MisfitChris
Offline
Connecticut USA

Why are they playing a lot of our music... while offering a premium service? Doesn't premium service void the Creative Commons licence? Kind of had a few drinks but. Thought this should maybe be brought up. For conversational sake even if it's legal.. heh.

EDIT: I was gonna do some gaming... so I was like DI.FM cool... but I could only listen at shit quality... to my friends music.. That's how this came about. If we aren't getting a profit.. and they are... like with spotify etc... why do they have a fucking chiptunes section? Can we get our music taken off? Idk.. I feel like it's a valid discussion. i don't post a lot.

I haven't received much promotion through DI.FM so I don't see it as a good source for that.

Enlighten me on why they can do this. Blah... blah blah..'

Those who are played on the site... should at the least get access to premium streaming of music? In my mind at least hah...

EDIT AGAIN: Drunk... as usual. But trying to be constructive... as I don't post here often. I know (maybe you didn't) Sites like last.fm do pay you for your streams worth .. through labels (% through label pay) and in your artist account you can claim it if you haven't already. But I don't know of any options through DI.fm. Please enlighten me if there is a way. Word...

Last edited by MisfitChris (Mar 6, 2012 4:54 am)

Frostbyte
Offline

kedromelon's stuff was streamed on there.

Glenntai
Offline
Hudson, MA

Doesn't seem it...  the music seems it's still available to listen for free, and the premium service is based on higher quality bitrates, commercial interruptions, and where they can listen to the stream (i.e. platform to listen to it on.)

That being said, if they specifically have channels or stations that can only be heard via purchasing said service, and your music comes up through those channels, that's in violation of your CC license.  Otherwise they're in their legal standing.

tl;dr:  dicks dicks dicks dicks dicks dicks.

Also, edited for grammar and stuff.

Last edited by Glenntai (Mar 6, 2012 4:43 am)

MisfitChris
Offline
Connecticut USA

I just feel like... if they are playing our music on streaming radio for money! We should get a profit (even if small).. Last.FM, Spotify etc.. Gives us a profit. Idk. Can we request our music taken off DI.FM? As I haven't seen a promotional advantage to having it on the site. I'd like to see what some one of chiptune label managers think of this site streaming music under CC... IE. Pause.. Bleepstreet., Data Thrash, 8BP, Data Airlines.  etc etc and making a profit.

It's not like I'm not happy they are streaming our music... Because that's cool. It's just if they are making money off of my friends.. When I listen to their site I'd atleast like premium streaming. Knowing they are making money off of me and said friends. Can we make this happen? Or do we have to be assholes and tell them to get rid of our music on the chiptune channel.

I'm going to bring it to the attention of at least my managers. But I thought it was worthy of a topic!

Last edited by MisfitChris (Mar 6, 2012 4:55 am)

Glenntai
Offline
Hudson, MA

You're within your right to specifically request it off of DI.FM and their affiliate's servers, yeah.  It's not like you're telling them you want their money, you're just asking to be left out of their cool-kids-club of music to listen to.

As much as I want to go, "RAWR, IF IT AINT IN THE COMMUNITY OR PROVIDING ME AN IMMEDIATE BENEFIT, FUCK YOU AND THE COUCH YOU JUST BOUGHT;"  I just can't.  My argument is that having your name out there and played anywhere is still receiving the benefit of exposure to potential new fans and/or customers.  it doesn't mean I wouldn't want a piece of the money they make, though.

MisfitChris
Offline
Connecticut USA

I honestly... just don't want someone profiting on something I put out there specifically for free. Doesn't seem right at all. God damn internet.

BR1GHT PR1MATE
Offline
BOSTON
MisfitChris wrote:

I honestly... just don't want someone profiting on something I put out there specifically for free. Doesn't seem right at all. God damn internet.


I think this is the key point: they are making a profit off of stuff *intended to be free*. that's against the Internet code.

akira^8GB
Offline
New York City

You can get royalties for "Airplay" (including internet radio) if you are registered with ASCAP or some such entity in whatever country and your music is registered with them and as long as the website in question is properly registered, which it should if they offer a premium service.

So if you are not getting paid, only you are to blame.

This is for USA, for example:

Songs released for free or by CC have been released with listening and re-distribution permits already.
Example license: 8bitpeoples' cc-by-nc-nd says:

You are free:
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work

As such, they are not breaking any law or "internet code", whatever that might be. Spotify and others, charge for a service, not for the music and, if they are not an illegal company, they ARE paying royalty money to whatever entity that needs to be paid.


This thread exactly rep[resents what I meant about chip music "theft paranoia" and why it embarrasses me. It would be great if people understood how the music business works before accusing like this.

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden

I suggest reading up on the legal code, Akira: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- … /legalcode. The "to Share" (license grant) part is in section 3, but you only have those rights within the restrictions of section 4, where 4 b is especially interesting to this case:

You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.

Whether or not Digitally Imported is exercising those rights in an acceptable manner is a matter of interpretation, of course, but as they are a US private corporation (legally obliged to maximize profits) interleaving the music recordings with commercial advertisement or charging users to listen to it, I don't think the debate will be too long.

Royalty collection agencies really have nothing to do with your individual rights. If you haven't specifically granted anyone any rights beyond those of the original terms of your license (defaulting to copyright law, to which your works are automatically subject), they are not free to trample your terms just because they are connected to a private agency. If you (as a proprietor of the rights to a musical work) are not connected to a royalty collection agency, YOU are the entity that needs to be paid.

I hate to point at laws, but in this case a private corporation is obviously making money off works that are licensed under terms explicitly designed to avoid this kind of commercial exploitation. Never mind the "free" airplay or whatever; if you allow this kind of breach of license, your rights as a proprietor might as well start lubing up and spread those cheeks...

EDIT: I don't know if they actually ARE playing CC licensed works without permission from the proprietors, so my post might seem a bit too specifically directed at this case in particular.

Last edited by boomlinde (Mar 6, 2012 10:51 am)

Victory Road
Offline
Gosford, Australia

tbh i just see this as karma for all those linkin park songs i downloaded when i was twelve

akira^8GB
Offline
New York City
boomlinde wrote:

I suggest reading up on the legal code, Akira: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- … /legalcode. The "to Share" (license grant) part is in section 3, but you only have those rights within the restrictions of section 4, where 4 b is especially interesting to this case:

You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.

.

Hmm, after I posted about the CC license, I realized it has a clause that says you should ask for permission for commercial work.
But as I saw it, DI sells a service and not the music. You could be right on this though. I also thought "right to transmit" includes this.

In any case what I was saying is that yes, people SHOULD get paid and that DI is surely already paying to the entity it needs to pay and the author only needs to collect and if you don't collect, it's your fault. They are not going to come knock at your door and give you money, you need to tell your entity where to look for it. So if you have music in DI.FM and you are not getting money, talk to your royalty agency and tell them your music is there, they should do the rest. I know what you mean with "if you are not registered to a collection company", but I am afraid the industry does not work like that and if you want the royalties, you need to be signed up. The way the system works is debatable but if someoone is worried about where your shit gets played commercially, you should be signed up to this. Also when you perform, you collect royalties. In my opinion, it's a good thing to do.

Last edited by akira^8GB (Mar 6, 2012 11:14 am)

MisfitChris
Offline
Connecticut USA

Well this thread has proved to educate me on such matters. I will look into it later today! Just thought i'd bring the site etc up. Thanks!

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden
akira^8GB wrote:

Hmm, after I posted about the CC license, I realized it has a clause that says you should ask for permission for commercial work.
But as I saw it, DI sells a service and not the music. You could be right on this though. I also thought "right to transmit" includes this.

Yes, they are selling a service, but consider the service without its content. This is why they have to pay royalties in the first place.

In any case what I was saying is that yes, people SHOULD get paid and that DI is surely already paying to the entity it needs to pay and the author only needs to collect and if you don't collect, it's your fault. They are not going to come knock at your door and give you money, you need to tell your entity where to look for it. So if you have music in DI.FM and you are not getting money, talk to your royalty agency and tell them your music is there, they should do the rest. I know what you mean with "if you are not registered to a collection company", but I am afraid the industry does not work like that and if you want the royalties, you need to be signed up. The way the system works is debatable but if someoone is worried about where your shit gets played commercially, you should be signed up to this.

First of all, read section 4 d of the legal code, which addresses royalties specifically.

Generally speaking (not just for CC-NC type licenses), a royalty collecting agency is only legally eligible to collect money for their clients, i.e. people or labels who have registered with them and given them the right to license their music. If you are not connected to a collection agency, at least by US law, royalties have to be sent either directly to you or (if the licensee hasn't been able to contact the proprietor after a substantial effort) to the copyright office. This is how compulsory licensing works. No private organization is eligible to collect money in your name unless you explicitly granted them that right!

Practically, this means that radio stations won't play music that isn't connected to a major collecting society, unless they're willing to bother to contact the proprietor to discuss alternatives, or if the proprietor gave them the right to do so without paying royalties. As far as I understand, this is how it works in most of EU as well.

Also when you perform, you collect royalties. In my opinion, it's a good thing to do.

Agreed!

akira^8GB
Offline
New York City
boomlinde wrote:

Generally speaking (not just for CC-NC type licenses), a royalty collecting agency is only legally eligible to collect money for their clients, i.e. people or labels who have registered with them and given them the right to license their music. If you are not connected to a collection agency, at least by US law, royalties have to be sent either directly to you or (if the licensee hasn't been able to contact the proprietor after a substantial effort) to the copyright office. This is how compulsory licensing works. No private organization is eligible to collect money in your name unless you explicitly granted them that right!

Here's the catch. I think these laws differ depending on the country and whatever applies to the US doesn't necessarily apply to another country. In Argentina, for example, and this is a big case of drama, the entity, SADAIC, collects money anyway. If you don't go and get it from them, they keep it. They are assholes like that.

Also, places like radios, pay a "blanket" fee to these associations, they get a deal cut to them to lower costs. So I think if any of these entities that pay a blanket fee to an association is one that plays your tune, that association is collecting money for you without you even noticing.

Take something like RAdio 1's "new DJs' or something. Kids send tracks in for playing. They are probably not associated to any royalty association. However Radio 1 pays a blanket fee to whatever entity works in the UK.

For all I know, since I have SELDOM filled up playlist charts at shows I played, many collection companies have money that belongs to me. And since my association is a bit weird (I am in the middle of changing it), I get nothing.

Last edited by akira^8GB (Mar 6, 2012 3:54 pm)

Subway Sonicbeat
Offline
Brazil

Just an insight:

Here in Brazil there is an entity called ECAD, which regulates all the royalties paid to the artists. It is so awful that there's a story where a couple had to pay royalties for all the music played at their wedding.

nitro2k01
Offline
Sweeeeeeden

This is slightly off-topic, but these organizations are indeed dicky sometimes. Here's what happened to me lately. I have a video on YouTube where I'm playing around with my modular synth. This is filed under the category music. I got a copyright claim from "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society", which is not any single organization, but an umbrella name for all these organizations. What this claim means is that this society will have the right to place ads on the video and collect money that way. Since this was not a performance of any musical work, and certainly not of any musical work associated with any rights collecting society, I appealed it saying the work had been misidentified (even though no song name was identified in the claim.) This immediately lead to the claim being revoked, saying all parties agreed to the appeal.

The only conclusion I can draw here is that these rights collecting societies have bots (or cheap paid monkeys) that pick YouTube videos marked as music, at random and make these claims. They know a big share of people will be too afraid (to lose their account or similar) to actually appeal the claims. So they get a small but steady revenue stream this way. All while not having to identify themselves or specify what the claim is for. I call bullshit on that.

YouTube support forum discussion