SLMC

Nad · Joined: 05 Sep 2007 Posts: 542 Location: at my puter.

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).
_________________
This text appears at the bottom of my posts.

Distilled1 · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 421 Location: Chicago

Silas Scarborough · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 1635 Location: None

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.
_________________
Silas Scarborough
Silas World Tour Blog
Find a place to play and I'll roll the P.A. anywhere
If you want to play, bring yer guitar

Tommy CUlt · Joined: 06 Sep 2007 Posts: 199

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.
_________________
TC

Silas Scarborough · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 1635 Location: None

Tommy, see above about IRS reporting of US dollars converted out of SL Lindens. There is no secret.
_________________
Silas Scarborough
Silas World Tour Blog
Find a place to play and I'll roll the P.A. anywhere
If you want to play, bring yer guitar

Nad · Joined: 05 Sep 2007 Posts: 542 Location: at my puter.

Silas Scarborough · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 1635 Location: None

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.
_________________
Silas Scarborough
Silas World Tour Blog
Find a place to play and I'll roll the P.A. anywhere
If you want to play, bring yer guitar

Slim Warrior · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 364 Location: UK

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
_________________
Actually............

Owner of Menorca (Music Events Island)
http://www.myspace.com/slimmie
http://www.reverbnation.com/slimmie

Distilled1 · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 421 Location: Chicago

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...