What do people think? another music legality quandary

[vader]

ok what do people think of this scenario: a podcast that plays only the 30 seconds available from the itunes music. the 30 sec is "free" anyway, and the podcast provides plenty of links to buy the music from itunes. thoughts?

[Barefoot Radio.com]

If I'm not mistaken, Itunes has an agreement with everyone they sell music for. It's not like they didn't ask and they're playing the music of others.

Did I misunderstand?

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong because I'd like to know.

[thebes]

the 30 sec is "free" anyway

Just because something is provided for free, that in no way dilutes the content's copyright. It might have a slight value under Fair-Use as it would be more difficult to argue that your show subsitutes for the copyrighted material if a better subsitution is already availible.

a podcast that plays only the 30 seconds available from the itunes music.

Why would you only play a short clip? As an intro or trailer for your show it would be unacceptable. Buy if you played only a short clip to discuss or review the material itself you may fall under the vague and allowable catagory of Fair Use. For example you would almost certainly be ok playing clips of 'Ice Ice Baby' and 'Under Presure' to show how Vanilla Ice reportedly plagerized from from the later.

Fair Use is a very hard to define catagory. You should really contact a lawyer if you plan to do something regularly in your show with it.

Remember, whether something is legal matters little to the RIAA. They are of the opinion that they can squash you like a bug with legal fees if you don't accept a bogus settlement package. And they can. Remember there are people being sued for 'file sharing' to whom the RIAA has admitted that they are probably innocent, but has told it would be 'cheaper just to settle now' than hire lawyers and fight it out. I seriously doubt they would be any more 'generous' to podcasters who pose a serious threat to their business model.

[vader]

Just because something is provided for free, that in no way dilutes the content's copyright.
right, that's why i put free in quotes.

Why would you only play a short clip? As an intro or trailer for your show it would be unacceptable. Buy if you played only a short clip to discuss or review the material itself you may fall under the vague and allowable catagory of Fair Use. For example you would almost certainly be ok playing clips of 'Ice Ice Baby' and 'Under Presure' to show how Vanilla Ice reportedly plagerized from from the later.
well currently, we discuss the music, and review whether we like it or dislike and why etc, and try to turn some people on to music we like or find interesting. so that sounds like "Fair Use" under your definition. I agree, these are very vague terms. Thanks for the help, and i'll continue to research it, and post any further insight i find on the net.

[etomorrow]

so am i correct to assume i need permission from the label to use a song in my intro that is covered under riaa?

[gazsoup]

we use clips off songs for bits such as 'guess the song' or 'which grandpa rocks; mccartney or jagger'. it's probably in the grey area of legal fair use but given the riaa's bully tactics, i'm sure they could make my life painful if they wanted.

[crybabyemokids]

oooh i have another question..
If i wanted to make a promo for my podcast using like 5-6 seconds of like 4-5 songs, would that be legal or not?

If the bands are not covered under RIAA, can i use the 5-6 seconds or do i again have to ask them. (They've given me permission to play their songs on my show) Do i take it for granted that I can use 5-6 seconds to make a medley promo for my show?

Thanks again,
Jay

[roadrageradio]

oooh i have another question..
If i wanted to make a promo for my podcast using like 5-6 seconds of like 4-5 songs, would that be legal or not?

If the bands are not covered under RIAA, can i use the 5-6 seconds or do i again have to ask them. (They've given me permission to play their songs on my show) Do i take it for granted that I can use 5-6 seconds to make a medley promo for my show?

Thanks again,
Jay

It would be wise to ask them again, and verify that they have all the rights you need. Their permission is worthless if they don't actually own the rights.

Playing an entire song is a "performance", covered under one set of rights that belong to the composer of the song. Slicing and dicing a song requires a master license that usually belongs to the record label and a synchronization license that usually belongs to the publisher.

A lot of indy bands act as their own publisher, and some are their own label, so it may be fine. Ask anyway.

[crybabyemokids]

Heh..I don't even think the artists know about the whole RIAA Copyright thing.

I messaged a band (Foolproof (http://www.myspace.com/foolproof)) ,
who are signed under Island-Universal Records[RIAA Heavan].

Here's a transcript of our conversation.


Me:
Hey guys
We love your music and were wondering if we could play it on our show. We're a podcast(internet radio show) that features upcoming emo/alt rock bands and we'd love you play you on our show.

Thanks again
Cry baby emo kids

Foolproof:
we would love for you to play us! how do we set this up?...fp

Me:
Well we wanted to play Paper House as it is our fav<3..just wanted to know if it's alright, because I don't know about the whole legality surrounding it(cause you guys arent under an indie label)

Foolproof:
go for it play it as much as you like............thank you so much


There are two things I could do, still not play their songs on my show. OR Play the songs, and if inquired by the RIAA produce this "evidence".
What do you guys recommend?

[kickasspodcast]

I would just find out who actually owns the copyright and get them to write you a release in email or something. I've done this with a few bands myself and you should be fine.


Best of luck-


Jack

[crybabyemokids]

The copyrights are probably owned by Universal Records and believe me, I do NOT want to email them asking for permission to play their songs.

I know the answer already :?

Unless they would cut me a little slack if I went "Here is a conversation I had with the band whose song I want to play" That tactic would work with Indie labels..but Universal Records, I think not.

[guscave]

Here are few things to understand. First the RIAA doesn't own any copyrights. They are basically representing the copyright holders in Washington & in the courts. Second; if you plan on using a song (no matter the length) on your podcast, you need to get permission from the copyright holder. Currently that's a big pain in the *** for labels 'cause they don't know where or how to catagorize podcasting.

Unless you're dealing with an independant Artist who owns his/her own label, the copyright holder of that particular recording is going to be the record label (BMG, Universal, etc.). The reason why this becomes a problem is because unlike other media (radio, tv, statelite) we as podcasters do not pay performance licensing fees to BMI or ASCAP so it's assume we are playing these songs for our own entertainment. However the moment you put it on your podcast and put it on the net, you become distributor of that song. Without the proper licensing, you're illegally distributing the song to the general public.

hope this helps.

[yaz]

i really don't think it should matter if you play someone's music if you're not making a profit, most of us play the music we like, so we are just pushing bands that others might not know...

if these record companies and artists are gonna be *****les about us playing their music, maybe we should stop buying the cds and really hurt them, they're gettin free airplay and reaching people that they might not have reached otherwise, because most radio stations will not play some of the stuff that gets played, and they're gonna cry about it...

we don't play music on our show because we think it makes it better or will get us profit eventually, we play the music because we like the bands that we play, we've done the whole garageband thing and found plenty of bands that we liked, so if the "big time" bands are gonna be pricks, we'll just go back to garageband...

i think i've talked about this before, sorry if im repeating myself...

[crybabyemokids]

If only there were a way to communicate what yaz just said to these record companies..

Until then, Hoorah For Capitalism!


+ About garageband..I read in the fineprint that you can play the artists featured on Garageband ONLY if you produce your podcast in Garageband and not if your shows are hosted on your own server. Else again you need artists' permission.

[yaz]

i hate capitalism and greed...

[guscave]

Here's the ironic part. Record companies don't charge radio stations to play their songs (they beg and use payola). Instead radio pays BMI, ASCAP & SESAC which in turn pays the songwriter. Wouldn't it be great if they begged us to play their songs... :wink:

Also many times the record company does not own the rights to the song, but only the rights to the recording. Which means if the Artist re-records the song without giving it to the label he can do whatever he wants with it, including giving it to podcasters... :lol: Unfortunately many record contracts are so strict and one-sided that the Artist can't even take a crap without asking first.

[pwfenton]

There is a lot of misinformation floating around in this thread. Let me try and clarify some of the issues.

If you wish to perform a song on your podcast... let's say "Happy Birthday To You" you have to pay royalties to the music rights organization that has been assigned to collect those royalties by the composer and/or publisher (or whoever has purchased those rights). You do not need ANYONE'S permission to do this. You DO however need to pay the musical rights organization. In this country ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.

If you wish to play a specific RECORDING of a song, besides having to pay the above mentioned royalties to perform the composition, you need the permission of the owners of the RECORDING and all the ARTISTS on the recording. That permission is anywhere from difficult and costly, to completely impossible, to obtain by a podcaster.

The RIAA, which stands for Recording Industry Association of America, doesn't own anything... and doesn't collect any money for anything... it does however, represent the interests of the "recording industry", it's legal affairs and legislative efforts. They will be the folks that pursue you when you use RECORDINGS without permission. Not SONGS... anyone can perform a song provided they pay the royalties.

This is a simplified version of what we are up against. It is much more complicated than that, and there are more fingers in the pie than the major ones I have mentioned.

If you are interested in knowing what you are talking about you should invest in buying yourself a copy of "This Business of Music" by M. William Krasilovky and Sidney Shemel, published by Billboard Books. It's about 700 pages, but you WILL know what you are talking about, and you WILL be able to recognize bad information when you see it.

Also... don't be tempted to believe that "fair use" exceptions will protect you. Unless you are CNN... or MSNBC... you don't have enough money to win a "fair use" case. Your choice is between, be legal, or be at risk. I chose to be at risk for a long time... I recently changed my mind.

[yaz]

my question is that if its not for personal gain, simply just enjoyment, why should it be a big deal? we actually play the music we play so we can listen to it during our breaks...

most of the people that listen to our show hate the music we play...oh well...

[Craig]

It's real simple folks...unless you have explicit permission from the copyright holders for a song (both the songwriter and the recording artist/label) then don't play any part of it or you're open for an expensive lawsuit.

I don't agree with this but that's the way the RIAA has it set up at the moment.

For some more details check out the 2/14 edition of Behind the Scenes:

http://www.godcast.org/mp3/bts050214.mp3

Craig

[yaz]

well, the RIAA is pulling some vatican type shite, that sucks...

[pwfenton]

well, the RIAA is pulling some vatican type shite, that sucks...

What? What has anything here got to do with the Vatican?

[docsnavely]

What has anything here got to do with the Vatican?

more than you'll ever know.... :shock:

[guscave]

well, the RIAA is pulling some vatican type shite, that sucks...

The RIAA does not make these laws. These are basic copyright laws for intellectual properties. BTW another book you'll want to get is " Music, Money & Sucsess by Jefferey & Todd Brabec.

[pwfenton]

What has anything here got to do with the Vatican?

more than you'll ever know.... :shock:

Thanks for that informative answer. We are blessed by your presence in this conversation.

[docsnavely]

lighten up PW....

you don't have to be such a hardass all the time

[pwfenton]

lighten up PW....

you don't have to be such a hardass all the time

Right... and "more than you will ever know" was softass? Give me a break. Just more schoolyard bravado, without any substance. This place could be a fabulous resource for podcasters and listeners. Instead it comes off like a teen chat room. With folks posturing and acting tough, without advancing any knowledge.

[crybabyemokids]

What about websites that offer "Free Downloads" of the music. I'm sure all of them have the "Listen, and if you enjoy please buy the album" sort of cover.

Myspace (http://www.myspace.com) and Pure Volume (http://www.purevolume.com) run on these very principles.

PW, Are you trying to say that everytime someone downloads a song off one of these websites, myspace or purevolume has to pay a royalty to the artist? Because face it, it's almost the same thing as to what we're doing. In fact, directly letting the user download the song is way more "harmful" than to do it through podcasts. IF say someone were to "cut out" the songs from a podcast and make an mp3 and distribute it on P2P networks or whatever[This is probably the main concern of these corporations] it would be much easier to directly download the file from those websites.

We're here to promote these bands, just like those websites, they do it through web pages we do it through audio. The point yaz, and probably all music podcasters, are trying to make is, we're doing this for the good of the band. If we WERE a multi million dollar organisation that's making money off playing your songs, THEN logically any copyright holder would be pissed. But if someone's getting free publicity, noone's going to refuse that.

It's just the threat that non commercial podcasting would sooner or later turn into "Radio 2.0" with people making money off it. That's a valid reason to be worried but at the moment it's free publicity and it would be ridiculous to sue people who're indirectly filling your pockets.


But hey what do I know, I'm just a 17 year old who loves my music and wants nothing more but to get these small bands known to the world. :cry:

[pwfenton]

What about websites that offer "Free Downloads" of the music. I'm sure all of them have the "Listen, and if you enjoy please buy the album" sort of cover.

Myspace (http://www.myspace.com) and Pure Volume (http://www.purevolume.com) run on these very principles.

PW, Are you trying to say that everytime someone downloads a song off one of these websites, myspace or purevolume has to pay a royalty to the artist? Because face it, it's almost the same thing as to what we're doing. In fact, directly letting the user download the song is way more "harmful" than to do it through podcasts. IF say someone were to "cut out" the songs from a podcast and make an mp3 and distribute it on P2P networks or whatever[This is probably the main concern of these corporations] it would be much easier to directly download the file from those websites.

We're here to promote these bands, just like those websites, they do it through web pages we do it through audio. The point yaz, and probably all music podcasters, are trying to make is, we're doing this for the good of the band. If we WERE a multi million dollar organisation that's making money off playing your songs, THEN logically any copyright holder would be pissed. But if someone's getting free publicity, noone's going to refuse that.

It's just the threat that non commercial podcasting would sooner or later turn into "Radio 2.0" with people making money off it. That's a valid reason to be worried but at the moment it's free publicity and it would be ridiculous to sue people who're indirectly filling your pockets.


But hey what do I know, I'm just a 17 year old who loves my music and wants nothing more but to get these small bands known to the world. :cry:

Your arguments are my arguments. I agree with what you say. However, the way it currently works is the way I described. Please don't take my laying out of the facts as an endorsement.

I KNOW that playing music on a podcast sells CDs. I can document loads of times I have done that. I KNOW that when I use an artists music on my podcast I am promoting that artists work.

You are right. It's the music industry that is wrong.

[Craig]

What about websites that offer "Free Downloads" of the music. I'm sure all of them have the "Listen, and if you enjoy please buy the album" sort of cover.
Assuming the site is offering the download of the music legally, unless explicitly stated otherwise the artists who post their music are giving you the right to download the song and listen to it. That's it. If you want to share the music with someone else they need to download it from the site themselves. If you want to use the music in a podcast, you need to get permission from the band or label (whoever holds the copyright for the recording) along with the copyright holder for the song itself. Usually this is as easy as contacting the artist through MySpace or PureVolume but in some cases the music is RIAA-controlled and cannot be used.

There is no such thing as a "listen, and if you enjoy please buy the album" cover for using copyrighted material.

Craig

[crybabyemokids]

What about websites that offer "Free Downloads" of the music. I'm sure all of them have the "Listen, and if you enjoy please buy the album" sort of cover.
Assuming the site is offering the download of the music legally, unless explicitly stated otherwise the artists who post their music are giving you the right to download the song and listen to it. That's it. If you want to share the music with someone else they need to download it from the site themselves. If you want to use the music in a podcast, you need to get permission from the band or label (whoever holds the copyright for the recording) along with the copyright holder for the song itself. Usually this is as easy as contacting the artist through MySpace or PureVolume but in some cases the music is RIAA-controlled and cannot be used.

There is no such thing as a "listen, and if you enjoy please buy the album" cover for using copyrighted material.

Craig

Thing is, there are TONS of RIAA protected artists on there that provide
"legal downloads" of their music. I've personally not looked into the details of Purevolume or whatever, but I've seen sites that go under the "listen and if you enjoy please buy the album" sort of thing. Most of the times the songs available for download are the "famous" songs off the album. There has to be some way the artist can ensure that people still buy his album even after getting "full rights" to his song for free. Hence the "if you like please purchase" strategy.

I've even seen a couple websites that say that we have rights to listen to that song for only 48 hours(called a "test period") or whatever after which we have to delete it. Ridiculously enough these people expect us to delete the songs after 48 hours(provided we like the song). Of course, these websites make sure to hide all these details in the fine print, while they advertise their website as "FREE MP3 DOWNLOADS!!!!"

If an RIAA protected artist has published a song on on one of these sites "legally", there has to be some sort of compensation the copyright holder should get. If I download a song off that website and put it on my iPod, it would be considered illegal and I could get sued by the big-shots while these websites walk away laughing.

[podcastrant.com]

This place could be a fabulous resource for podcasters and listeners. Instead it comes off like a teen chat room. With folks posturing and acting tough, without advancing any knowledge.

Pdub,
You should check out the Pickle. They have the atmosphere you are looking for. http://www.podcastpickle.com

[Craig]

Thing is, there are TONS of RIAA protected artists on there that provide "legal downloads" of their music.
Yes there are, but these have to be sanctioned by the label (which owns the copyright) in order for them to be legal.

I've even seen a couple websites that say that we have rights to listen to that song for only 48 hours(called a "test period") or whatever after which we have to delete it.
They're providing this service illegally.

Craig

[docsnavely]

i agree with chad....

the attitude, and people talk are alot more conductive towards podcasting than here.....

i don't know why, maybe the mods there are a little tougher on bulshitters....

[yaz]

well, the RIAA is pulling some vatican type shite, that sucks...
that was more of a statement to get craig to chuckle...lighten up tightwads...

[kickasspodcast]

This place could be a fabulous resource for podcasters and listeners. Instead it comes off like a teen chat room. With folks posturing and acting tough, without advancing any knowledge.


They why do you go back and forth trading zingers with the very people you say are posturing and acting tough?

Right... and "more than you will ever know" was softass? Give me a break. Just more schoolyard bravado, without any substance. This place could be a fabulous resource for podcasters and listeners. Instead it comes off like a teen chat room. With folks posturing and acting tough, without advancing any knowledge.

Don't be a dick P.W. You can't afford it.

Its called levity.

Now... on to what matters.

WHY ARE PEOPLE SPEAKING IN SUCH GENERAL TERMS!

HERE is an example of a real common policy among bands found at http://archive.org/

Our managing organizations have long encouraged the purely non-commercial exchange of music taped at our concerts and those of our individual members. That a new medium of distribution has arisen - digital audio files being traded over the Internet - does not change our policy in this regard. Our stipulations regarding digital distribution are merely extensions of those long-standing principles and they are as follow:

No commercial gain may be sought by websites offering digital files of our music, whether through advertising, exploiting databases compiled from their traffic, or any other means.
All participants in such digital exchange acknowledge and respect the copyrights of the performers, writers and publishers of the music.
This notice should be clearly posted on all sites engaged in this activity.
We reserve the ability to withdraw our sanction of non-commercial digital music should circumstances arise that compromise our ability to protect and steward the integrity of our work.

Sweet!

Sucks for all the people trying to cash in on "podsafe music", good for all of us who like bands we've actually heard of. ;)

What Craig said about usage w/o permission is right on. I've learned that he is right alot of the time. Unfortunately some people (not including Craig) wish to continue to preach horror stories about the RIAA (which I don't favor, but their role is vital). People who have a vested interest in steering groups of people to their "podsafe" site have furthered the paranoia that unless something is specifically stated to be "PODSAFE" that you simply cannot take the risk of playing.

We aren't stupid, we are Podcasters! We fully realize that each policy holder has entirely different stipulations as to how their material may be used. It is moronic and dishonest to speak in blanket terms about the RIAA or Copyrighted Music or anything lacking in specificity. I trust that Craig is helping to inform and help people err on the side of caution. That is a smart thing to do. But when others spread horror stories and generally paranoid disinformation to others about the RIAA and how copyrighted material can be used, its disapointing. There are no general terms. Any lawyer would tell you this. It all depends on the terms set by the Copyright holder. To not continually recognize this (when one may know better) is even more aggrovating. It can be different for EVERY band.

Read the actual policy of the copyright holder of the music you wish to play. That is all you have to do. Get a lawyer if you want to c.y.a. We have. Hopefully people will begin to realize that they don't have to be a certain age, they don't have to register, they don't have to have their usage tracked in order to use music legally.

Hope this helps-

Jack

PS- I have also read on numerous websites, that if you make a mistake and aren't trying to capitalize on copyrighted music, the RIAA will often work WITH you to get above board. Imagine that? They get a customer instead of a lawsuit. Seems to make sense to me.

[jimk]

This place could be a fabulous resource for podcasters and listeners. Instead it comes off like a teen chat room. With folks posturing and acting tough, without advancing any knowledge.

You mean like when you mock podcasters because of their Alley ranking?

[Craig]

I trust that Craig is helping to inform and help people err on the side of caution.
Absolutely.

There are no general terms. Any lawyer would tell you this. It all depends on the terms set by the Copyright holder.
Actually, it's the other way around. There are general terms that cover each work automatically but each copyright holder has the right to specify how their terms differ from the general terms.

Craig

[kickasspodcast]

There are no general terms. Any lawyer would tell you this. It all depends on the terms set by the Copyright holder.

Actually, it's the other way around. There are general terms that cover each work automatically but each copyright holder has the right to specify how their terms differ from the general terms.

Craig


True that, I guess I was just saying that each copryight policy can differ greatly depending upon the wishes of the copyright holder. Basically what you just said! :) Thanks for the clarification Craig! Word up to the O.C. and have a good holiday!


Jack

Seriously this is what I found when I Google Imaged Searched for "Disturbing Turkey"

http://www.freakingnews.com/entries/7000/7295TACy_w.jpg


:)

[Craig]

Thanks...Happy Thanksgiving to you too and everyone else reading this!

Craig

[Seth]

From my point of view, this whole podsafe adam curry blowout hasn't been that much of a problem *knock knock*. At the risk of sounding like every *****le music snob you've ever hated, I just plain haven't listened to mainstream music since I made the mistake of buying a Bush CD when I was 16. With that aside, forming a relationship with labels and artists is ABSOLUTELY key (not to mention enlivening).

I won't lie. I'm not really interested in much of the material I've listened to over on the podsafe music network. I won't overgeneralize on what I've heard there but suffice to say I haven't found much that fits my taste. That said, I've found many viable alternatives within my interests and one of the best tools I've found on the web is here:

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp

This search tool allows to you to get a better gauge on which artists/labels are affiliated with the RIAA. It's not full-proof but it's a good starting point for when you begin to approach labels and artists with your requests.

The next step is to straight up ask a label or artist (if possible) whether or not you can use a sample of their music in your podcast. In my experience thus far, I've found that they don't even know what a podcast is. After you've explained it to them, be sure that you are talking to someone that is speaking for the copyright holder. Once you have their permission, I would say you've hit a homerun.

From my vantage point, I've had almost no problems and I'm absolutely elated with the permissions I've been getting for my podcast. Again, please please please be sure you are talking to someone that is in control of the proper copyrights (I repeate this only because I lost a permission after an artist admitted he wasn't sure about his legal relationship with his own material) and I would advise going non-RIAA all the way. All in all, this whole podsafe dillema has been a real learning experience for me and I think it's a good thing for podcasting in general because it makes us all aware of what our rights are and what we're up against in the future. Many artist are incredibly open to letting fans use their music, and I've found many that are downright hostile towards the RIAA's practices. Friends and allies can be made in the industry and I hope this sort of thing snowballs into a better situation for both the artist and the fan.

[AaronfromQC]

Jack, you know I love ya man but in this instance you speak far too highly of the RIAA. The sole and only interest of the RIAA is to represent the recording industry. They don't give two sh!ts about the musicians. They do care about computer security friendly companies like Sony. Sony's sole interest is their shareholders. The shareholders number one concern is to make as much money as possible. By law, the company must do everything possible to make money. So there's an organization out there that represents companies who are bound by law to make as much money as they can for shareholders, you can see the problem here.....

The artist may have no problem and may even want you to play their music but the big man up in the suite has other plans for their music. The problem here is the people in the industry don't see the potential and that's actually a good thing for once. Would any of us be playing Brother Love, Adrina Thorpe or Karmyn Tyler if we could play music people recognized? Let's be honest here, probably not. But since the RIAA is such a pain in the *** about things, Brother Love gets to shine and make some money. So my hope is that the quality podsafe musicians become huge, sell records from their own sites and make Sony watch as they get nothing of that money.

Finding good podsafe musicians is hard to do, real hard. Just as hard as fininding a good cd at Tower Records. There are shows out there that work very hard at putting out good music, or at least what they appreciate at there. Digital Detroit Radio, Zaldor's World, The Big Show (yeah I gotta plug my show), Plan Nine Rock Show, Bulldog Live, Riding w/the Window down are all shows that put out some of the better podsafe music out there. So give them a listen, you might find something you like.