--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > around the 25/10/07 Bill Cammack mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: > Can anybody tell me.... that: > >Even what you're saying is interesting to me. Why should shop owners > >need to pay a fee to play music in their shops when someone could sit > >down at their shop and play music from their radio or laptop > >license-free? I mean, I understand WHY... since the music is adding > >value to the owner's shop, but you see how it doesn't make any sense? > >You can play your radio, that you bought with your own money, that's > >receiving music from radio stations, in the park and pay nothing. You > >can play your own CDs, that you bought with your own money, on a > >laptop and pay nothing. One can argue that the licensing fee was > >built into the CD that the person bought or whatever media the radio > >station's playing. However, if that's the case, why isn't that same > >license built into music that someone on YouTube bought with their own > >money and put in the background of their non-commercial video? > > > >Seems like more than a DOUBLE standard... Seems like A FEW different > > I'll answer this in bits :-) > > there is a distinction made between personal use nad broadcasting. > turning on the stereo in the shop becomes broadcasting. it isn't > about adding value, it is simply a technical definition of > broadcasting.
ok. So how is (and I'm not disagreeing with you :D) playing your radio in the park NOT broadcasting? What if more people can hear your music in the park than at, say, an outdoor cafe where they've paid a license to play music there? How about DJing? You bought the records. You bought the turntables. You bought the speakers and brought them out to the park. How is that *not* broadcasting? Is it broadcasting because one person has a business and the other one doesn't? > Radio stations here pay APRA fees, which cost more than > the restaurant's :-) As do dance clubs. I'll assume your point here is that playing music over your radio that you bought and brought to the park is 'covered' by the fees that the radio station paid in the first place. However, if that's the case, why isn't the shop owner similarly covered? And if the shop owner isn't covered to play the radio in the shop, why is the consumer covered to play the radio in the park? > The fee is reasonable and its > aim is not to stop the practice but to return royalties to the > artists. I don't know the specifics, but I do know that radio > stations sent their playlists to APRA, and also that they do spot > audits just to try to get an idea of the sors of material being > played so that they have a reasonable idea of who should be getting > the royalties. Absolutely. I'm *ALL* for people getting their royalties. If you make a film, you either have to not use music at all, make the music yourself, pay someone to score the film for you, have music 'donated' to your project or pay whomever created the music you want to use. It makes perfect sense in that case that since you're not incurring the cost of having your film scored, you should pay whomever you got the copyrighted music from. > youtube, you're broadcasting. So the rules are different for making a > home movie that once upon a time really was a home movie (ie was only > viewed at home by immediate family/friends). Personally I like the > licence system as it provides revenue back to copyright holders. I think the license system sounds fair as long as it's proportional to the project's actual budget. The question, however, becomes how BROAD is the CAST? :) What makes a video on YouTube that has 6 views a "broadcast"? Yes... Technically it's a BROADcast, because people all over the world COULD view it if they wanted to... except they don't. Why should a 6-view video on YouTube be held to a higher standard than a home video that's shown in a local recreation center or church basement or at someone's house over the holidays? Because there was the POTENTIAL for hundreds or thousands or millions of views? That's part of my point. I'm not sure at this point how many millions of people live here in NYC, but I guarantee you the *potential* viewership of a public access show is WAY up there, due to the numbers of people with television and cable accounts. No, people can't watch NYC public access in Japan, but that doesn't make a video blog with relatively no traffic more of a "broadcast" than that public access show, IMO... Of course, I'm no expert in what IS and ISN'T a "broadcast". > Related to all this, i know we all would like to use our favourite > bands on our videos but if they have copyright, or signed it away, > and we don't have a licence ot use it, we can't. ... Because "we" are BROADcasting? Regardless of how un-watched our videos are or how un-listened-to our podcasts are? The fact that there's the *potential* for millions of computer-owners to view our content makes us broadcasters as opposed to home-movie-makers or hobbyists? I guess this is my main question... How these lines become drawn, and by whom. What makes a video about a cat a "broadcast"? What makes someone sitting in front of a webcam in a double-wide talking about heading out to get some smokes from the general store a "show"? Why should someone doing a "character" video on YouTube that uses a section of "Peace Sells" be held to the same standards as someone doing a documentary, television show or feature film? Not to derail my own thread :D ... but this was an issue with VCRs. VCRs allowed people to record shows and watch them whenever they wanted, or collect them or take them to a friend's house that doesn't have that channel. They also allowed people to fast-forward through commercials that advertisers paid to have seen by the masses. Eventually, they created VCRs that automatically cut out commercials entirely. Why should someone *not* record shows they want to watch? The technology's there. They paid for the television and the VCR. They paid for the cable installation and monthly cable box. On top of that, why should they *not* use whatever footage they recorded in their "home movie" presentation that they created to show the family over the holidays? > But at the moment > while this is pretty silly in this day and age, my response is just > to find material that can be used and encourage and support this > alterrnative copyright economy and regime. I'm a sad idealist, i > don't think you will get far with Sony et al, so I prefer to go > around them by using material they don't control. if we do this > enough then the power of the big owners must decline simply because > they no longer control access to publishing/distribution/broadcasting > and as importantly now > republishing/redistribution/rebroadcasting/remxing. > -- > cheers > Adrian Miles > this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] > vogmae.net.au > [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A Yes. This has paved the way for people to create libraries of music that you can purchase specifically for use in your productions. Same thing with stock footage. If you don't want to travel to NYC to film in the street, you can buy the footage you want to use, saving yourself cost of crew, travel, etc and hassle. I just don't see the point, if you're doing hobbyist video that 30 people are going to view, of treating yourself as if you're News Corp. Again, excellent points. :) -- Bill http://billcammack.com
