New ASCAP Licence for Podcasts?

[notyourusualbollocks]

I just picked this up on my RSS feeds.

http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/

Too good to be true?

MK

[allthewhile]

i'm a newbie, can you explain the possible significance?

[notyourusualbollocks]

Well from what I understood a few weeks ago - there were no plans in place to offer a Podcast ASCAP licence. However, it now looks like they're going to offer one which means you can play copyrighted tracks from RIAA labels if you have a licence. I don't know how much these things take up time-wise to maintain as I believe you have to maintain a log but it is a move in the right direction.

Examples of non-interactive music uses that qualify for Release 5.0 include:

* Music that is embedded on one or more pages of a site or service, such as a "Flash" intro
* Webcasts of live performances
* Radio broadcasts or pod-casts that do not offer a play-list, program guide, and do not make advance lists of the songs contained in the programs available prior to their transmission

I think this is a move in the right direction. Paying US$250 for a yearly licence isn't really a lot is it?

[PBCliberal]

Just for clarification, there are two types of rights involved in playing a "fixed sound recording" of a copyrighted composition.

There are the rights to the music and lyrics themselves. These are (or at least have been) licensed by three primary associations:

ASCAP (http://www.ascap.com/index.html) - The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers

BMI (http://www.bmi.com/) - Broadcast Music, Incorporated

-and the me too of clearinghouses:

SESAC. (http://www.sesac.com/home.asp)

Since ASCAP put the screws to radio in the 1930s, everybody has paid these guys. In fact, the Broadcast in Broadcast Music, Inc. came about because radio station owners fought back against ASCAP in a similar but not as eloquent way as we're fighting back with Creative Commons.

ASCAP not only shakes down broadcasters and record companies, they go after restaurants and nightclubs with live music, even chain stores that have speakers in the ceiling. A few years ago, they even went after the girl scouts for singing songs around a campfire, but they took such heat over that, today they'll claim it was just all one big misunderstanding.

But don't think that just because ASCAP has muttered the word "podcasting" in a legal document that you can put the needle in the groove. There's the little matter of performance fees: the right, after you've satisfied the writer of the song (in practice usually the thief who got the writer to sign the rights over in exchange for recording and promoting it--Google Ralph Peer (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ralph+Peer&btnG=Google+Search)) to actually play this version of the song you just paid ASCAP/BMI/SESAC for. The RIAA talking point for this is, why should the writer get paid and the perfomer get nothing. The in-practice gotcha is that most records are works for hire paid for by an advance and final lump-sum payment on delivery, so you're often paying the same thief who just robbed you for the notes and words.

In radio performance fees were never addressed; legacy teaches that there are none, because performance was taken care of through union contracts with the AFofM and the lousy quality of 78s that conspired to keep records off of radio until the 50s.

The RIAA controls performance fees for those recordings its members own, through the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf), one of many pieces of insidious legislation enacted in the 90s by an unholy alliance of rich corporate media and the best Congresscritters money could buy.

So the ASCAP contract is significant primarily because we've taught lawyers a new word, but there is a very long way to go before Madge Weinstein can skip merrily through Magical Mystical Tour and not expect somebody's hand up her dress.

[dhp]

That was a great post, though I take exception to some of the things you said. I publish through ASCAP, and don't look at them as 'shaking down' anyone - let alone labels. If anything, they're in bed together. ASCAP has every right to collect performance royalties from songs being played in public. Some of their tactics may be improper, but the fact is that if you play a song written and recorded by someone else for PUBLIC consumption (a bar with speakers, radio station, etc), you should pay the owner of that song. Now, you shouldn't have to pay through the nose, but if I spent my time and money creating something, I also deserve to be paid.

That's just my 2 cents. I think 250 seems VERY reasonable for a license - and I can't WAIT for this legal stuff to sort itself out, as the Creepy Sleepy Show (currently covered under an educational license www.kbhufm.com) will be going solo podcast come may. Can't wait, and I'm excited to join such a great community!

-dhp

[Craig]

PBCLiberal is correct, based on some research I've done this week on song licensing for Behind the Scenes. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licensing buys you the rights to perform a composer's song yourself, as a musician. It does not buy you the right to play a recording of someone else performing it, even if it's the composer. In order to purchase those rights (which you need in addition to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) you need to buy licensing rights from SoundExchange, which is the licensing arm of the RIAA for the web. Cost? An additional $500/year with the caveat that this license was really only designed to cover webcasts. So podcasts still fall into a grey area.

Bottom line? IMHO your safest bet is to stick to RIAA-free tunes until the whole mess is all sorted out and the licenses are podcast-specific and non-experimental.

Craig

[Benny]

OK...So your advice is to just wait until the legal mix up is staightend out...

Then what about all the other Podcasts right now that are playing music and such...Aren't they asking for trouble?

And wouldn't it also be ok to just play the music and "because" nothing is completely defined about podcasting right now...The possible consequences would just be a slap on the wrist if it's later determined that it was illegal to play the songs?

It's not that I'm going to risk it.

Is there any new information about this situation?

[Craig]

OK...So your advice is to just wait until the legal mix up is staightend out...

Then what about all the other Podcasts right now that are playing music and such...Aren't they asking for trouble?

And wouldn't it also be ok to just play the music and "because" nothing is completely defined about podcasting right now...The possible consequences would just be a slap on the wrist if it's later determined that it was illegal to play the song
In short, if it's RIAA music, then yes they are asking for trouble. How much trouble is up to the RIAA. It's possible but highly doubtful they'll just be given a slap on the wrist and asked to remove their podcasts from their servers. More likely, at best they'll be asked to pay licensing fees back to when they first started using the music once the RIAA settles on a fee structure. At the moment that could be as little as $1,500 for ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/RIAA licenses or as much as that plus $42.50 per song for mechanical rights plus who knows how much per song for the master use license. At worst I believe the fine for using music out of license is $150,000 per song. There will probably be at least one high-profile cases that gets pro-bono legal help if the RIAA decides to play hardball but regardless of whether or not they due to majority of podcasters involved are going to be looking at pretty hefty bills.

I could be wrong, and hope I am, but based on the RIAA's track record it's doubtful. From my perspective it's just a matter of time.

Craig

[Benny]

Ok...so I'll let others play with fire for the moment...

But you mention the RIAA alot...what about the ASCAP, or the BMI for that matter?

Who really owns these songs? And well, if it is so expensive...Then podcasting music for hobby purposes may be a little to expensive to be just a hobby...

Maybe 250 dol a year is Ok...but how many fees do you actually have to pay?

The thing is...for the moment Podcasting isn't really a money making buissness...But I guess somebody will find a way to make money out of it at some point...

And when they do...People that have been podcasting music "illegally" will already be sort of "famous" and they could market thier fame...

But on the other hand other people who are maybe worried about the legal stuff may miss out on a good oportunity.

But anyway...My point is: For those of us who just like the concept of podcasting and would like to spice up transmissions with a little music...Is there any EASY way to just pay a fee and not worry?

[PBCliberal]

Can I suggest something heretical here? Why are we letting "synchronous" music radio be the model for what we do? Not only does it fuel this belief that we're just a bunch of folks who always wanted to be DJs whom technology just gave a shiny new Mr. Microphone, it acts like this new medium has no more features than Marconi's radiotelephone.

Its understandable, of course. With new media we've always tried to find the closest thing we could and use it as a model. The first radio studios were outfitted like parlors, where people sang and played instruments. It took 15 years before brilliant people like Orson Welles learned how to destroy New York, New Jersey and the CBS radio network with an invasion of Martians.

DJ shows with commercially recorded music are so 50 years ago. We need to think outside the box.

[Benny]

Nice observation.

But, forgeting the present limitations to using music...

It would be risky to distance oneself from what has proved to work in the past and in the present. Taking on the mission to invent something completely new, leaves you without a safety net; of course if you are doing it for economical purposes.

If it's just a hobby, then you can stop reading right now. Go and have fun and if you hit it rich, kudos!

But considering that nobody would mind finding a way to make a profit out of something you "like" to do...Then I insist we should continue to question ourselves and the powers at large, how we can have access to recorded music, with a simple payment, not too expensive but at the same time fulfilling the artists and the ASCAP/RIAA's economic, "reasonable" expectations from what would normally be an amatuer DJ.

Thinking out of the box is actually what most Podcasters are doing, but distancing oneself even more from the status quo...hmmm...It's a pretty interesting observation I insist, but, it might be a dead end.

[radioclash]

But considering that nobody would mind finding a way to make a profit out of something you "like" to do...Then I insist we should continue to question ourselves and the powers at large, how we can have access to recorded music, with a simple payment, not too expensive but at the same time fulfilling the artists and the ASCAP/RIAA's economic, "reasonable" expectations from what would normally be an amatuer DJ.

Hmm that's a big generalisation.

As I put it on the latest show responding to Jim of Whole Wheat - actually I don't want to make money from my show; as an idle thought like 'hey wouldn't it be great to win the lottery?' - who wouldn't love to make money from doing exactly what they pleasd? It's fine as a dream but the reality would be that as soon as money and work comes into the factor I'd lose the enjoyment of it, and there would have to be 'compromises' of somesort somewhere.

That's what the ASCAP and other licenses have to take into account - and unfortunately it seems like hobby low powered radio and licensing is actually more progressive in the US - the MCPS PRS licenses here in the UK assume you're a business - in fact make it impossible to be anything other than a business with the royalty system and amount of paperwork.

One question - if I sign up for an ASCAP license in the UK, does that cover me for the world or just the US? Or US labels? Or do I have to register in *every* territory you could download my podcast?

I think it's far from clear-cut actually...

[Craig]

First, and perhaps most surprisingly, I agree with PBCliberal. Podcasting presents a unique opportunity to reach out to new markets in a way that traditional radio hasn't for a long time and no longer can. And despite Benny's concerns there is profit to be made in breaking out of the box...there are listeners out there who are tired of or just not drawn to what traditional radio is playing and there are advertisers who want to reach them.

Second, if you haven't already done so listen to the 2/14 edition of "Behind the Scenes" at http://bts.godcast.org for 20 minutes on ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/RIAA and other listening issues. It will bring you up to speed on the specifics (the 2/7 edition had a deeper but less accurate overview of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC).

Lastly, it is my understanding that all of this only covers licensing for U.S.-based shows. There are different licensing organizations for shows originating in Canada (SOCAN), the U.K., and other countries. I'm not sure how they apply to shows that can be accessed in the U.S. though, and I should point out that I'm not an attorney and you should consult one before doing anything with licensed music.

Craig

[Brian]

If you haven't heard it, let me also recommend Craig's excellent "Behind The Scenes" from 2/14. It's complete, and answers all the questions that are getting asked on a regular basis.

ASCAP and BMI (and SESAC for that matter) are excellent companies that have the best interests of the composers and songwriters in mind.

And I've been talking to SoundExchange, the RIAA and The Harry Fox Agency about developing a specific, and beneficial licencing model for podcasters. So far, SoundExchange has been the best at responding to my inquiries, if only just to ask for clarification and more information about podcasting. The RIAA and HFA have been silent, but it's only been a few days, and I expect they are doing a little research.

[dannywall]

I think this is a move in the right direction. Paying US$250 for a yearly licence isn't really a lot is it?

I agree, it is a move in the right direction. Having said that, I have to wonder why you'd even want to bother. For quite a bit less than $250 you could buy A TON of royalty-free music and mix things together however you want.

Then, your podcast will contain a unique music feel instead of something that is a little too "radio" and you won't have to worry about logs or any other hoops or hurdles that ASCAP decides to implement on a whim.

That's just my two cents anyway.

[Brian]

dannywall's right on the money, too. There is so much talent out there that isn't getting heard because of the stranglehold the corp labels have with corp radio.

And don't rule out contacting record companies and asking for permission. A lot of them love the extra exposure and would love to have you hear, and possibly help promote, some of their rising stars.

[PBCliberal]

Things were going along so nicely until Benny dropped that bomb. He wants to make money with this. So Benny, let me introduce you--and Brian of Coverville--to your new partner, ASCAP.

You get to choose whether you want this partner to share your advertiser revenue or whether you get to pay him per "session" Either way, if things don't work out well and you fall behind or fail to file reports in a timely fashion, your partner will penalize your failure by charging you even more. Remember, Roxio owns Napster because it got forced into bankruptcy. Try and find a copy of Upton Sinclair presents William Fox it shows this story is as old as nitrate film.

I'm sorry to be a cynical old man about this, but as you may have gathered, I've spent enough time around Hollywood (that's the California one), to know that a Hollywood relationship is, "You scratch my back, and I'll keep a set of books that say I scratched yours."

On the other hand, I've also written and arranged some music, know its hard work, and don't believe it should be done pro bono especially in a world where everybody else in the business gets to drive beemers and hummers.

But the new mentality in America is to try and get the goose to lay more golden eggs than her poor ravaged body can stand, and we're fixin' to kill it. And that's not just in the entertainment business, but that's another story. We can't take intellectual property so far that we put a meter on people so that when they whistle a song they have to insert a quarter, but that appears to be where we're headed. Here's this same thought said longer, but far better by an expert. (http://www.erenkrantz.com/Speeches/Lessig/free.html)

So, Brian, I realize that your schtick requires that you have a license. A "cover" says "spawn of big media" by its very nature, so you're in the belly of the beast. Don't be surprised when you're talking digital rights management, and what line items in a spreadsheet should be written off against the bottom line. What is a "miscellaneous production expense" anyway. I hear it tastes just like a New York strip at AJs in the Vegas Hard Rock. I'm glad that they're nice people, but it feels good to have your throat cut by a professional.

I have no good answer for any of this other than we should make everything from scratch. If we can't do that, we need to find a way to get people to pay $5.50 for a bucket of popcorn.

[Benny]

Well what exactly are these royalty free songs? If they are what I think they are, then they're normally not really good. If I am wrong please correct me.

Oh and Brian If you could elaborate a little on what are the licenses you're using, that would be good. Good job with Coverville man. Listen to every show.

And finally, I'm sorry for bringing money to the picture, but well...it never wasn't...

And it's not that everybody has to suddenly feel some sort of pressure...It's like every other hobby in the world...Some do it for money and some do it for fun, without any preassure of competition from the other.

I guess this forum is meant to answer the questions about how to podcast with license agreements, wether it's to find a way to make a profit out of it, or just doing it for fun.

Matters like, thinking out of the box and the great many possibilities in Podcasting, are ok...But they don't answer anything...At least for me.

[Craig]

Just because a band's songs aren't under license doesn't mean they aren't good. For that matter, just because they ARE under license doesn't they are good. Spend some time at garageband.com (as one example) and you'll find plenty of royalty-free songs that deserve to be played anywhere (along with plenty that don't, granted).

Craig

[camilian]

Check out any of the bands in the AMP podcasts and tell me they are not as good as the crap you hear on the radio.

http://www.inoveryourhead.net/amp/amp_directory.html

[Benny]

I'm obviously wrong about royalty free songs then. I thought they were sort of like elevator music, but thanks for the webpages.

I have another unexplained situation then...

For example we could say that in the law sytem we have...

Rules in the family-City law-State law-Federal law-World laws...(like Human rights or things like that...)

But in music...Who's the boss?

Brian suggested asking the Recording companies permission...But do they have the right to let you use the music?
And what if you have the Bands permission...Is it insufficient?

So let me see if I have this correct:

Author-Recording Company-ASCAP/RIAA

What I am saying is that:

1. Once the author signs the song over to somebody else, he loses all his rights to play it whenever he wants.

2. The ASCAP and the RIAA have dual say on "if" you can use a song. So having just one is not enough.

3. I don't know if the Recording company has any rights or not.

4. An unsigned band with no ties to the ASCAP/BMI/RIAA or Recording companies, are now Podcasters new best friends?

Well ok. If I am wrong can anybody can clear this up? Thanks.

[Craig]

1. Good question. I'm not sure about this one but my guess is that if they truly sign all rights away then they have to license their own songs like everyone else. Bummer.

2. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC have say over whether or not you can do something with f a song. RIAA has say over whether you so something with a recorded performance of a song (assuming in both cases that the respective organizations have licensing rights for the song).

3. RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) represents the recording companies.

4. Correct.

Craig

[Benny]

Ok...Thanks for the response...But so then lets move on to the ASCAP/BMI and RIAA subject.

There is no getting around it...If you want to play somebody else's song on the radio you have to pay:

1. The ASCAP/BMI/SESAC a fee for playing "the song" in public.

2. The RIAA a fee for playing "the song as performed by the recording artist" in public

So then one of them issuing a permission isn't enough then...You need both of them. So...now it's not just 250 bucks...How much are we talking now?

[Jaimador]

Sony's ACID sample libraries have been a real boon for me, when used in conjunction with ACID. In fact I do all my vocal and instrument recording and mixing with ACID and render my feeds from there. Those loops are cheap, quick and easy to work with, and completely royalty free. As far as I'm concerned, as long as I can buy new royalty free content and be able to do all the cool mixing in ACID, I won't pay ASCAP a red cent for my intros to feeds.

Check em here: http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/loop_libraries/default.asp

I wonder what Sony is going to do when they realize that their software is really kickass for podcast creation. As you all probably know, Sony Music is one of the biggest label owners in the biz, and this software called ACID is from an acquisition of theirs a few years back(the company's name was Sonic Foundry or Sound Forge or something). I hope they don't screw a good thing up...

[Bas]

I manage a band called Parkers Brother who have gotten involved in getting their music onto podcasts.

In fact, we've got a promotion going for podcasters who want to podcast their single Smack Bang in the Middle ... http://www.parkersbrother.com/press/010305.pdf

It's great that ASCAP is recognising it as a medium to collect royalties, especially since this rewards the artists. Hopefully it will be something affordable for podcasters though...

-Bas

[Craig]

Ok...Thanks for the response...But so then lets move on to the ASCAP/BMI and RIAA subject.

There is no getting around it...If you want to play somebody else's song on the radio you have to pay:

1. The ASCAP/BMI/SESAC a fee for playing "the song" in public.

2. The RIAA a fee for playing "the song as performed by the recording artist" in public

So then one of them issuing a permission isn't enough then...You need both of them. So...now it's not just 250 bucks...How much are we talking now?
Sorry, this thread fell off my radar. Whether or not you need ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licensing at all if you're just offering the podcast for download through your RSS feed (you don't have a direct link to the MP3 on your site) is questionable. But regardless, you need a mechanical license for each recorded song you play ($42.50 PER SONG from the Harry Fox Agency) and a master use license from the record label. The MUL is the hard one...there's no set fee and the label doesn't have to give you the license at all.

Is the picture becoming any clearer (or muddier, as the case may be)? :cry: If the labels see podcasting as a threat to sales along the lines of P2P then they simply have to reject licensing requests (if anyone actually has deep enough pockets to make them) and then wait until the right time to start having the RIAA file lawsuits on their behalf.

This is all covered in the 2/6 edition of "Behind the Scenes" at http://www.btscast.com

Craig

[Benny]

Clearer...no. Actually muddier is a pretty good way of putting it.

At first we had the ASCAP and the RIAA controling the song...What is the Harry Fox Agency!!!??


And that first thing you said about not necesarily having to have the ASCAP license for ofering the song in a Podcast dowload...Why? What is the difference between offering it as a normal mp3 download?

I'll check the Behind the scenes article, but still at the moment I am even more confused. But just as long as I can get the facts straight, I guess there is no choice to just wait and discuss the topic. Thanks for the reply.

Oh the Acid Pro sugestion from Jaimador was actually pretty good. If you have more info on how you set up your Podcast and how you edit your podcast I would like to hear about it. Acid Pro could become an option for Podcasters that still don't/can't or won't use Apple.

[Jaimador]

Hey Benny,

What kind of podcast are you producing? A talk show? Or do you want to assemble your own music (doesn't matter what genre) in a program and then duck the music to lay down voice overs? Either type can be done in ACID very simply.

Would you guys benefit from a flash or streaming demo of using ACID for a podcast? If so, I can put something like that together... Sometimes its easier to just "do the real thing" than try to explain how to do it in words.

Thanks,
Jaime

[Brian]

At first we had the ASCAP and the RIAA controling the song...What is the Harry Fox Agency!!!??

The Harry Fox Agency, like SoundExchange, is a licensing arm for the RIAA. If you'll be licensing music for a podcast, most likely you'll be doing it through one of those two agencies, rather than the RIAA themselves.

[Benny]

Ok now we know about the Harry Fox agency, but well it stil is the ASCAP, so there is no real new participant in this.

Ok Brian, thanks for answering, and because you answered I hope you could answer me on this...I know you have the ASCAP and EMI licenses...but what about the RIAA? What about them? From what I understand of everything we've discussed here you would need both companies aproval.

And just out of curiosity is it really $42.50 per song you play?

And Jaime, thanks for the offer. I regret to say I still haven't jumped into the podcast...I guess I want to straighten out all the license mumbo-jumbo.

But anyway I first have to learn about ACID...So the tutorial would actualy be great! I have been trying to read the manual during my free time but I regret to say I don't have so much free time. But a tutorial would be a great idea. For podcasting and even for making music. I guess if you put it on the web many people can see it. I'll be looking forward to it.

[novoiceforradio]

OK, I'm a newbie here and since you were talking about ASCAP license, I thought this may be the post to ask a couple of questions:

1)Are you able to play up to 60 seconds of any song on your Podcast without a license?

2)If a band puts a song on their official website for you to download, can you use it in your podcast?

3)What makes a song "Podsafe"?

Thanks,

The Colonel

[Brian]

Benny,

You're absolutely right - in order to play a song legally, you need licensing from both the holder of the songwriters' license (either ASCAP, BMI or SESAC - check your CD's liner notes to find out which), and the mechanical license (held by the RIAA, Harry Fox Agency, and/or SoundExchange - there is overlap here, as Harry Fox and SoundExchange are licensing "arms" of the RIAA). [Benny, pardon me for reiterating a lot of stuff that's already been covered - I want to address some stuff here that I talked about in another forum topic so that there's one place to find answers]

Now, I do only have a license with ASCAP and BMI (I'm looking into SESAC, as there is some music licensed with them that I'd like to play), so I currently don't have a mechanical license. There really isn't a license model with the RIAA or its partners, that would apply to podcasting, so I'm currently operating outside of their licensing.

This may soon be changing, based on some discussions that I've been a part of, but I really can't say more than that at this point.

[Brian]

novoiceforradio,

1. I haven't read anywhere about a 60-second limit. ASCAP mentions 60-second samples, but says that they're included in their Non-interactive license, meaning you can put 60-second song samples on your website for preview, and not have to pay for ASCAP's (more expensive) interactive license.

2. I wouldn't expect so. I think they're basically granting permission to include it on their own website, and not putting it into public domain. It works in the same way that graphics work on the internet; you can't legally copy and paste the artwork from someone else's website onto yours. It's one of the reasons I've stopped using the Coverville logo you see to the left of this comment, on my website. It uses small - but recognizable - pieces of famous album covers in each letter, and I don't have permission to use them.

3. Plain and simple: Permission from the license holder(s) to play it. Independent artists can grant that permission as long as their record companies don't own the song license. But in the case of larger record companies, I don't know. I'm not even sure Bono could grant you permission to play "Vertigo" without securing permission from Universal (but ****, that'd be enough for me...)

[Craig]

Would you guys benefit from a flash or streaming demo of using ACID for a podcast? If so, I can put something like that together... Sometimes its easier to just "do the real thing" than try to explain how to do it in words.
I'd like to see this. Even though I'm primarily and Apple guy I'm not against using Windows apps if it makes my life easier!

Jaime, do you want to do an audio review of ACID for "Behind the Scenes", focused on how it can be used by podcasters?

Craig

[Benny]

Don't worry about repeating things Brian, actually it's necesary, about repeating things Brian, actually it's necesary. (That's a joke)

Because people new to the conversation don't usally go back and read the entire thing to know what has been going on.

I have also come to the same conclusion about Podsafe songs:

Independant artists

As I said it before, these guys are podcasters new best-friends.

And thanks for explaining about your situation with the RIAA, I also saw that Jan Polet the dutchman that prepares the Hit Test for the Daily Source code is also working without license agreements. He mentions on is website that there is no ruling about podcasts yet in the Netherlands, so until then, he's continuing.

Ok, that is fine, but I already mentioned that possiblity at the beggining. "Because there is no rules on the subject now, anybody can use the songs and when the rules change just stop" Thinking they can't fine you for things you did before the rules were in place. But I kind of got the impression that the ASCAP/RIAA actually could fine you for things in the past. Maybe I misunderstood. Can anybody clear this up?


Oh and Jaime, now that it's not just me interested in the ACID tutorial, when can you start?

[Brian]

Independent Artists are the way to go.

And every single one I've contacted has given me permission to play them on my show. They get excellent exposure from podcasts. Look at the Lascivious Biddies, Clare Fader and the Vaudevillains, S.E.K.S., and Trina Hamlin (who I played on tonight's show). All excellent artists, and you won't hear any of them on your "Hot Adult Contemporary" radio station.

If you want to really open your eyes, visit the following site:

http://www.radioandrecords.com/

and enter in the call letters of your local Adult Contemporary radio station. You'll get a playlist that shows you how many times in the last week they've played their top 30 songs. As an example, KALC (local Denver Hot AC station) played The Killers' "Somebody Told Me" 74 times last week. Divide it by 7, and you've got roughly 10 times a day. That's almost once every two hours. No wonder people are turning to satellite and their iPods.

And a little looking around the site will uncover this article:
Just Say No To Satellite
Hot AC KPLZ/Seattle combats satellite radio by adding personalities around the clock. Starting Mar. 14, Corine McKenzie moves from mornings to afternoons, joining afternoon host Curt Kruse, and, on Mar. 28, John Tesh's custom Hot AC show debuts on KPLZ at nights. In addition, the station has upped their local traffic coverage to four traffic reports each hour all day long and will extend contesting throughout the entire year with TV advertising support. PD/morning show host Kent Phillips tells R&R, "This is a huge five-year effort to establish the brands on KPLZ and protect us from satellite radio, iPods or other influences. It is back to old-style radio ... something more than just music to make people tune in."

Great - more talk and more traffic. Nothing about less repetition. They just don't get it.

[Craig]

Ok, that is fine, but I already mentioned that possiblity at the beggining. "Because there is no rules on the subject now, anybody can use the songs and when the rules change just stop" Thinking they can't fine you for things you did before the rules were in place. But I kind of got the impression that the ASCAP/RIAA actually could fine you for things in the past. Maybe I misunderstood. Can anybody clear this up?
It's my understanding that including a song in a podcast right now falls under the same rules as including a song in any other form of distributed media (CD, tape, video, etc.). There are definite rules and licensing requirements that cover this and, as has been covered previously in this thread, they are quite prohibitive. What everyone is waiting for is not rules where none exist, but rather rules that are reasonable rather than ones that are prohibitive.

To answer your question, yes, the RIAA can fine you for things in the past when they fall under existing laws, which in this case they do.

Craig

[Benny]

Ok so obviously somebody has the facts wrong.

Either it's Brian or it's Craig.

One of you says the RIAA has rules in place now, the other says they don't.

We need a fourth party here to settle this, or proof. How about it fellows? Any proof?

[Craig]

Brian is right in that there is no licensing that applies specifically to podcasting, but the podcasting model is virtually identical to other models that are covered by RIAA licensing (making and giving out compilation CDs for example) which is what I'm basing my statements on. If you have to choose between the two of us on this topic I'd probably lean towards Brian.

Craig

[mikepence]

BMI has a license for podcasters and very reasonable rates for using their stuff. Check it out at http://www.bmi.com.

[Benny]

Well I would like to lean more towards Brians point of view because it does let the masses start ASAP to Podcast as soon as they pay the ASCAP and BMI license, but...I don't think the RIAA will be forgiving ignorance.

I'd like to see the RIAA licensing , but...As you say the model is similar...but how similar is it?

This could be the next topic.

But It is still so blurry that...It kind of makes you just go for the Podsafe music.

Well I'll wait for the ACID tutorial, but I guess I am losing initiative with this licensing situation.

[Craig]

BMI has a license for podcasters and very reasonable rates for using their stuff. Check it out at http://www.bmi.com.
We've come full circle here. An ASCAP/BMI/SESAC license does not give you the right to play a recorded version of a song. It gives you the right to perform the song yourself.

The closest RIAA model to podcasting I've seen is one mentioned at the SoundExchange web site involving handing out custom compilation CDs at an event. I don't see any difference between this and podcasts other than the media and distribution method involved. You can read more on this model here:

http://www.soundexchange.com/licensing101.html#a9

Craig

[mikepence]

Thanks for that information on that web site. Very inormative.

Now, I am going to puke.

It looks like indie music is the way to go. Anybody know of any good sites in addition to Garage Band? Salon.com is starting their own indie music column with links, also.

[Craig]

Now, I am going to puke.
That would be the appropriate response.

Craig

[cowboy2710]

I talked to both BMI and ASCAP and my agreements are in the works. However, since both these organizations pay the creator (writer, composer) and not the performer of the record been played it was pointed out to me that a license agreement with Soundexchange.com is also required because they pay the actual performer. That's where it seems to get sticky, though. I talked to Garry Greenstein and their agreement DOES NOT cover MP3's or other forms of user downloadable, tradeable etc. podcasts. A flash stream however would be since it is not user downloadable.

Bernard

[Benny]

The part about the BMI and ASCAP has already been settled.

THEY BOTH HAVE LICENSE AGREEMENTS SPECIFICALLY FOR PODCASTING, SO YOU HAVETO AT LEAST GET THIER APPROVAL.

Now moving on....


The RIAA is the problem now. Apparently Soundexchange, (if I am not mistaken) is an agency that works for them. So lets just say RIAA because it's shorter.


As cowboy2710 said...

"...their agreement DOES NOT cover MP3's or other forms of user downloadable, tradeable etc. podcasts. "

This means...I don't know.

If it doens't cover it...Is it OK to use songs if you just pay the ASCAP fee and wait for the RIAA to dedcide on the licencing rights?

Or...If it doesn't cover it...We can't use songs even paying the ASCAP fee because it is not inclueded under the rules?

This is getting repetitive. But I guess the problem is nothing is concrete, so we are just dicussing about something that nobody really knows the truth.

I guess the best thing is to just start reading the Rules of Licensing and everybody become a lawyer...Oh God what have we come to?

[Craig]

So they'll license a CD but they won't license an MP3 because it's "tradeable"? That makes a lot of sense.

Craig

[waynerightbroadcatching]

i remember the days when if you got radio play that was a free advertisment for your song/record etc. But thesed ays to have to pay for somethingthat is already recoded is strange. It's not like the station is playing the whole album. I know this has been going on for years but i look at broadcasting music as a free commercial for the artsist. do you know how much money the artsist/label would have to pay to get a song on howard stern casey casum (sp?) etc. perhaps the fact of the riaa inquistion is the fact that radio/tv has been clear channeled to death and the fact that there is not much good music coming out from thebig labels anymore.

[Brian]

A lot of these agencies are having a hard time grasping the "Interactive" vs. "Non-Interactive" nature of podcasts. For example, that was a sticking point for both ASCAP and BMI: do users have access to individual songs? With a podcast, the answer is usually "no". (I say "usually", because there was a podcast at the beginning of all this that only contained one song per show, and had no narration and no other intro and outro - just the song. Having them gone has made my discussions with ASCAP, BMI, SoundExchange and Harry Fox so much easier.)

This means that even what Craig (and I) considered to be the closest licesing model with SoundExchange, the "Wedding CD", differs greatly because it does allow users access to individual tracks. It's looking like a closer approximation might be the "I'm shooting a video" model from that same site (sorry I don't have the link) because a pirate would have to extract the audio from the full video in order to get a copy albeit a lower quality one. But even that connection deosn't make things much easier in terms of licensing and pricing.

We will have answers to this soon - and most likely a real podcasting-appropriate license model. I can't say more than that, nor do I have any idea of a timeline or a cost structure.

My best advice is to start podcasting - but try and use as many independent bands as you can. If you do play copyrighted music, talk over your intros of songs, and segue between songs to show that you're discouraging piracy. In my discussions, both SoundExchange and Harry Fox (surprisingly) asked if I was doing that, and seemed to be pleased that I was. Don't list your playlist on your website - every agency expressed not to do that (and even though I feel that it's a dinosaur regulation left over from radio licenses, I'll agree to it just to get the licensing process moving, and then open up a discussion with them that it actually hurts band sales to not give listeners a chance to find them.)

But I'm not a lawyer, so take my advice at your own risk.

[vikingyouth]

how does one go about finding out if a band is RIAA or not? does that just mean they are on a label or something?

reason is most the music i would want to feature are indie bands on indie labels and i don't know enough about the RIAA to know if they represent them too or not. anyone?

also, at one point i heard the rule of thumb for playing a song on your podcast was that if it was already available on the internet through the artists site, or a site like epitonic, than you'd be alright to play it on your podcast. how do people feel about this? i believe this was also circulating *Before* ASCAP started circulating a license.

[Brian]

I question it, VikingYouth, because someone putting something on their site doesn't necessarily make it fair game. Even if it's to help promote something on that site. Because the performer all of a sudden has no say in the context in which the song is presented, and it could easily misrepresent them in some way.

There was a lawsuit a while back where some teen pop star sued the owner of a fan website for copying the pictures from her site and postng it on their own. (I can't remember who it was - sorry). But I think music falls under the same category.

Again - speculation on my part. I could be wrong. It's happened before...

[Craig]

also, at one point i heard the rule of thumb for playing a song on your podcast was that if it was already available on the internet through the artists site, or a site like epitonic, than you'd be alright to play it on your podcast.
This is another myth. Making it available on the artist's site only gives you permission to download it for personal use. You still have to get permission to use it for anything else.

Craig

[cowboy2710]

Benny wrote:
This means...I don't know.

If it doens't cover it...Is it OK to use songs if you just pay the ASCAP fee and wait for the RIAA to dedcide on the licencing rights?

Or...If it doesn't cover it...We can't use songs even paying the ASCAP fee because it is not inclueded under the rules?

-----------

Here is what I was told: "We'll issue you a license if you DO NOT make user download available. We are ok with flash stream."

Bernard

[Craig]

Here is what I was told: "We'll issue you a license if you DO NOT make user download available. We are ok with flash stream."Bernard
Which is a joke, of course, since there are any number of tools available to let you capture streaming audio from flash or anything else to a WAV or AIF file (Audio Hijack on the Mac, for example).

If they had any sense what they should say is something along the lines of: "We'll issue you a license if you DO NOT make user downloads or streaming formats available at anything greater than 96kpbs."

Craig

[jeffoest]

I've been kind of paranoid about this stuff as well. I've purposely written our own intro and background music because of this (well, because I like to write music as well lol).

But I also think that we're not going to get too awful paranoid about it. My podcasting partner Pat wants to talk about some songs she's downloaded (legally) and logically - this is pretty obvious - but talking about a song and playing a bit of it at 64Kbps (while we talk over it) can only either do nothing or increase sales for that label and artist. Unless I'm completely wrong, a 64kbps with voice over will not cannibalize any sales of that recording. That plus the fact that to get all the proper "rights" is way too complex and little understood means we'll risk the fine and won't pay it and have our day in court. I just can't imagine any scenario where a label, frankly, wouldn't like the free advertisement. Take us to court for it? Why would they? Two negatives for them - one, no more free advertisting, two - really bad PR. And no upside.

Sometimes, as Pat says, you have to do what you know is right and just even if the laws surrounding these new models haven't been fully developed yet.

Then again, we're only THINKING of doing it.... ;-)

[Benny]

Unless I'm completely wrong, a 64kbps with voice over will not cannibalize any sales of that recording. That plus the fact that to get all the proper "rights" is way too complex and little understood means we'll risk the fine and won't pay it and have our day in court. I just can't imagine any scenario where a label, frankly, wouldn't like the free advertisement. Take us to court for it? Why would they? Two negatives for them - one, no more free advertisting, two - really bad PR. And no upside.

Oh if it were only so simple...

I agree with you...but it's not like that. And if you think they have bad press for prosecuting you...think that they are getting great press for the artists. They will know that when it comes to defending thier intelectual property, these agencies will really go to bat when called upon.

If you want to use something somebody else made, EVEN if they're going to get publicity out of it (which is always debatable) you must pay.

And cowboy thanks, for clearing it up, but Craig has a point. The musical piece can easily be extracted from the Podcast (Personally I don't know how to, but it seems obvious that there must be a way)

Craig if you could elaborate on the kpbs levels, that would help. Although I don't understand why a lower quality reproduction would have anything to do with the rights, a song is a song.

[Craig]

The musical piece can easily be extracted from the Podcast (Personally I don't know how to, but it seems obvious that there must be a way)
It can be done with any audio editor as easily as extracting text from a document with a text editor.

Craig if you could elaborate on the kpbs levels, that would help. Although I don't understand why a lower quality reproduction would have anything to do with the rights, a song is a song.
A song is a song, but if the RIAA were smart they would realize that a lower quality reproduction would be good enough to let people decide whether or not they like a song but not good enough to take the place of the original.

Craig

[Brian]

I just got off the phone with ASCAP and I've got some great news. I'll also announce this on Coverville on Sunday night.

A couple weeks ago, a representative from ASCAP called me, to let me know she was faxing me a copy of the Interactive Music License for my signature. Coverville has a Non-Interactive license (as are all podcasters who have signed with ASCAP), but Melody wanted to move me to Interactive because she saw that I was putting play lists on my site.

I told her that I would take the playlists off, but that the playlists were a huge benefit to my listeners, and even more so for the independent artists that I play, who get traffic to their sites from the links that I have on my site, and consequently purchases of their music. She said I'd have to talk to her boss about it when she was back in the office.

So I took the playlists off the site for shows that occurred after the call, and moved them into the ID3 comment field of the MP3 file. It added an extra 10 minutes or so to the whole process.

I just got off the phone with her boss, (who I originally signed the deal with), and she concedes that it's a rule that was put into effect in the days of radio, to discourage listers from getting pre-announced music that they could record for personal use. They had apparently talked about it after the rep had called me. She agreed that the rule shouldn't apply to podcasters, and is lifting the requirement that podcast websites not include playlists.

So ASCAP now allows you to put playlists into your podcast blogs.

Here's the one caveat, which is a small one: You can put your playlists, and they can even be in the order in which you play them in your show, but you cannot put the time code into the list as well. So you can say you're playing "I Want To Be Famous" by the Lascivious Biddies, but you can't say at 3 minutes and 22 seconds into the show, I play "I Want To be Famous" by the Lascivious Biddies.

It's a small concession by ASCAP, but it shows their willingness to work with our new medium. In that respect, it's huge.

[Brian]

I plan to talk to my contact at BMI about this on Monday. Hopefully when they see ASCAP is allowing it, they'll do the same.

[Inferno]

ok ok ok -

sorry for this but i just started doing this -
do all these crazy restrictions apply even if you have the labels approval?

and what if i have the labels approval bit not the bands?

or vice vera.

[Craig]

Brian, is ASCAP licensing even necessary if you're offering the podcast strictly as a download? Because technically you're not offering a public performance, which is what ASCAP is licensing. (Unless you have a link to the MP3 on your site that can be clicked on and played from directly.) I'm still somewhat confused on this issue. SoundExchange seems to imply one thing while ASCAP seems to imply another.

Inferno, what you need depends on who owns the licensing rights to the song you want to play. In most cases the band's approval is irrelevant from a strictly legal standpoint if they've signed over the rights to a label. If the label has right for both the performance AND the composition (which is what ASCAP is licensing) then you should be fine with permission from just the label. Just get it in writing!

Craig

[reedracer]

Do Internet radio stations use a non-interactive license? Do we need an overarching podcasters license we can buy that covers us some how?

[Brian]

Craig,

From my understanding, that's right. If you offer a way from your website to listen to the show, it's considered a public performance, but I think that qualifies whether it's a physical link, or even an RSS feed that allows you to subscribe. If you allow "the general public" a way to hear the music you're playing, then you need to license it with whichever agency owns the rights.

Not sure how that would work for a paid subscription-type program.

[hobokenrockcity]

Brian, great news about ASCAP allowing the posting of playlists. Does the RIAA have an opinion on this issue?

And I'm still a bit fuzzy on all the rights required myself. The general manager of an established indie label told me that, even if he gives me permission to play his label's music on my show, he can't vouch for the publishing rights. And he's not talking about ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, either—he's talking about the individual publishing companies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that there are essentially THREE entities whose permission would be necessary in order to play a song? These would be (1) the label, or whoever owns the master recording, (2) the performing rights society [ASCAP/BMI/SESAC], and (3) the actual publisher [e.g. Sony/ATV Music, Warner-Tamerlane, etc.].

Am I right here? And further, if I am, does this mean that playing a song performed by the writer of the composition requires three permissions, but playing a cover only requires two (the publisher being omitted).

Of course, if this last part were true (and a big part of me doubts it, because it just doesn't make sense), it would mean Brian is truly a genius, as he'd have a third less work to do than the rest of us...

Mike C.
www.hobokenrockcity.com

[Brian]

Well, I can't argue about being a genius... :wink:

From what I've read, and my discussions with the various agencies (who don't seem like they talk to each other...ever), my understanding is that you only need the two licenses. Performance and mechanical.

The RIAA provides all the mechanical licensing for Sony, Warner, Universal, EMI, etc. If the owner of the indie label that you spoke to isn't covered by the RIAA (and don't forget that a lot of these larger record groups have dozens of smaller labels that are part of them), then I believe that he is able to grant you publishing rights. If you speak to him again, it'd be interesting to see who owns the publishing rights to his label's music.

Here's a list of RIAA member labels:

http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

Now, before anyone asks if you can play music by artists legally on your show if their label doesn't apperar in that list, I don't know. But that is a very good question.

[Inferno]

wow, all of a sudden this doesn't seem that fun.

[hobokenrockcity]

Here are some detailed excerpts from that correspondence I had with the indie label general manager. Brian, this is the same material I sent you the other day. I am posting it here in the hope that perhaps others here might be able to shed some light on the situation.

This is what the label gm wrote to me. Can anyone break this all down?



When someone downloads a song the copyright owner is owed something called a "mechanical royalty" (currently eight and a half cents per song). The record label usually does not control these rights - these rights are owned by the songwriter or, if the songwriter has done a deal with a publishing company, then the publishing company controls the rights.

These companies work separately from the label - for example, [one of our artists] did a publishing deal with EMI. You would need clearance from EMI to allow you to have the song download for free - even in context of the song being downloaded as one giant MP3. If not, then technically you are violating US copyright laws. If someone wanted to be a giant ***, they could sue you (like the RIAA has sued people) for illegal distribution of copyright protected works.

This does not mean i approve of them suing people, I just thought you should be aware of the possible legal exposure.

ASCAP (and BMI) are public performance organizations, they are not copyright control organizations.¬â€* That is, the ASCAP license does not address a publisher's rights - An ASCAP license only allows you to legally provide a public performance of the songwriter's song.¬â€* When there is a download (as opposed to a stream or terrestrial broadcast) you are reproducing, distributing, and delivering copyright controlled property (i.e. a song).

What you are doing is the same as illegally distributing a compilation CD.¬â€* That is, you could not legally put up a new compilation album each week for free download as MP3s.¬â€* This is what you are doing (even though you might be talking between songs etc).¬â€* You are distributing a compilation album of music.

If you contact Harry Fox Organization, Bug Music, EMI, Warner Tamerlane etc about this I can guarantee you they will not grant you a gratis license to distribute via download the music they administer on behalf of their copyright controllers.

I cannot speak for other labels.¬â€* At the indie level, most of the time the band or a band member controls the copyright.¬â€* And, at this level, most of the time, the band is not aware of the copyright laws etc that apply to them.¬â€* In that event, either are many of the labels. If we grant you rights, please keep in mind that I do not have the authority to grant you the publishers' rights.

[noodlejook]

I think the best idea is to find really good indie music and bypass all the label BS. My estimate is that 90% of indie groups own their own material and can grant you rights to their music. With the cost of music creation driving towards the ground, there is some really really good stuff out there. Besides, to me, that's the power of Podcasts to start with. Putting power back in the independent publishers hands instead of the big corporations. Indie music shares this same philosophy and in most cases would love to help out your show. I found several bands on Garageband, CD Baby, and IndieBandVault.com and I emailed them and they sent me an email saying I could use their songs for my podcasts. If you find a band you like, just email them. If you do one a day, you could get lots of legal material in a couple weeks. The band I used was www.acrosstheroom.com. they gave me 6 tracks from one CD and 3 tracks from a new cd that's coming out next month, and 2 tracks with the words taken out of them so I can use for intros. So, if you find a band, just email them and ask. They (or I) don't have attorneys and arduous contracts. I may be wrong, but an email will suffice for me for now. I ask them to fill out the name of the song, the writer, the publisher, and the owner of the master, and to send it back to me in an email. I tell them that I am helping their band with good exposure. They like the idea.

[robaustin]

I think the best idea is to find really good indie music and bypass all the label BS.

I can go both ways on this. I think right now - with folks playing only "podsafe" music - it's good for the indie bands/labels. However - I think you're also playing to a limited market with the inability to play more mainstream music. Being able to incorporate both indie AND mainstream majorlabel music into a podcast would ultimately get you more listeners (arguably). If for nothing else - it would allow those of us who want to share our unique vision of a music program with the world (which we can't right now). There are a lot of bands signed to RIAA labels who have small audiences that I'm sure many podcasterswould like to play.

Specific to my situation - I run a streaming station, and I'd love to do a podcast of the music I play on there. It's a mix of more mainstream alternative and quirky alternative that regular alternative stations typically don't play (Cake, TMBG, Nerf Herder, Matthew Sweet or The Refreshments as examples...). I can't share that vision right now - because the licensing is not in place for me to be able to do so. The licensing issue is a big one for me. I think I'd reach a decent population of folks with a show, but I'm hesitant to do it without licensing. To that end - I think you're wrong about the best idea being to find indie music and bypass all the label BS. We need to proactively seek out a licensing scheme all can understand and participate in. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to play licensed music - a lot of it will be familiar to potential listeners - and familiarity can draw folks in as listeners. Reel 'em in with a familiar U2 cut, then hit them with something new they may like. I don't think anyone can say that they listen exclusively to indie label stuff.

So I have two questions:

1 - Is ANYONE working on a "pooled resource" for obtaining licensing - much the way Live365 handles the licensing for my stream over there?

2 - I wonder if Adam Curry's venture (podshow.com) is going to include licensing?

--*Rob

[bigee]

I agree that there really is some mainstream "goodnes" out there, but like anything else, you have to put the time in to find it. For instance, I would like to just run the entire first Boston album start to finish. Not only are there great tracks on it (as any classic rock station has beaten to death), but the WHOLE ALBUM as an artistic work is incredible as well. It tells a musical story.
Sheepishly, I will admit that I have not always followed the rules for my particular show, but I'm looking at it this way.....
Podcasting is pretty far beneath the radar right now. As long as I have my ASCAP et al licenses, it shows that I never intended to deceive/steal/cheat artists out of their deserved money.
Also, until tens of thousands of listeners (and even that may be low) start grabbing my feed, I ain't gonna be producing any revenue worth looking at anyways.
What I DO hope happens is that Curry (or whoever has the means) can lobby for a specific set of rules that won't cost the little guy so much money that it becomes impossible to play by the rules.

[hobokenrockcity]

I'm all for "keeping it indie." If I'm not mistaken, I have yet to play an artist on my show that has sold more than 35,000 or 40,000 copies of an album. The vast majority of them have sold far less.

But you can't assume that just because someone is indie you can ignore the whole concept of licensing. You'd be surprised how many of these artists DO have publishing deals. Once an artist has made a deal with a publisher, that publisher is going to want to collect mechanical royalties for use of their song. Even if the artist released the music on their own label. Even if it only sells 300 copies.

Also, consider the situation that can occur when an indie artist suddenly gets signed to a big publishing deal. Suddenly, those compositions you played on your podcast, which were once owned solely by the artist/composer, are now owned by a publishing company. The same concept applies if the artist signs with a label and the master recordings, which used to be owned by a band, are now owned by a label.

[jeffoest]

When I hear this stuff, it makes me think we podcasters should unite and intentionally NOT play any music on our podcasts but completely pod-safe - no advertising, no mentions, no recommendations. Make 'em come to US and provide us with business processes that are understandable and commensurate with the distribution value provided.

It just seems backwards for podcasters that have virtually no volume to have to do the due diligence on researce, initiate and facilitate sometimes complications negotiations, and take a financial loss just to help bigger companies and interests sell their own products.

Ah - I know - today's podcasting community doesn't have the volume to be much more than a blip on the music industry's radar currently... oh well, I can dream....

[ducky]

I do have to say that I dissagree with playing only "pod safe" music. My show would not work at all that way. I do the Celtic Music News Podcast, and each week I'm playing 4 songs, currently I am doing it with music that I have gotten permission to play.

The genre I play is relatively small compared to most radio friendly music, but most is still copyrighted and therefore a pain to get permission to use. A band I am good friends with can't even let me use music from 6 or 7 of their CD's due to them not completely owning them. Now we have talked about working around that by using live perfomances, so thats a possibility, but a time consuming one for them as they would have to dig through tons of recordings, then convert them etc...

My show is small, about 550-600 listeners, and it is growing, and the artist support has been outstanding, but now I'm getting stuck like most of you are. I am working with one label currently, and they just sent out a CD to try out for the show, and decided that if they get railed for needing other permission they will pay the royalties and write it off as a business expense.

Now on to the specifics :)
I didnt realize it was this tough till the last couple days.
From an RIAA page http://www.riaa.com/issues/licensing/webcasting_faq.asp

it says that the internet only transmissions fee is .0007 per performance + a $500 minimum annual fee. Which is still a bit steep, well a LOT steep. Thats over $1100 between ASCAP and BMI.

Someone did mention maybe lumping podcasts together to get a live365 type license...thats might be very cool...

Aaron

[robaustin]

Someone did mention maybe lumping podcasts together to get a live365 type license...thats might be very cool...

Aaron

If I had the time and money to start something like this up - I'd do it, but I just don't right now. Again - I'm hoping that Odeo or Podshow will give us a licensing scheme in what they are going to provide.....

--*Rob

[Dominar]

First of all I want to give kudos to all of you that are taking up this fight! As well as explaining it to all of us newbies!

I believe most of my question have been answered except for places like garageband.com.

Do artists on garageband.com have to be independent? i.e. is all gb.com music podsafe?

[gozar]

I believe most of my question have been answered except for places like garageband.com.

Do artists on garageband.com have to be independent? i.e. is all gb.com music podsafe?

They have a page up about it: http://www.garageband.com/htdb/feed/partners.html

Apparently a lot of podcasters have been taking them up on it.

[Dominar]

Yeah, I just saw that. I need to come up with a name for my podcast!

I'd like to play/review local musicians. That kind of thing is really lacking up here.

[Bitz of Brin]

BMI has a license for podcasters and very reasonable rates for using their stuff. Check it out at http://www.bmi.com.
We've come full circle here. An ASCAP/BMI/SESAC license does not give you the right to play a recorded version of a song. It gives you the right to perform the song yourself.

The closest RIAA model to podcasting I've seen is one mentioned at the SoundExchange web site involving handing out custom compilation CDs at an event. I don't see any difference between this and podcasts other than the media and distribution method involved. You can read more on this model here:

http://www.soundexchange.com/licensing101.html#a9

Craig

Hi! I'm Brin and I am training to be an entertainer. I should probably tell you I'm 13, but don't hold it against me! :p

I want to sing professionally. So my podcast is like practice. But it's also like a demo so I do my best on each show. I will usually sing one song from one of my favorite artists, sometimes more. I'm writing my own music, but it's not ready yet. I've been podcasting since March now. I hate to ask something that's been asked before, but I want to do things right and I'm confused. My dad and I have been looking into this and we know that we need a license but don't know which one. Here are my questions:

a) I buy the minus tracks (karaoke CDs). Don't I have a right to perform the song now? I paid for it. If I don't have the right, then how can they sell the CDs and not tell you that you can't perform the songs? Anyway, this is confusing to me.

b) If I have to buy a license then which license? ASCAP? BMI? SESAC? I can't afford all three! I'm not making any money at this (but if you've got a record deal to offer we should talk LOL).

c) Why can I perform these songs at a gig but not on a podcast? Do all bands have to pay these fees to play like covers at weddings?

d) If I keep going as I have been doing and don't worry about the fees, what might happen?

OK, so please don't talk to me like I'm an idiot but if you could spell it out for me instead of telling me to google it I'd really appreciate it. (Hey, I could sing a promo for you or something. lol :D )

[notyourusualbollocks]

I can't recommend Garageband enough. It takes a bit of time to trawl through all the stuff but that's half the fun.

MK

[RadioNo]

I didnt realize it was this tough till the last couple days.
From an RIAA page http://www.riaa.com/issues/licensing/webcasting_faq.asp

*humph*

The fact that the word podcast or even pod doesn't appear here worries me a bit.

:?

[C]

[podcastrant.com]

Hey Brin,

It's been awhiles since I have been in the liscensing trenches so I can't answer all of your questions. The karaoke cd's, I'm pretty sure, has some wording that states that this is for your use at home to entertain yourself, family or friends. Just like you can buy a movie and show it to friends at your house. Now if you had a restaurant and showed the movie to your customers while they are eating you would be in trouble.

As far as bars and clubs go. They are "supposed" to have blanket liscenses wiuth both bmi and ascap associated with their needs. (i.e. cover bands and the like) Most local places don't do this and rarely get messed with but when they do it's enough to shut them down. I have seen that happen in the small areas in and surrounding where I live.

Hope this helps on a couple of your questions.