goto80
Offline
CHIPTUNE

But: is it really worth all the bullshit to make $10 a month or so?

[rant mode on]

If you're signed up to a copyright collection society (which btw means that you cannot copy your own music anymore, atleast with Sweden's STIM), you're supporting a system that gives rich artists more money. That's just the way it is. That money comes from taxes on CDs, money from restaurants who pay for playing music, etc. Even if you get some money from it, is is really the right thing to do? Or let me rephrase that - why do you want to make money for something as unnecessary as copyright collectors and MP3-distributors?

People will "pirate" your stuff regardless. But maybe it's better if kids do it, instead of the copyright maffia.

[rant mode off]

Be aware, that some copyright collection socities will not allow you to release music under a Creative Commons license.

EDIT: don't forget about Google (YouTube), Facebook and all the others ...

Last edited by goto80 (Mar 6, 2012 4:32 pm)

MikeDI
Offline

An interesting discussion guys, I'm glad you're investigating this issue correctly. We are indeed registered with ASCAP, SoundExchange and PRS in the UK.

boomlinde wrote:

or if the proprietor gave them the right to do so without paying royalties.!

This happens a lot of the time with us in the form of artists sending us music directly rather than DI sourcing music from sites like this or Beatport/Amazon etc - we still obviously have to report everything that we broadcast but as akira^8GB stated we're not in the business of tracking down artists and handing them a check.

I'd be happy to field any questions about Digitally Imported at mike[at]di.fm

goto80
Offline
CHIPTUNE

Mike, thanks for stopping by here.

Does DI play music that has a non-commercial Creative Commons license?
How is that possible?

MikeDI
Offline
goto80 wrote:

Mike, thanks for stopping by here.

Does DI play music that has a non-commercial Creative Commons license?
How is that possible?

It's a tough situation and a very fine line, as Glenntai described. One can argue that we're only able to charge based on what we play, but we're also not reselling or redistributing the content in a physical (albiet online) sense since we're simply selling access to higher bitrate streams without commercials on the other hand. I can also clarify that we do not have any channels that are only accessible through a premium subscription.

It is also actually against our Terms of Service to record/rip our stations as we're not licensed to provide downloadable content through any means.

We're also more than happy to remove any content that artists do not wish to be in rotation, although most of the time when someone learns of being broadcasted on DI they tend to send us some more content smile

nitro2k01
Offline
Sweeeeeeden

Hello Mike. Someone mentioned giving away complimentary Premium subscriptions to artists who have their music in the database and request it. Is this something you would consider?

MikeDI
Offline
nitro2k01 wrote:

Hello Mike. Someone mentioned giving away complimentary Premium subscriptions to artists who have their music in the database and request it. Is this something you would consider?

I don't think we're able to honour this unfortunately. sad

akira^8GB
Offline
New York City
Subway Sonicbeat wrote:

It is so awful that there's a story where a couple had to pay royalties for all the music played at their wedding.

Despite me agreeing that these entities suck in South America, I am afraid to say that yes, if the wedding was done in a venue, they had to clear up the royalties. But this is the venue's duty, not the couple's.

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden
akira^8GB wrote:

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.

That sucks! I can't really say aything about copyright in Argentina, but I know that's thankfully not how it works in Sweden or the U.S. at least.

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.

The blanket fees the broadcasters (etc.) pay grant them the right to play the entire repertoire of these associations as much as they want during an agreed period of time. Paying the blanket fee doesn't give the broadcaster any right to play songs that are not covered by it. If they play your music without you explicitly giving them the right to do so, they have to pay you individually.

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.

Yes, they pay a banket fee, still only for the songs associated with the royalty collecting entity. Kids sending in tracks to New DJs grant Radio 1 the right to play them back. The blanket fee stays the same no matter the kids, and the kids get no royalties because they agreed to the terms and conditions of the show.

The licensee paying the blanket fee knows very well what songs it covers (well, at least they are provided access to this information), and they pay for exactly that. Now, one might argue that it's stupid not to sign up with one of these agencies and get a piece of the cake that the radio stations pay either way, but that doesn't give anyone the right to infringe on the license or copyright of your work.

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.

Well, I guess this is much of the same story, since music venues usually also pay blanket fees. By agreeing to be paid whatever you were paid to play and not associating with any of the collecting societies that were paid blanket fees, you might have been losing out not taking a piece of the cake, but since they already paid the blanket fee (specifically for the repertoire of the association), no one really has money that belongs to you.

akira^8GB
Offline
New York City
boomlinde wrote:

The blanket fees the broadcasters (etc.) pay grant them the right to play the entire repertoire of these associations as much as they want during an agreed period of time. Paying the blanket fee doesn't give the broadcaster any right to play songs that are not covered by it. If they play your music without you explicitly giving them the right to do so, they have to pay you individually.

Totally understood your point now.
I guess I can't wrap my head around this yet since I am used to SADAIC just taking the money even if I am not signed up with them. The association I was looking to join now, even goes to the extent of going to the argentine association and tell them to surrender the money that is mine. Quite unheard of.

A lot of countries in the world are not as organized about these matters as USA, Sweden or Japan, unfortunately.

Last edited by akira^8GB (Mar 6, 2012 7:25 pm)

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden
MikeDI wrote:

It's a tough situation and a very fine line, as Glenntai described. One can argue cthat we're only able to charge based on what we play, but we're also not reselling or redistributing the content in a physical (albiet online) sense since we're simply selling access to higher bitrate streams without commercials on the other hand. I can also clarify that we do not have any channels that are only accessible through a premium subscription.

I disagree that it's a fine line at all. The CC BY-NC-ND license for example is quite clear about what conditions you have to fulfill to rightfully broadcast the track.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode wrote:

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.

Do you disagree, as a corporation, that the streams you provide aren't directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation? How else do you fulfill your obligations to your shareholders?

EDIT:

We're also more than happy to remove any content that artists do not wish to be in rotation, although most of the time when someone learns of being broadcasted on DI they tend to send us some more content

As a commercial streaming radio service, I assume that you are not covered by OCILLA, in which case you are already seriously breaking the law if you are broadcasting any CC BY-NC-ND licensed works without explicit permission.

Last edited by boomlinde (Mar 6, 2012 8:17 pm)

ant1
Offline
uhajdafdfdfa

if you think the point of CC is to PREVENT people from sharing your tracks, WHAT KIND OF ASSHOL R U?

"copyleft" my ASS

Frostbyte
Offline

It's to make sure they're shared in a way that doesn't change your original intentions. Like, if Chris released an album for free, someone couldn't make dough off it. Bam. I should be a lawyer.

Glenntai
Offline
Hudson, MA
boomlinde wrote:

Do you disagree, as a corporation, that the streams you provide aren't directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation? How else do you fulfill your obligations to your shareholders?

That actually all depends on the amount of traffic they receive on their website and other forms of accessing their free streaming service...

For example, a commercial on occasion will be used by a large user-base, allowing them to charge $X.YZ per commercial.  Repeat this three times every hour, you have 72 commercials.  Charging even one dollar per commercial per customer to a constant customer reach of 1000 people seventy-two times a day is $72,000 per day.  That's a lot of money from just air-commercials alone (and, mind you, an arbitrary and generous example.)  That doesn't count website traffic or service purchases.

Hypothetically, ad revenue alone could help support a crack team of three people in a small office with ten servers full of music year-round.

That, or I'm just tired and my drink hit me too quickly...

Edit:  Also, Frostbyte:  Attorney at LOL?

Last edited by Glenntai (Mar 7, 2012 3:39 am)

MikeDI
Offline
boomlinde wrote:

As a commercial streaming radio service, I assume that you are not covered by OCILLA, in which case you are already seriously breaking the law if you are broadcasting any CC BY-NC-ND licensed works without explicit permission.

I've passed this on to our content director that handles the Chiptune stream to make sure that any works marked as such are not considered for airtime.

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden
Glenntai wrote:

That, or I'm just tired and my drink hit me too quickly...

Yes, if no one was making money from the subscription service, I'm quite sure it wouldn't be offered in the first place. Then again, isn't an ad-supported stream also inherently directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation? Would people listen to just the ads, or is the music an integral part of the scheme?

ant1 wrote:

if you think the point of CC is to PREVENT people from sharing your tracks, WHAT KIND OF ASSHOL R U?

"copyleft" my ASS

*builds swastika out of money bundles acquired by selling ant1 sids in hong kong street markets*

boomlinde
Offline
Sweden
MikeDI wrote:

I've passed this on to our content director that handles the Chiptune stream to make sure that any works marked as such are not considered for airtime.

Please have him consider removing any CC NC-type licensed works, since they all restrict what the CC legal code defines as "public performance," which includes broadcasting the work.

I think that it would be fair of you to either notify the affected artists or at least publicly share a list of the current song rotation of the chiptune stream.