The small print

Demure Tones · The small print

I need some help "deciphering" the meaning of this as it pertains to using their material in Second life:

"All music rights are managed by SACEM and MCPS. All musical material on this website is re-recorded and does not use in any form the original music or original vocals or any feature of the original recording.
Without permission, all uses other than home and private use are forbidden."

That's from www.karaoke-version.com Embarassed

Thanks!

Silas Scarborough · Re: The small print

ticious

My guess (which is based on experience reading tax and financial service compliance regulations) would be that you'd have a helluva fight for two reasons. The entity suing you would have more jingle for starters. For finishers, they would argue, probably successfully, that the word and is inclusive. So the only allowed uses are home AND private use, meaning you have to be at home (though you'd probably get away with being in any private home, say your buddy's house) and the stream has to be private.

Your only argument would have to be from the point of view that the audience (i.e. the folks listening in on the other end) are members of a private club or organization or just your friends and it's a private, for members only party. Of course, if you get paid anything for your performance, you'll have a kinda tough time unless you can convince the court that Second Life is an organization requiring membership thereby making the thing 'private', though I'm not sure how that payment would fit into the argument. . . you'd have to call it a gift or gratuity, but that might be pretty tough to cram down the courts throat whilst they're still choking on the private club thing.

But back to Silas's first point. . . LL wants very much (and I don't blame them) to be on the up and up and in the clear when and if this *stuff* hits the fan (and btw, don't look to them to support you in your assertion that Second Life is a private club requiring membership). The chances of that happening without there being REAL money involved (not the pittances we've all be squabbling over here in the forum) are kinda slim though definitely not impossible if someone wants to come along and set an example.

Silas Scarborough

Demure, so you see the problem! BUT it's not as much of a problem as it seems. As with the 55 mph speed limit, people just ignore stupid laws so they're 'stealing' music from every place on the globe. The majority of acts in SL would be busted by RIAA if it ever came to town as no-one, to my knowledge, is paying any royalties. So you've got to ask yourself what's the chance of the RIAA coming to town and the answer is they probably never will unless the pay scales increase radically. RIAA is going to go where the money is and there sure as hell isn't any in SL.

Jambalaya

I am not a lawyer, yada yada, but I have studied copyright laws, as well as doing a lot of research on the subject for my job. Honestly, I don't think the argument ticious mentioned would fly at all.

First, SL could not considered be a "private club", because anyone is free to join from anywhere in the world, for free.

Anyway, the use of the word "private" does not necessarily mean any private situation. Technically, you'd be in violation if you used these in a private social club too. "Home and private use" is phrased that way so that you could not sell admission to an event in your home, i.e. making public use of your home would not absolve you from liability just because you're using them "at home".

Also, once you have uploaded the songs to a streaming server, they have left your home & are on an international network, so you wouldn't be able to credibly argue that it was private use anyway.

Digital music laws in this country, especially regarding streaming, are very specific and very strict. The only thing in your favor here is being under the radar. If you want to be on the up-and-up, you need to contact the company and get permission to use the files, or find files that you can use.

Jambalaya

And, to underscore the point - this is from their terms of service (their emphasis):

vonjohin

I'd say "Broadcast and Transmit" pretty much cover it. Now, does it stop anyone here singing to backing tracks? Nope. Not so far.

All of the legal issues with public performance licensing are so far just flying barely under the radar. Its coming.

Does it stop anyone singing cover songs that are not public domain? Nope. Not to far. It doesn't stop DJ's streaming recordings, or club streaming their own iTunes collections instead of using a licensed web radio stream. We've been very lucky in SL, so far.

Mark my words, at some point, some yahoo with a law degree and a barely-passed bar exam is going to cause us who love, use and perform music in SL all an awful lot of trouble.

I try to do mostly public domain blues when I play, but I can't say everything I do is for certain. If the performing rights organizations didn't make it so expensive and hard to do it, I would love to buy a license, and I spent two days reading what they offer now to see how exactly it fit into the SL concept. I logged off their page scratching my head.

I would love it, frankly, if they went to Linden Lab and offered a virtual busker's license or DJ license, etc for some reasonable and affordable fee. That way the songwriters and others would get their due, and the issue would be resolved. Instead, the music industry folks will probably just screw it up.

Then I thought, hey, I've got big muck-a-muck friends at BMI and ASCAP, maybe I should ask..... then I said, oh hell no.... I'm not gonna be the guy to explain it to them. They'll just come in and screw it up for everyone. Seems some BMI/ASCAP folks are already in SL and even done in-world conferences, at least from their London office (BMI).

Sorry, slightly off-topic reply to your question. Bottom line, every single solitary karaoke track being sung to on SL has that same requirement, yet thus far nobody has been called on the carpet, and the odds of it happening to you are very, very small.

You're more likely to get hammered by BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc. before the karaoke company itself ever said, "Hey, that cheesy MIDI-fied, bad-drum, FM-synth general midi version of Another Brick in the Wall sounds exactly like MIDI-fied, bad-drum, FM-synth general midi version OUR cheesy version of Another Brick in the Wall!"

Doubledown Tandino

I say just go for it too. What I believe this is pertaining to is a karaoke-host that buys the whole collection of karaoke tunes, and they go out and host karaoke show for money in RL.

Just use the karaoke tunes, sing your tunes.... and don't sell copies of that.

Silas Scarborough

Soundcircel Flanagan

im curious what would happen if copyrights firms came busting in ?

Lets asume they do and they pull out the plug on Music.
We could start paying copyrights, but then we need to earn more money on sl. This has to be payed by the venue owners.
Lots of them probally won't, so it slowly dies ( or not so slowly ? )

And then ?

Other bizz, will see the light i guess.
We cant have our Marshall amps, ( guess thats copyrighted too )
we cant wear our levi jeans,
cant buy that cool rolex anymore.
etc.etc.etc.

So we end up half naked, without music, and no objects
( doesnt that sound like logging in ??? )

the Professor · who might come rolling in

probably wouldn't be the riaa . . . ASCAP/BMI more likely.

not much commercially recorded music gets downloaded via SL . . RIAA is most interested in pirated downloading...

the license folks are sometimes interested in very small players. . . . shoe shops, hair salons and the like... anyone playing music in a "public" place without paying the fees . . . it doesn't matter to ASCAP/BMI whether the place makes ANY money from playing the music . . . if the source (radio, cdplayer, etc) is turned toward the employees for their enjoyment while they work, it's probably ok, but if it's turned toward the public so that they hear/listen to it as they are doing their business, it's probably not ok and the rep. is probably going to ask the owner to pay the license fee. Doubly so if the place is an entertainment venue with artists doing covers and the place is making a living.

Now, as noted, since few (if any) SL venue owners make much money, it's likely that they would not pay the fees. And if ASCAP/BMI made enough noise that LL got real nervous, covers in SL might go the way of banks and gambling. I've spent the last 8 months of this year writing and working up 13 originals . . . headed for the day when I can keep playing a show without doing any covers, so I won't have to stop playing if the bad guys come on down. I need another 6 months to get enough material so I don't have to play the same show all the time (or I could switch to a 1./2 hour show - - - tee hee).

Who benefits when this happens? Virtually no one... esp,. if the result is that the joint shuts off the music instead of paying up. If they pay, one hopes that some of the $ eventually filters back to the publishing co and maybe to the artist... that's how it's supposed to work. But of course, it ain't a perfect system.

Am I taking bets on whether this will come to SL? Nope. I'm hoping they stay very uninterested in the micro-economy and that they constantly read 265 to 1 to mean that there's not much in it for them.

In the meantime, I need a chorus melody for a new song for which I have the lyrics and the verse melody . . . and another 3-6 months ...

: >

now quite reading my shit and go bump some music on the 61!

Jojamela Soon

The husband and I used to own a gym. We got the letter from BMI, pay up you're playing the radio. We turned off the radio and told people, sorry you have to bring your own music. The amount of money they wanted was ridiculous.

My venue streams licensed internet radio when no show is on. If they came in and wanted licensing money for my shows that would be it. I'd either only play musicians that did originals or shut down. I don't think there would be any independent venues left.

Kim Seifert

Demure. I am not an attorney. However, I have been a paralegal for over 20 years and I checked this issue with reliable sources. First, you need to understand the relevant terms as they relate to US copyright law. They are:

1) artistic work - melody and lyrics of a song (these rights are owned by the songwriter(s) and it is what pertains to ALL SL musicians that perform covers, whether they use backing tracks or play instruments).

2) recorded works - (this is owned by the publishing company of any work - this is the actual recording of music, whether that be complete or only the instrumental backing (it is, in part, relevant to "karaoke" music).

3) derivative works - this is the result of anyone, vocalists and instrumentalists, performing a cover.

The verbage used by that site was in reference to their recorded works. According to that language, you CANNOT use their recordings for work in SL without reprisal. The music I use gives me complete rights to perform the songs anywhere I wish. I will give you that info if you like. However, that does not apply to the artistic work. That is something that all musicians that perform covers will eventually have issues with. It it not what is concerning the RIAA (they work for the publishing companies that own the recorded works).

BMI and ASCAP would certainly be interested in the derivative works of all of us. In the real world, the entity that procures licenses to perform these works are the venue owners, the clubs that have live artists perform. Artists usually do NOT have to worry about the licensing. SL is a different animal though. The BMI legal department will tell you that the "medium that provides the music is responsible." Is that SL? I say it is not. The reason is because you don't have to go to SL to hear the music, but you do have to go to the URL it points to (the stream url). So in my view, the medium responsible is the owner or renter of the stream. Right now, a general license is fairly expensive but I believe the licensing companies are working toward a more affordable alternative for folks like SL musicians who do not generate as much income as a real life club that hosts live musicians. So for now, anyone that performs covers of songs protected by a licensing agency without a license to do so is in violation of copyright laws.

Jambalaya

You also have to consider that, along with BMI and ASCAP, there is SoundExchange to deal with. They are the organization that collects royalties from the use of sound recordings in digital transmissions on behalf of the artists & creators of the recording, i.e. where BMI/ASCAP pay the songwriters, SoundExchange pays the musicians & record companies who created the recording. They were granted royalty rights in the late 1990's, where before they did not have these rights in the U.S.

SoundExchange is what put the real hurt on webcasting, and they also made no bones about going after stations that were small & not making any money. Now, live performers wouldn't necessarily have issue here - but DJs absolutely would, and I suspect that if they (SoundExchange) decided to make an issue of it in SL then it would have repercussions that would affect live musicians too.

Venue owners that provide DJs - or even play music from their personal collection - could be required to provide a complete accounting of what played when, and how many listeners there were at any given time. That is exactly what they require from webcasters - I can tell you that we have to provide this data in detailed reports for every station we have (3 of our radio stations are simulcasting at this point).

Thankfully, our streaming providers provide us with that data, via a combination of their monitoring the streams along with us sending them real-time data of what we're playing. However, we pay additional fees for this service too, and we have to pay fees to SoundExchange according to how many ears are listening for how many hours.

It gets expensive REAL quick - if you think paying tier is bad...

vonjohin

You and Kim both nailed it.

This is why I only stream music into SL land that is from an Internet radio station, well, other than when I am playing. And also why I chose old blues as a format for my av when I signed on to do this and create a musician performer av in SL. I figured I could do mostly, if not all, public domain stuff. However, I have not been really good at researching everything from the about 100 songs on the list. I know most of it is PD, but I also know some of it is not. I wish there was a reasonable, affordable way to pay and be legit with it. I would really like to get that elephant in the room out of there before this gets ugly at some point.

Tommy CUlt

ticious

I have to admit, Tommy, as a venue owner, this thought wanders through my mind from time to time. Especially since most folks seem to think that, as with a real life club (or your company and the radio), it will be the venue owner who will be held responsible. That possibility raises a really scary picture for some of us, especially since in so many cases it's the venue owner footing the bill already.

On more question I would add to your list, what about the venue that doesn't pay a fee but lets the musician put down a tip jar and encourages people to tip them? Is that venue owner likely to be held liable for copyright infringement?

Does it make any difference if the venue has never sold any product or made any money from this infringement? Might that make the argument that it's a "private party" a little easier to float?

But having everyone post opinions about what *should* happen probably isn't very useful (we all have those opinions and when/if this happens, they'll be worth the paper they're written on here and not much more). It would be good if someone with some kind of real life legal or on point music biz experience could talk to this from a more informed and experienced position.

Silas Scarborough · Re: who might come rolling in

ticious · Re: who might come rolling in

Norris Shepherd · Re: who might come rolling in

Kim Seifert

Lots to think about. First off, the laws regarding whether or not someone is liable with respect to licensing fees are clear. The qualifier is not how much money is made at a performance. Someone can play for no money at all and still be liable. If you are playing a cover song that is made available to the "public" and this is not a "recognized" charitable event, then you are liable for licensing fees. According to Title 17 of the US Code governing copyrights, "To perform or display a work “publicly” means... to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." This clearly applies to what we all do.

As to whether venue owners are liable, that would be under the medium ownership issue. The medium is the "place that the public has to go to in order to hear the music." That isn't a piece of virtual land in SL because the url streaming the music can be put in literally hundreds of parcels at a time. The medium has to be the owner or renter of the stream url. So if the venues provide the stream, then yes they are responsible. I perform at many places where I provide my own stream so then I am responsible.

Right now, it is not feasible for SL musicians to pay the licensing fees as they are set through BMI, ASCAP, etc. If someone did come look at SL and come down on us, I think sl live music would die, with the exception of those doing originals and/or public domain songs. I honestly don't think that is what artists want. I have to believe that they feel the same way I do when someone sings a song of theirs. First time I heard Lyn Carlberg do a cover of my song, Wait for Me, I cried with happiness. If we were making a lot of money on these songs, then I could see someone getting upset. But unless you are doing covers of one artist only, then you aren't making a lot of money from a particular artist's work. Licensing fees in RL are based on income derived by the venues or mediums, not what RL musicians are paid to perform.

Kim Seifert

Norris, there are tests that the Courts use to determine internet jurisdiction. They generally apply an "interactive vs. passive use" standard. Personal jurisdiction applies to interactive use. Personal jurisdiction with respect to the internet means the state in which the end user resides. If a website provides content that is interactive, i.e. two-way communication which fosters an ongoing business relationship, the personal jurisdiction applies. This means that the laws of the state where you reside govern your use of and interaction with anything on the net. As it applies to this topic, if I am the owner or renter of the stream and I reside in Ohio, then Ohio law applies.

Silas Scarborough

I question whether you can expect any logic in enforcement from RIAA, et al. One of the classic cases was when RIAA went after a Brooklyn schoolgirl for a couple of grand. It makes perfect sense when (pick your foreign-nation) is producing bootleg CDs and DVDs by the millions.

I'm not suggesting anyone should change his/her act to drop covers but rather that getting ahead of this would be worthwhile. The question, to me, is what is the best way to do that. I don't believe the defense that it wasn't enough money to matter will keep them away indefinitely.

Kimmee has quite a good write-up of what's legal and what's not but I do question the conclusion that they will leave SL alone.

Kim Seifert

You're talking about a different animal Si. RIAA enforces copyright infringement for the use of "sound recordings." Live music does not use "sound recordings" except with respect to professional backing tracks which most give sound recording licenses to perform. RIAA was pushed by the big publishing companies that own these "sound recordings" to enforce their rights.

Silas Scarborough

Thanks, sis! The recording aspect still applies as that's where the DJs will get popped. You're obviously all over what's driving the live performance piece of it. Both problems need to be solved if music is to continue in its current form in SL into the indefinite future.

The object isn't to present a doom and gloom forecast but rather to suggest this stuff is worth consideration as eventually it will become important and the situation, at least since I came to SL, has been that it rears up every six or eight months to great fanfare and then subsides again. Better, I'm thinking, to address it once and for all and be done with it.

Kim Seifert

Sorry bro. Thought we were talking about live music and performance of covers. My bad.

the Professor · very complex situation

A lot of this is murky because most applications of law to virtual worlds (1) has not yet been made (2) uses old law (3) is applied unevenly (4) is barely understood (5) the situations in which copyright protected music is played/performed are very diverse in SL.

One has to remember that both copyright laws AND internet broadcasting laws apply. Playing in a club in SL IS NOT EXACTLY LIKE PLAYING IN A CLUB ON THE CORNER in RL. In RL, to be legal, the club pays a fee. There are a number of arrangements they can make relating to their volume/frequency, etc. But players can play away as long as the house covers the costs.

In SL, this responsibility MIGHT be doubled (though we don't know for sure cause the courts haven't been tested on this one). First, there's a public performance. Those rights are covered within the copyright and compensated by the fees. Those are the rights that are analogous to playing covers in an RL club. Then there is the internet broadcast . . . that royalty is more like the one paid by radio stations, at rates set according to the type of outlet they are.

SL venue owners who gather crowds for listening to covers might be vulnerable over both aspects . . . performance and broadcast. I cannot tell you whether one license/royalty will cover both . . . but I'm pretty sure that few (if any) venue owners could afford the freight based on what they bring in for shows.

I repeat my (oft-stated) earlier proposal. I think in the long run, either Linden Lab makes arrangements to pick up a universal license (and no such thing actually exists) or the situation will, someday (I hope not soon) get VERY complicated . . . and will probably knock out ALL covers and perhaps even the use of internet radio in SL. It is NOT 100% clear that streaming internet stations to your land is going to hold up as legal without additional fee. . . anymore than is playing a radio in your shoeshop if that radio is pointed at the public rather than the workers.

In short: Either Linden clarifies, pays, and bails us all out, or over time, we'll be down to musicians playing original material (or public domain material) only.

Kim Seifert

I'll try to clarify the copyrights for you Professor. There are three licenses at issue.

1) The license to play sound recordings (this does NOT APPLY TO LIVE MUSICIANS WHO MAKE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF COVERS). This is what I think you may be labeling internet broadcast but I am not sure. The only reference to internet broadcasting in the actual copyright laws of the US deal with retransmission of copyrighted material in the form of sound recordings or television broadcasting and is not applicable to live music in SL. It does, however, apply to radio stations that play music that was actually performed by covered artists.

2) License to perform "lyrics and melody." This is the copyright that applies to live musicians in SL. The only stipulation to that would be someone who uses tracks that were performed by covered artists.

3) The only other copyright available is for recording. Recording a cover of lyrics and melody or any derivative work requires the recorder to pay royalties to the original songwriters.

And I sincerely doubt that we could ever get Linden to obtain a license because they are not liable as they are not the medium that provides the music. The stream urls are the medium.

There is no special copyright over and above either of these three whether or not the songs are performed in a rl club or in the virtual world.

Silas Scarborough

I agree with Kim as I doubt the Lindens will pick up the freight and really I don't think it's their responsibility. Their job is to provide infrastructure but it seems to me that the accountability goes to what we did with the infrastructure as opposed to something that was designed into it. There's nothing in the way the Lindens designed the audio support in the SL software that is an inherent violation of any copyright laws; that is something we have chosen to do.

Are we arguing over how much to tip for a McDonald's hamburger?? Would the expense of licensing be so trivial that we could just take up a collection and be done with it? (Yes, some people would not pay but add some glitz: your contribution of $xxxL gives you membership in the SL Pro Musicians Guild or some such. Maybe make an SL notices group that only the the SLPMG could update.)

This will get all political and I hate that but this can't work as a committee as there's no organizational device less capable of producing anything. To do it, there would have to be some type of admin outfit that everyone trusted with the money. If that were administered by a committee, it would be gone faster than you could say, "Re-elect George."

Besides, someone has to take the point to get anything happening at all. Who does the research to find out what exactly would be expected from licensing agencies.

One thing that concerns me is if we're pro-active and offer funds to the agencies to get legal, what is the likely reaction. It's been my experience with the Democratic Party that the first thing that happens when I send them money is they send back a letter saying they need more. Perhaps it is better to do nothing and wait for the agencies to strike. I lean toward it being better to take it to them rather than being put on the defensive by the them with a prohibitively-expensive first strike.

What I'd present regarding in-world performance, live or DJ, is that SL is effectively a gigantic bar, much like Underground Atlanta many years ago in which it was a honeycomb of bars underneath downtown Atlanta and you could carry drinks from one to another. It was very, very cool! So, it seems to me SL is essentially the same thing in a virtual world and could probably be presented that way. Given definition of the legal entity, the only question after that is how much.

I'm sounding way too corporate. Time to get all loud and kozmic.

Kim Seifert

I have great resources so I'll check into it Si. A preemptive strike is always the best way to handle a potential problem.

Tommy CUlt

Thank you Kim for the info. My concern has been from our venue side of things. Because we have always had our own stream, and let any performer use it (if required), I think that is one area we may change. I dont mind taking a 'risk' using my own stream to perform my own set (which currently includes covers), but I am no so sure I want to hang my head out for other performers to use my stream, if ultimately I AM THE ONE who is responsible for THEIR breech of copyright.

Perhaps it is time for one of the emerging sections of the SL music industry to step up on behalf of their 'clients' ? I am of course referreing to the performer managment section. Maybe this is not part of their 'brief' ? but certainly educating clients on keeping within various laws, and perhaps even providing such licences for thier clients is not out of the question? I can see a few people shift in their chair already, but lets be realistic. If someone takes a performer into their fold, and promotes them, and gets them gigs, all aware they are perhaps breaking some laws - but does not at least tell the performer...oh...by the way, it is unlikey that you will get busted....but.....I just think they (the management) have a responsibilty to KNOW what their clients can and cant do. Personally - I would be a little worried if I was letting someone handle my affairs who may just dissapear into thin air when the shit hits the fan - I mean.....is your manager gonna be holding your hand in court if that day ever came?

If indeed the current legal viewpoint is that the stream owner is responible for the material broadcast, then I know this - I wont be letting anyone use our stream unless they only play their own music - or public domain music. It is all well and good for people to think nothing will happen - but tell that to some of the families and teens that got sued for D/L music from Napster. I bet they all thought nothing would ever happen too.

Kim Seifert

I agree it is a sticky situation Tommy. That is why I believe Silas' idea is a good one. I am going to look into how we can work with BMI, etc. to work up an amicable solution for everyone on the grid. As far as the teens that were sued, you have to understand that it was the publishing companies with loads of money that went after them because the publishing companies own the rights to the sound recordings which are not at issue in SL live music. Those publishing companies actually lose a lot of money every time someone copies a cd so there is a lot of money involved and worth pursuing.

Silas Scarborough

ticious

It would only be strong arm if it was implemented in that way. Folks would be free to cover their expenses on their own, take the chance of ignoring the issue or join the 'co-op' (which is really what it would be). The issue again of course, would be accountability and accounting and finding someone trustworthy to handle the financial end of things. But there's ways to solve that since it could be made easy enough to discover if the fees were paid or not. Because there would be real life legal responsibilities and an expectation of real life legal protection involved, there would also need to be non-SL based agreements and electronic sigs involved, fiduciary responsibility clearly assigned and accepted, that sort of thing. This wouldn't be as simple as establishing an SL group and slapping a membership fee on it.

This would also give venues some means to cover themselves from that cloud of concern that wakes some of us up in the middle of the night. We would have the options of joining and contributing to assure our coverage, only hiring cover musicians we knew had covered the fee, only letting musicians who had paid the fee use our stream (though I'm not comfortable that giving up my stream and making the musicians always use theirs will necessarily get me off the hook when the time comes, that's still awful gray) or going on taking the risk. In short, people on both sides of the booking would have some options for actually dealing with this issue. Lots of us would sleep easier Wink

But stage one is simply fact finding, and I'm grateful to you too, Kim. I also wanna note that, I mentioned a lot of responsibilities and some pretty heavy work here in this post. I am *NOT* assuming (and at this stage, no one else should either) that you're jumping on board for all of that!! Once we have info in hand, that will be the time to start thinking about how to structure the thing and figuring out who's gonna do what in the next stage. And I'm not necessarily volunteering either. We won't need enthusiasm and willingness for putting together a co-op like this, we'll need qualification and competence to set that part up and implement it.

Silas Scarborough

I'm not suggesting that's the only solution as that aspect of it is, to me, mechanical relative to the conceptual aspect (i.e. are performers and venue owners willing to take this out to the agencies to get legal). The mechanical aspects of a project are always a nuisance but they're not usually terminal whereas there's no reason to talk at all without at least an implicit agreement that it's worth doing.

Seems to me the agreement, albeit on a small scale, is there and Kim has graciously volunteered to get more information so perhaps the mechanical aspects of implementing this will start getting more important as people get serious about making it happen. I very much hope that is the case as this problem has haunted people since the first chord got strummed in SL.

Distilled1

Heres a little info I found. And has useful info.

"Like ASCAP and SESAC, BMI offers licensing for Internet use of their compositions. Unlike ASCAP and SESAC, BMI offers an online licensing account center to help you find the license you need. BMI offers a convenient interactive questionnaire to arrive at the correct license for you.

BMI's licensing is substantially simpler and more affordable than the other two. The minimum fee, currently $295 as of this writing, is all you will owe if your annual revenue is under $15,000. If your revenue exceeds $15,000 you still have very reasonable options with BMI, and recordkeeping is also much simpler. These terms are excellent and BMI should be applauded for making the process far less painful. In fact, I recommend the use of BMI music on your website (with the appropriate license, of course).

Although BMI does not currently base its rates on the exact number of music listening sessions that took place, you will still be contacted by BMI and required to report the music listening activity on your website, including both the songs that were offered and how often they were downloaded. So good recordkeeping is essential. But since BMI's rates are not session-based, you should be able to meet these recordkeeping requirements by analyzing your website's log files... provided you keep them, that is. However, if you have built a sophisticated, database-driven music delivery system that makes it impossible to figure out which songs were listened to by looking at the server logs, make sure you build a recordkeeping system directly into your database.

I do have one complaint with BMI: you won't find a link to account.bmi.com on www.bmi.com's main licensing page! Instead you are encouraged to send email... to an address that never responded to me when I previously wrote about this subject.

Why wasn't this information more readily available on BMI's home page? Who knows! Fortunately, the brilliant singer-songwriter Jonathan Coulton knew about account.bmi.com. And when I spotted his hilarious easy-listening cover of "Baby Got Back," I realized he was the man to ask. Many thanks Jonathan Coulton for his insights into the Internet cover-song licensing process.
Obtaining an ASCAP Performance License
You can obtain an ASCAP license for an Internet radio station from ASCAP's Internet Music License Agreements page.

Actually, there are two types of licenses offered. The difference in price is not great, so it's worth understanding what is permitted by each.
The Non-Interactive License: "Radio" Only
ASCAP's non-interactive license covers websites that function much like a radio station, in that the user can't decide what songs to listen to when, and there is no pre-announced list of songs to be played and when. The minimum annual fee for the "non-interactive" license is $288, as of this writing.
The Interactive License: Music On Demand
Sites that allow users to listen to what they want, when they want, will need to choose ASCAP's "Interactive License." The Interactive license has a minimum fee of $340, as of this writing, and higher rates as well. Otherwise it is quite similar to the non-interactive license, with a similar choice of rate schedules.
The Big Catch: Paying For Music That Isn't Theirs
As of this writing, ASCAP offers a choice of three rate schedules. The first one appears to be the most attractive, with the lowest rates. But read carefully! All three schedules calculate your rate based on your website's revenue, and again based on music listening sessions, with the larger of the two being the amount you owe. But under schedule A, you owe even if the revenue or music listening did not involve ASCAP music in any way!

And under schedule C, you pay only based on revenue or music listening that does relate to ASCAP artists... but the rates are much higher.

Read the fine print and choose carefully!
Recordkeeping Requirements
Notice that the ASCAP licenses require you to keep track of your music listeners and send in regular reports. Good recordkeeping is an absolute requirement.

Whose job is it to figure out that a set of songs were listened to by the same person over a 35-minute period, meaning that only one "session" was involved by ASCAP's definition (as of this writing)? It's your job. And you need to be able to document that and back it up. I suggest handling this by requiring the use of session cookies and refusing access to users whose browsers fail to accept them, bouncing them back to a "please turn on cookies in your browser" page until they turn them on. Then you can safely avoid paying 10 times for 10 song plays that were, in reality, all by the same person in the same hour. PHP is a great tool for this. With PHP you can easily log the start of each song playback to a database along with a session ID.

Performance Licensing for SESAC Compositions
Like ASCAP, SESAC offers a standard Internet licensing agreement. You can find that license here. As of this writing, you'll pay a minimum of $101, twice a year. In addition, as of this writing you'll pay $.000604 per "aggregate tuning-hour," or ATH (an hour of listening for a single user). You will pay more if your website offers multiple "components" such as streaming, podcasting and downloading.
Paying for downloads as a "component" through SESAC does not mean you have paid for the mechanical rights. You must do that separately if you are offering permanent downloads!

Note that if 100 users listen to the same stream for an hour, that comes to 100 Aggregate Tuning-Hours. "

I tried at one time to see what it would cost me to set up legit and pay a blanket license to bmi and ASACP on my stream, but found it impossible to do reason ...
1. There is still no completed or black and white law, its all still so gray.
2.there are internet radio fees,this looks to be what we would pay at this time, as there is no way to pay per food and drink etc.

In the long run it is up to the stream owner to pay as its there "radio" and heres the issue we are playing live covers not recorded this is where its a mess. as if we pay the radio fee we can still be sued for the performance fee and the way these buggers are they will come after us for the mechanical as well, weather they have legal right to do so or not.

An Interesting story with post from "websherif" in the talk can be found here http://news.dmusic.com/article/29703 a little background it is about a you tube video take down of a cover Van Morrison's Brown eyed girl, that is now back up Very Happy

and whats going on that its considered broadcasting.. but has that extra edge of film sync in it. its back up because giving away or preforming for free over the internet at this time has no laws regarding that, its not law its just strong arm by the industry, just like the RIAA strong arms, what did they have to do? post that it was written by and copyrights by... So at this time at least from what I can tell as long as a musician is playing free(no pay base) than saying this is a cover of "song name" by"artist/band" published by and copywrights by...its covered ... tips what a couple USDs I wouldn't consider that revenue.

but I am no lawyer and am also one of the people that fight against the majors and there collection agency's (RIAA etc.

For the DJs that play other peoples music and mix scratch what ever, its black and white you pay or stand the chance of getting caught, I would think the search the shoutcast streams all the time, of course a private non listed stream url is hard to find no?

Distilled1

Also note on the internet based licensing, its based on web site ... would that then be the land the music url is on or the stream url onl, as theres no site?

this is why its hard, if there was a blanket for all and we made a small group and paid that would be great.... but do we want to open that can of worms with any agency and or association ?

they may give us a grate rate but I bet the #'s would be insane, I can ask what the blanket is at dmusic.com for streaming/downloading, I guess this could be the same as preforming, still think its a big can of worms! And they are very hungry fish!

ASCAP license fee dispute over streaming digital services, rate holding here. USA v. ASCAP, No. 41-1395 (WCC) (S.D.N.Y., White Plains, opinion and order 4/30/0 Cool

:

"[T]he fee for a blanket license for unlimited performance of all music in the ASCAP repetory for all open periods to December 31, 2009 shall be determined by multiplying the total revenue of the licensed business unit ... less customary deductions for advertising sales commissions and traffic acquisition costs, by a music-use-adjustment fraction whose numerator is the total number of hours music is streamed to users by the licensee ... and whose denominator is the total number of hours of use of the licensee's website ... and applying to the resulting music-use-adjusted revenue a fee rate of 2.5%."

Kim Seifert

Distilled....thanks for the info but I am speaking with the legal departments of these agencies to come up with an amicable solution outside of what is offered on their website. Hugs!

Silas Scarborough

I can't do much more than kibitz at this point but a bit of encouragement to Kim and Distilled for this great research wouldn't be a bad thing at all.

What I'm hoping is that there's a blanket license that would cover all of SL and then we could manage how to pay it. If licensing is at an individual level, it'd be kind of a mess.

Distilled1

I know Dmusic.com has a blanket for all covers on the site, now its a little different than streaming live, but... I know that the lawyer that owns and runs it allows us to play any cover by a Dmusic.com registered artist on the radio stream (public listed) as well, so if I get an answer I will post the cost here I would think that it can't be that bad.

but I believe as well we would need to make a LLC out of a co-op type thing, maybe not I don't know. I'm an Artist (hence) my bad typing and spelling lol)

And thanks Silas. its something we all really need to watch and be aware of if nothing else Wink

Nad

By all means give google something to report when persons who may find what is going on of interest go to look. And be sure to post lots of links because that will up the thread in the rankings.

This subject keeps getting re-raised and really there is nothing new to report. I summerize:

1. U>S> Coplywryte law is googlable - so asking questions about it here is redundant.

2. Number one may not apply to people (directly) save via treaty clauses which are even more esoteric than #1 - please use google.

3. Who is liable the perpformer, the venknew, the stream puffrider, and/or Linted Laps is beside a point that is not defined as there is not a model outsidesomely what accounts for a eschanged rate based on imaginary units what constitudes (perhapsomely) its own boundaries visa V - an internationally separate constitudenal (what exists without establiched (as referenched abovesoemly) treaties. To short it, their is no framewerk upon which to hang an existing agreasement (including payola).

4. the entire framewerk of this sort of compensensation rests upon one of gains. To wit, ppl or places or things what gain as a result of the use of intelleffectual rites belonging to someone else who is gaining. This place is fillt to the heaps with moans and stuff concerning perpformers not making gains and veknews not making even more gainless. Perhabs with exceptions only few, the entire affair is without gains and therefore there is no damage.

E. to follow up on 4, the gainsome factor, what is determinate in any case involvoing the soughtagements of due recompensense, the only argument what could be made (and there would need be a lot of arguage afore this could ever be heaped upon) is that Limpin Laps gained as a result of a lot of perpformers and venknews gaining a tatality of near nothingness in reargards to said replays.

That said (so saidsomely I might add), virtualled live perpformances in here (there) being an undefined and totally unargued situation that would require quite an expenditure to define, argue, and then redefine, re-argue (do while not defined unarguably), are quite separate from the sale of digital recordage which has been reargued and redefined until unarguably defined because the point of gains is firmlied. So if you want to sell digitalised recordage of other peeples stuff you should be aware of the laws concerning this activity and prolly stay inside of the framewerks that DO exist in this case.

The bottom line in all of this is of course googleagments. It can not only provide you with the information you want to know (quietly perhabs) it can also draw attention to things that nobody really gives a armadillos ass about because it is not a focal point.

[edited for clarifictation] 4 & E above ago, it must be noted that chase (as set defindly by looped define - argue cycles, is an expense for those what love to argue. This happent some years back over portable tapes. Much was spent to define argue redefine what has become now an exstabliched thingy. BUT (and that is a big but you will note), the expense of define/argue/repeat was one what offered a ROI. That is, bazillions of tapes would be sold and that meant there was a lot more to be made than to be spent arguing (and defining) (and doing that over and over).

There is no such pie in the sky here. Defining arguing redifining rearguing stuff concerning this matter offers no financial return. And if there is no financial return, nobody what cares about finacial return stuff cares (about financial returns).

Distilled1

Silas Scarborough

Although quite a remarkable example of lexical prestidigitical wind surfage, referring to Section A, Item 376, Paragraph 3b, Directive regarding irksome spewatory commentationals, sub-item 4, we see there is no gain from the musical frolicksomeness in alternate lives.

However there is substantial gain in some quarters, nickels, and dimes, enough so that the IRS is already aware of it due to reportage on income from previous years, typically written-down by equipment costs and various medicinal supplements.

Tommy CUlt

Nad is a funny guy - but all of us winking at each other giggling, hoping no one 'finds out' about what goes on in SL is just kinda irresponsible. Every day there are people trying to get MORE non SL people involved in SL music. Every day people are suggesting how to grow the SL music community. Every day we tell people how great it is....but .....now we should be quiet because we dont want to openly discuss an issue that is a little more serious than people playing over time in sets and spam at venues?

This is no big secret, and while there is no issue today, I believe FINDING out how these regulations apply to SL IS an important issue. Maybe not for some individuals - and that is fine, no one has to 'comply' with anyone else, but if I was able to cover myself by paying to be part of a 'co-op' (or whatever) - I would. If I could not afford it, I would at least be able to make an informed decicion - but UGH....this forum was supposed to be about finding out such information - or is it just for the giggle stuff? you know.....kinda important..but not TOO important.

Oh - wait.....the topic is in the Royalties/Copyright section - silly me - but If I really want to find out the serious stuff.....perhaps I should Google? I would hate to draw anyones attention.

Thank you Kim and Dist for the info.

Silas Scarborough

Tommy, see above about IRS reporting of US dollars converted out of SL Lindens. There is no secret.

Nad

Silas Scarborough

Dunno that anyone is looking for opinions as Kim volunteered to make some phone calls and Distilled brought back at least an idea of what it might cost. It's an opinion that it'll be at least three years before any legal action could be launched against SL performers. It might be soon or it might never happen; there's no way of knowing.

I'm pretty sure Kim is already licensed for covers so I'm sure she knows who to call and it will be interesting to hear what she discovers.

Slim Warrior

Having read through the concerns here on this thread I thought I would jump on in Smile

As far Internet streaming is concerned, whether you sing Live or stream pre recorded Covers or backing tracks.. you DO need a licence If you use a venue owners stream or your best mates, then the Owner /Renter of that stream you use is liable. The person you rent it from is NOT liable.

LL is NOT liable for anything either.. as much as you may wish them to be sadly they are not and more than likely, will never cover that cost.. They would have to then submit a list of Every single song/cover played at anytime on the SL grid.. and pay the relevant countries licence fee for EACH stream/station... that aint gonna happen.

Now as far as singing covers you can of course sing anything you wish IF you have that licence ( or stream owner/renter does.. If Not then you may sing songs that are classed as being in the Public Domain.. You cannot be seen to receive any payment whether in Tips or Payment for a set of covers for which you have NO licence to sing/record..

http://www.royaltyfreemusic.com/public-domain/
and
http://www.pdinfo.com/link.htm

You can buy Royalty free music backings if you wish. A Lot of sheet music you can obtain can be Royalty free. But if its you and your guitar/piano/kazoo or saucepan and spoon and you play a cover YOU need to make sure you are using a licenced stream / OR that the songs you are playing/singing fall into the Public domain..
(Do bear in mind that generally this will be any song written BEFORE 1922) So make sure you REALLY know that PD song is older than that!

ie: This does mean your covers of Snow Patrol songs aren't going to be in the public domain Wink

Then there is Creative Commons. If a song is released under the Creative Commons licence there May be a possibilty you can cover that particular song Live or make a derivative of as a recording.. you would need to check with each individual song you intend to cover whether it has a Creative Commons licence and to what degree you may use that song..
More info here

http://creativecommons.org/about/license/
of course you can all fly under the radar in SL... but one day that may not be the case.......

A licensed stream will cost the owner/renter approx £200 pounds per year..... ( $295 from BMI USA)..

MCPS-PRS ( UK)
http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/Pages/default.aspx

BMI
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/?link=navbar

Distilled1

in the states we must have BMI and Ascap to cover our butts and the fees are (600-1000USD a year) for a web site that allows posting, streams and DLs of covers as well as a streaming radio that plays cover versions as well.
and so I am covered if I use that stream witch I don't use to often. and I wonder heres an odd one what if the land I own is owned by said web site? isn't the island or land actually a web page really??

But as Slim kinda hinted on...

The small print

Re: The small print

who might come rolling in

Re: who might come rolling in

Re: who might come rolling in

Re: who might come rolling in

very complex situation