist has signed their rights over to that agency, and so you should do the right thing by paying the agent. If you don't agree with that, don't play their songs.

For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave.
|Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
Russ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 02:00   #103
Russ
Mostly Harmless
(Alumni)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally posted by jackherer
I think the point is that whilst it is the law and it is only fair that artists get compensated for thew their work, in the USA the rates and especially the minimums are devicive and way out of propertion to the value of the work being used.
I think they miss the point. The artists themselves have expressly agreed to be subject to these terms. If you don't want to pay those fees, go and find artists who doesn't agree to be exploited by their greedy and insane record companies.

Feel free to protest about the record companies' habits, but don't try and circumvent what the artists have brought upon themselves. If they aren't making any money, it's their own fucking fault, and your not paying them is hardly going to help matters.

For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave.
|Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
Russ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 02:05   #104
urbansoulnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to urbansoulnation
I agree with you Russ.

However, for those of us who just wanted to play around with it and then actually found we are somewhat good at it its kind of depressing to find out we gotta pay 2500 dollars to stay legal. But I will bregrundingly pay it since as you said its the right thing to do. The last thing I want to perceived as as someone taking food out of an artist's mouth.
urbansoulnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 02:18   #105
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
There are services like Live365 and AudioRealm that allow hobbiests to continue their love of broadcasting without paying exorbitant fees. Sure there are some drawbacks and even a few limitations, but for a stream that serves only 10 max listeners, one could say the benefits far outweight the costs (after you consider saving about $2000 per year and not having to worry about the hassles of reporting revenue and listenership and registering with the copyright office, SoundExchange/RoyaltyLogic, ASCAP, and BMI).

Just a thought to keep in mind!

--Randall
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 02:52   #106
urbansoulnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to urbansoulnation
Yeah I looked into every last one of them. There are way too many strings attached. I'd rather fork over the benjamins than comply with alot of thier terms. I think I'm kind of beyond the "hobby stage" with 4 slots at 24Kbs..lol.

I came this close to signing up with SWCAST and cancelled at the last minute when I saw that I would have to tear down my website and place it on thier servers with thier .net or whatever at the end. No not after I have invested time and money into my own domain name. Not gonna do it.

After all the time and money I have thrown into software, designing a web site, devising code, paying for the server, and paying for broadband on my end, two thousand isn't a helluva lot of money. Yes it is alot but compared with what I've already spent....its not.
urbansoulnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 03:03   #107
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
It shouldn't have bene necessary to move or remove your Website from an existing domain at all, only to launch the actual stream. If you have community forums, news, chatroom, schedules, playlists, request links, etc. that could all still be hosted wherever you please. And the custom-branded station page tools make it possible to make the off-site launching experience as seamless as possible

But as you've explained very well, it all comes down to cost benefit analysis and what is worth it to run a stream and what your goals are either as a hobbiest or an entrepreneur.

Just wanted to clarify those points.

--Randall
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 03:27   #108
urbansoulnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to urbansoulnation
SWCAST is still on my table of consideration...just at the time it seemed kinda unfair to have to remove the listen links.
urbansoulnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 03:31   #109
SorceryKid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 294
I do understand. That is actually a BMI and ASCAP regulation.
SorceryKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 03:47   #110
urbansoulnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to urbansoulnation
Sorcery check your PM!
urbansoulnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 04:03   #111
wisedj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: US
Posts: 122
http://www.webcastersofamerica.com/links.htm

http://www.webcastersofamerica.com/news.htm

Hope this help a little.
wisedj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 05:38   #112
MotherEarth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 111
Send a message via ICQ to MotherEarth Send a message via AIM to MotherEarth Send a message via Yahoo to MotherEarth
*throws shrubberies at urbansoulnation*

Feel better, Festerhead?
[I removed my stupid remark]
MotherEarth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 13:48   #113
jackherer
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 942
Quote:
Originally posted by Russ
I think they miss the point. The artists themselves have expressly agreed to be subject to these terms. If you don't want to pay those fees, go and find artists who doesn't agree to be exploited by their greedy and insane record companies.

Feel free to protest about the record companies' habits, but don't try and circumvent what the artists have brought upon themselves. If they aren't making any money, it's their own fucking fault, and your not paying them is hardly going to help matters.
I was refering to SoundExchange fees, the ASCAP, BMI fees are reasonable. The artists had no say in this matter sound exchange is about sound recording copyright that is owned and controlled by the record labels. The current rates were set at the hight of the dot com bubble and were negotiated between large webcaster yuch as yahoo (which owns launch) and the RIAA, with no consultation with artists, webcasters or the public.

Also people should stop using the general term "artists" when talking about royalties. Please read my previous post about copyright.

THe songwriter or his/her publisher owns the copyright in the musical work (the song and lyrics, not the recording) these rates are comparable to what you would pay if you were an AM/FM radio station and are reasonable in the US.

The record labels own the copyright in the sound recording (not the artists). In the USA AM/FM radio stations do not have to pay royalties to the record labels for using the sound recordings, it is regarded as free promotion for the selling of their CDs. When the DMCA was introduced in 1998, due to a flawded understanding of technology it was decided that all digital broadcasts would have to pay royalties at a rate set by the CARP. This was done because it was perceived that beacuse it was digital then it was possible to make a "perfect" copy of the broadcast. Anyone who has listened to a 24kbps stream knows what absolute bollocks this is.

The good thing about the CARP decision was that the labels have to pay artists 50% of these royalties. The bad thing about it was that because the rate was negotiated between the RIAA and big digital broadcasters it was set stupidly high. Sound exchange isn't about giving artists their money, sound exchange is about control.

Set the rates high and only big business, in leag with the RIAA and the big 5 record labels can afford to stream legally thus retaining control of internet broadcasting in the same way they do with AM/FM broadcasting in the US. THus small webcasters either broadcast illegally thus generating no revenue and don't broadcast thus generating no revenue. This deprives many struggeling independent record labels and artists of much needed revenue because they are not being played by the people that can offord to pay the fees.

[bias] I am tring to run a small, loss making, independent record label.


Do not PM me for tech support !
jackherer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2004, 16:44   #114
urbansoulnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 114
Send a message via AIM to urbansoulnation
Thanks for the clarification jackerer.

Now if I understand you correctly, the two grand that we pay to Sound Exchange goes to the record companies for the recording.

Now the BMI and ASCAP fees goes to the actual copyright holder of the song lyrics/music?
urbansoulnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2004, 16:36   #115
smoothmusic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally posted by jackherer
Who you pay royalties too has nothing to do with where the server is located or where you are streaming from. it has to do with where the person or company (an incorporated or Ltd company is legally clasified as a person in the UK and USA probably other countries as well). If you or your company is in the Uk you pay royalties to MCPS/PRS/PPL if your in the USA BMI/SCAP/SESAC/SoundExchange. If you wanted to do what you say you would have to eaither move to or set up a company in a country where there was no collection agenecies set up. You would probably still be breaking international copyright Law it's would just be up to the artists/record labels to try and collect their royalties on an individual basis.
So just to clarify - because I have heard differing statements about this. A station pays royalties based on where the managment/company is based and not where the stream originates from. The reason I am asking is because we have management in the US and the UK, but our stream originates in Canada. To whom am I supposed to be paying royalties?
smoothmusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2004, 18:45   #116
lonely driver
Junior Member
 
lonely driver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In the land of lost dreams and broken hearts
Posts: 49
Send a message via AIM to lonely driver
smoothmusic, you pay royalties to the companies that own the music your broadcasting. If you play the band's songs and they belong the BMI then BMI will need to see some royalties their way.

and motherearth, your a girl, so....what...his point and my point was that there should be a limit as to when you owe royalties, of course they really dont care, they could find us all with a quick search threw shoutcast.com and find all of us. But they haven't ..yet..
lonely driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2004, 19:04   #117
S_lyon87
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally posted by jackherer
Who you pay royalties too has nothing to do with where the server is located or where you are streaming from. it has to do with where the person or company (an incorporated or Ltd company is legally clasified as a person in the UK and USA probably other countries as well). If you or your company is in the Uk you pay royalties to MCPS/PRS/PPL if your in the USA BMI/SCAP/SESAC/SoundExchange. If you wanted to do what you say you would have to eaither move to or set up a company in a country where there was no collection agenecies set up. You would probably still be breaking international copyright Law it's would just be up to the artists/record labels to try and collect their royalties on an individual basis.
if it dosen't matter where your server is, explain this!

Quote:
Taken from an e-mail from socan.ca
If your server is in the U.S., you do require licensing from the American
performing rights societies - ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. If you have a server in
Canada then your site would fall within Canadian jurisdiction.

S_lyon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2004, 19:39   #118
DJ Killer
Major Dude
 
DJ Killer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: O-Town FLA
Posts: 1,357
Send a message via AIM to DJ Killer Send a message via Yahoo to DJ Killer
so what your saying is even though i could be a US Citizen, but i live in bulgaria, i still have to pay taxes to the US in bulgaria for stuff i don't even use anymore, is that correct?

I Make. Perform. Mix. Play. Music.
DJ Killer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2004, 23:15   #119
smoothmusic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 49
Does no one have the answers to the previous two posts?
smoothmusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2004, 23:24   #120
Russ
Mostly Harmless
(Alumni)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,319
We are in the UK. We are a registed limited company in the UK. Our servers are in Austria. The PRS/MCPS assures us that any fees paid to them cover any rights that we need to pay.

Dunno how much comfort that is to you. But if you're paying the artists once in one country, why the fuck should you have to pay them again for rights in another country? Especially since, with internet broadcasting, it is of precisely zero relevance which country you're broadcasting from.

For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave.
|Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
Russ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Shoutcast > Shoutcast Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump