[videoblogging] Re: SOCAN Seeks $60 Annual Podcaster Fee
around the 18/4/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: SOCAN Seeks $60 Annual Podcaster Fee that: >It applies to copyrighted music, its the same sort of thing you need >if you run a club that plays music, or shopping mall or whatever. Its >not new and when similar decision on fee's was made in regards to US >internet radio, there were some who said it was too much and was >killing net radio. > >I dont know how true it is, I just know it applies to all the usual >mainstream copyrighted stuff, and so the easierst way round it is not >to use copyrighted works. > >Personally I would be really happy if there was a simialr thing for >online video, because it means for a price, people could easily use >copyrighted stuff in their shows, and actually have the proper right >to do so,m thus removing much grey. Right now we already assume that >we dont have the right to do that (apart from fair use stuff), and so >such a licence would be giving us an extra freedom that would cost >money, as opposed to applying a cost to something we could already >legitimately do for free. just agreeing with my .05 cents worth. In australia if you want to play music in your shop/restaurant etc you just pay an annual licence fee to the copyright agency, they disseminate royalties to copyright owners. Easy, reasonably priced, provides compensation to owners. We also had (might still do) a small surcharge on every blank audio cassette when they gave up and decided it was Ok to make a tape of a LP or whatever, so just stick a few cents on the cassettes and the same agency once again distributes the $ (it is done on the basis of playlists and record sales I think). Is a sensible no fuss model, though of course is all based on regions - because the copyright owners have divided the world up into regional markets (for example in Australia until recently we could not import books or CDs from the US since most of the copyright owners for Australia were British firms and we had to wait for them to release it under their label/imprint) this means they have trouble how to deal with the net. It just threatens not only IP but the geographical basis of their business models. -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: SOCAN Seeks $60 Annual Podcaster Fee
Den 18.04.2007 kl. 21:21 skrev Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Is it only certain label's that are included in this? Or everyone who > makes music (no mater what they want)? They represent their members. > So... let's say I have a friend who has a band. I use his music in a > video I put on the Internet. Do I have to pay SOCAN? Depends on whether your friend is a SOCAN member or not. If the Canadian system is anything like the Danish system your friend will be a SOCAN member if he is even remotely serious about his music. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ >
[videoblogging] Re: SOCAN Seeks $60 Annual Podcaster Fee
Well not all publishers are members of SOCAN, but I imagine most of the big labels are, and SOCAN have deals with other copyright collectives in other countries, so that their work is also covered. So in general the safe assumption is to presume it covers all copyrighted music. The main intention of these things is to collect royalties where it would be difficult to do so on a 'per case' basis. Eg a radio station plays so many tracks, they dont want to have to do a deal with each record company every time they play a song, so they keep playlists which are submitted to the rights body, who then calculate royalties and share those royaltis with its members. So if you are an artist who copyrights their work, youd probably want to join one of these things so that you get your royalty cheque. Now in your example of the friend with a band, it would depend on whether that band had signed any deals. Those deals might have reassigned the copyright for their songs to the record label. Unless the friend has retained the right to personally give or sell licenses to use the work to other people, then he doesnt have the right to give you permission to use the song. The record company could come after you, because they are the copyright holder and you dont have their permission. You are most likely to have SOCAN and others demanding you get a license from them, if you are are repeatedly using music. Im sure there have been cases where the venue or company has claimed it only uses public domain or other music it has the right to, in which case SOCAN might look for a specific violation, eg singing happy birthday, to use as an example. But generally they arent copyright police who will go after each and every person who violates the copyright of specific musicians, they are looking for venues, companies, radio shows, and now it seems podcasts, that are regularily performing copyrighted music. And SOCAN only cover the performance rights, not mechanical rights, which some other copyright collective will deal with. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > Is it only certain label's that are included in this? Or everyone who > makes music (no mater what they want)? > > So... let's say I have a friend who has a band. I use his music in a > video I put on the Internet. Do I have to pay SOCAN? > > > See ya > > On 4/18/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Socan's own description of what they do in general, will hopefully > > make sense of the issue. The problem is the term music being used too > > broadly, the assumption being there isnt any other sort of music that > > people would use. > > > > http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/music_users/ > > > > So anyway it gives you the right to use music from most of the major > > publishers etc. > > > > Another way of looking at it is that things like 'podsafe music' are > > safe from this sort of thing, socan cant touch you if you arent using > > copyrighted music. > > > > Its a bargain if you ask me. > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" > > wrote: > > > > > > ?! .. !? > > > > > > On 4/18/07, Casey McKinnon wrote: > > > > WTF? > > > > > > > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1882/125/ > > > > > > > > C. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > http://galacticast.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://www.DavidMeade.com > > -- > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. > > charles @ reptile.ca > supercanadian @ gmail.com > > developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ > ___ > Make Television http://maketelevision.com/ > > ___ > Cars, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Racing... http://tirebiterz.com/ >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: SOCAN Seeks $60 Annual Podcaster Fee
Hello, Is it only certain label's that are included in this? Or everyone who makes music (no mater what they want)? So... let's say I have a friend who has a band. I use his music in a video I put on the Internet. Do I have to pay SOCAN? See ya On 4/18/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Socan's own description of what they do in general, will hopefully > make sense of the issue. The problem is the term music being used too > broadly, the assumption being there isnt any other sort of music that > people would use. > > http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/music_users/ > > So anyway it gives you the right to use music from most of the major > publishers etc. > > Another way of looking at it is that things like 'podsafe music' are > safe from this sort of thing, socan cant touch you if you arent using > copyrighted music. > > Its a bargain if you ask me. > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > ?! .. !? > > > > On 4/18/07, Casey McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > WTF? > > > > > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1882/125/ > > > > > > C. > > > > > > --- > > > http://galacticast.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.DavidMeade.com -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/ ___ Cars, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Racing... http://tirebiterz.com/
[videoblogging] Re: SOCAN Seeks $60 Annual Podcaster Fee
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It applies to copyrighted music, its the same sort of thing you need > if you run a club that plays music, or shopping mall or whatever. Yeah, it HAS to be. I don't see how they could justify charging people to use their own music. -- Bill C. BillCammack.com > Its > not new and when similar decision on fee's was made in regards to US > internet radio, there were some who said it was too much and was > killing net radio. > > I dont know how true it is, I just know it applies to all the usual > mainstream copyrighted stuff, and so the easierst way round it is not > to use copyrighted works. > > Personally I would be really happy if there was a simialr thing for > online video, because it means for a price, people could easily use > copyrighted stuff in their shows, and actually have the proper right > to do so,m thus removing much grey. Right now we already assume that > we dont have the right to do that (apart from fair use stuff), and so > such a licence would be giving us an extra freedom that would cost > money, as opposed to applying a cost to something we could already > legitimately do for free. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Casey McKinnon" > wrote: > > > > WTF? > > > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1882/125/ > > > > C. > > > > --- > > http://galacticast.com/ > > >
[videoblogging] Re: SOCAN Seeks $60 Annual Podcaster Fee
Looks like its being reviewed in the UK at the moment, and would apply to vlogs as well I guess: http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/playingbroadcastingonline/online/Podcasting/Pages/podcasting.aspx "Use of music in a digital recording of an audio or audio-visual programme, made available on the Internet for downloading to a personal player. We are in the process of reviewing the Podcasting licensing schemes following feedback from both members and licensees. Until new schemes are available we are arranging interim agreements. " I went sniffing around that site a bit more and there were all sorts of different licences which a UK vlogger might want to explore, eg 'production music' which covers fee's for using music thats in a specific library for use by tv shows etc. Costs are quite high, eg £196 for one 30 second clip. In the past Ive generally assumed that such license things are too expensive or complex to be worth looking at, so I shall be very interested to see if a sanely priced podcasting/video podcasting license emerges anywhere. USA equivalents include: http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/ http://bmi.com/newmedia/entry/C1170 It all gets a bit messy on the net because traditionally there are performance rights, to play the music in public, and there are mechanical rights, to make copies of the music. A podcast can be seen as requiring both. And the rights organisations only really cover their own members work, so you still need to check carefully whether you can use specific works. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also the wikipedia entry for 'copyright collective' helps explain: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective > > Theres a list of various ones around the world at the end of the > wikipedia entry. I dont know if any of the others have looked at > podcasting, I'll go research. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" wrote: > > > > Socan's own description of what they do in general, will hopefully > > make sense of the issue. The problem is the term music being used too > > broadly, the assumption being there isnt any other sort of music that > > people would use. > > > > http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/music_users/ > > > > So anyway it gives you the right to use music from most of the major > > publishers etc. > > > > Another way of looking at it is that things like 'podsafe music' are > > safe from this sort of thing, socan cant touch you if you arent using > > copyrighted music. > > > > Its a bargain if you ask me. > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" > > wrote: > > > > > > ?! .. !? > > > > > > On 4/18/07, Casey McKinnon wrote: > > > > WTF? > > > > > > > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1882/125/ > > > > > > > > C. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > http://galacticast.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://www.DavidMeade.com > > > > > >
[videoblogging] Re: SOCAN Seeks $60 Annual Podcaster Fee
Also the wikipedia entry for 'copyright collective' helps explain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective Theres a list of various ones around the world at the end of the wikipedia entry. I dont know if any of the others have looked at podcasting, I'll go research. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Socan's own description of what they do in general, will hopefully > make sense of the issue. The problem is the term music being used too > broadly, the assumption being there isnt any other sort of music that > people would use. > > http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/music_users/ > > So anyway it gives you the right to use music from most of the major > publishers etc. > > Another way of looking at it is that things like 'podsafe music' are > safe from this sort of thing, socan cant touch you if you arent using > copyrighted music. > > Its a bargain if you ask me. > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" > wrote: > > > > ?! .. !? > > > > On 4/18/07, Casey McKinnon wrote: > > > WTF? > > > > > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1882/125/ > > > > > > C. > > > > > > --- > > > http://galacticast.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.DavidMeade.com > > >
[videoblogging] Re: SOCAN Seeks $60 Annual Podcaster Fee
Socan's own description of what they do in general, will hopefully make sense of the issue. The problem is the term music being used too broadly, the assumption being there isnt any other sort of music that people would use. http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/music_users/ So anyway it gives you the right to use music from most of the major publishers etc. Another way of looking at it is that things like 'podsafe music' are safe from this sort of thing, socan cant touch you if you arent using copyrighted music. Its a bargain if you ask me. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ?! .. !? > > On 4/18/07, Casey McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > WTF? > > > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1882/125/ > > > > C. > > > > --- > > http://galacticast.com/ > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.DavidMeade.com >
[videoblogging] Re: SOCAN Seeks $60 Annual Podcaster Fee
It applies to copyrighted music, its the same sort of thing you need if you run a club that plays music, or shopping mall or whatever. Its not new and when similar decision on fee's was made in regards to US internet radio, there were some who said it was too much and was killing net radio. I dont know how true it is, I just know it applies to all the usual mainstream copyrighted stuff, and so the easierst way round it is not to use copyrighted works. Personally I would be really happy if there was a simialr thing for online video, because it means for a price, people could easily use copyrighted stuff in their shows, and actually have the proper right to do so,m thus removing much grey. Right now we already assume that we dont have the right to do that (apart from fair use stuff), and so such a licence would be giving us an extra freedom that would cost money, as opposed to applying a cost to something we could already legitimately do for free. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Casey McKinnon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > WTF? > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1882/125/ > > C. > > --- > http://galacticast.com/ >
