Of course we all know these groups would certainly not appreciate the audible distrobution of their bread and butter. However, I assume your scope is only within the U.S. , whereas personaly in Canada. Our laws governed a right to freedom of information in regards to online content. More or less, if you find it online it must be public content (unless that's been changed by now, I haven't heard anything). Does anyone know if running adds in your streaming media would be a cause for concern if it was only locally based mom'n pop merchants? On 10/18/05, chip <chiapas@riseup.net> wrote:> hi > > Michael Hobbs wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Some time ago I emailed this list and mentioned (as well as a couple of > > techinical queries) that I was trying to contact the PRS for information > > on the copyright licencing requirements of a non-profit on-line radio > > station, a few people expressed interest in this and asked I keep them > > updated. Well I just sent my third email (transcript below) informing them > > that I will assume a further lack of response as permission from them to > > play whatever. > > don't forget PPL - there's more on this here: > > http://www.mediauk.com/article/1 > > you could always contact the Community Media Association who run a free > streaming service for members and who are in some sort of dialogue with > the MCPS-PRS: > > http://www.commedia.org.uk/ > > but at the end of the day if the MCPS-PRS are too overwhelmed to be able > to respond to your emails and letters then it sounds like they hardly have > the resources and will power to enforce the licencing requirements that > are in place. > > cheers > > chip > > _______________________________________________ > Icecast mailing list > Icecast@xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast >
hi Justin Bot wrote:> Of course we all know these groups would certainly not appreciate the > audible distrobution of their bread and butter. However, I assume your > scope is only within the U.S. , whereas personaly in Canada. Our laws > governed a right to freedom of information in regards to online > content. More or less, if you find it online it must be public content > (unless that's been changed by now, I haven't heard anything).we were are talking about the situation in the UK. more info about all this here for UK folks: http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/ http://www.ppluk.com/ the Community Media Association is currently lobbying for a blanket license agreement for UK webcasters: http://www.commedia.org.uk/ cheers chip
chip wrote:> hi > > we were are talking about the situation in the UK. > > more info about all this here for UK folks: > > http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/ > http://www.ppluk.com/ > > the Community Media Association is currently lobbying for a blanket > license agreement for UK webcasters: > > http://www.commedia.org.uk/ > > cheers > > chipYeah, I e-mailed them, as I'd like to setup a stream for a charity choir I work with. As far as I can tell normally you need licences for three areas: 1. Owner of the recording (Usually the record label) 2. Performer(s) (whoever sung/played etc) 3. Song writer (whoever wrote the song in the first place) Well in our situation I made the recordings, the choir sang them, so the only bit we need to cover is the song writers, which in some cases belongs to the choir too. I e-mailed (what I think are) the relevant authorities in the UK, and the only one that bothered to reply was with a standard boilerplate e-mail with the combinded online PRS-MPRC licence application forms on, the two we don't flaming need. So I say sod'em. If they can't be bothered to respond we're going to do it anyway. We're standing here trying to give them cash and they ignore us, what a way to run a business! I'll have to remember this the next time someone from the BPI moans about the "poor artists" that are the victims. They're victims alright... of the lazy useless BPI! EvilOverlord