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
