I discussed this issue with the head of the MCPS in Scotland a year
or so ago- the basic deal is that they treat audio clips on websites
to be essentially a fund raising exercise, ie you are trying to sell
something (duh!) in the same way a radio station is trying to sell
something (advertising in their case) when they play music over the
airways- therfore a license fee is due to artists who's music you
play in the same way that they get paid if their music gets played on
the radio or used in a TV transmission.
As far as I remember there is a "minimal" fee due as long as the
clips are under 30 seconds and a more substantial (i.e. truly eye
watering) fee if they are of a longer duration- Juno may either be
paying the larger fee as they are a pretty substantial organisation
or they may just be chancing their luck.
Of course, as always with these things, artists from small
independent labels rarely see any of the cash collected by the
relevant authorities "on their behalf" and the vast majority goes to
Dire Straits, Robbie Williams and the odd bit left over for Tiesto
and Joey Negro.
cheers
Jason
On 29 Mar 2006, at 15:36, Tristan Watkins wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "robin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "313@Hyperreal.Org" <313@hyperreal.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 3:23 PM
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: (313) retroactive 002
it's a RIAA/BPI thing, any longer and technically they're in
breach of licensing or something.
rediculous i know.
You sure? I'd like to see that. I would think any sample in excess
of say, 3 seconds would be unauthorised unless there are explicit
differneces set out for record shops.
Meanwhile, anyone know how most other online shops get away with
longer samples?
Tristan
=======
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phonopsia.co.uk
