similar to: mp3pro and the mp3 streaming license

Thomas, You should post this hear, as it's just as relevant ;) Hey guys, how do you feel now that you all owe Thompson $2k per year? Vorbis look more interesting now :) It's really disgusting how the technology is now worth more than the music. jack. ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Kirk <thomas@arkena.com> ----- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:58:23 +0200 From: Thomas Kirk

> I agree with that much of it, but that doesn't seem to me like such a "bad" > deal. I applaud the vorbis effort, don't get me wrong, but I don't think > it's evil for Frauhofer/IIS to charge people who want to use their > technology if they're using it for profit. It may be ugly and unsavory, > but it's nothing to get terribly upset over. I

Red alert people. When ogg starts to make money for someone (whoever if anyone at all,) then the boys in the legal team at Fraunhofer will throw something at it in the form of "hey, you are stepping on our IP" and then sue. Until then, what is the point. So.... Until then, this argument is pointless. Lithium On Sat, 09 June 2001, Sean /The RIMBoy/ wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Jun

> I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not charging anything. As > mentioned, the royalties to record labels still stand if you don't follow > the rules, but this will be true regardless of the format > (mp3/vorbis/whatever.) Do you have any ads on your site? That's probably streaming related revenue. Do you list on shoutcast.com? There's definately

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Asymmetric wrote: > It should be noted that this fee applies only if you are delivering in mp3 > format "for profit." If you're doing it for free, you don't have to pay > them a dime.. from the quoted URL... > > ---- > "If MP3 is used for free distribution on the Internet, we will not charge > royalties," he says. But

> >So uh, you think it's worth more for mp3, than the actual music > >involved? > > > >Come on. > > Hmm.. so what you're saying is that for under $2K I can get an unlimited > distribution license from the recording industry? To burn, distribute, > sell and market as much of their material as I like? Wow. Sign me up. Streaming music is $250

At 09:52 6/9/2001 -0600, you wrote: >Thomas, > >You should post this hear, as it's just as relevant ;) > >Hey guys, how do you feel now that you all owe Thompson $2k per year? >Vorbis look more interesting now :) > >It's really disgusting how the technology is now worth more than the >music. It should be noted that this fee applies only if you are delivering in

> performances. That's ~125,000 performances a year, which equates to about > $180,000. > > Significantly higher than the Frauhofer license, unless you generate > $9Mil/yr or more in revenue from your stream. The rates are in arbitration, and I doubt they will come out anywhere near that amount. It just isn't feasible, even for large companies. Reember, tradidional

Hi, Is there any Royalty one needs to pay when using the inbuilt exisimg asterisk on hold music or when using any other mp3 from a music album. I think we need to pay for the later, but I am not sure if we need to pay for the inbuilt asterisk(freepbx) on hold music. -- Deepak --------------------------------- Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who

Last year I arranged with my college radio station and ITS department to webcast the radiostation using icecast. The webcast has been a wonderful success so far. My problem now is not technical, but political. A few days ago I recieved the following message from the station director: ================================================================== hey josh, i talked to [faculty advisor]

Oh, I almost forgot... If you're going under compulsory licensing: 1) Listener requests cannot be honored, otherwise you will end up labeled an "interactive service" along with Audiogalaxy Rhapsody & the like. Which means more & more expensive royalties. 2) You cannot play more than 3 songs of the same album in any 3 hour period (no more than 2 in a row). Nor can you

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Jack Moffitt wrote: > > ================================================================== > > hey josh, > > i talked to [faculty advisor] today and was told we must stop our online > > streaming. reasons for this rash decision involve around a new law that > > was put in place over the summer saying that stations who broadcast online > >

Ditto Scott - you nailed it !! But the DMCA actually sets rules on requests and processing them without being considered "interactive" - for instance the time frame allowed from when requests are made and then processed and actually air (minimum 60 minutes), to displaying your playlist - (can not be displayed public in the order of actual performance) basically as long as you never

At 13:28 6/9/2001 -0600, you wrote: >Do you have any ads on your site? That's probably streaming related >revenue. Nope. >Do you list on shoutcast.com? There's definately stremaing related >revenue there. Yes, but the revenue is not coming to me. >Do you broadcast through live365? DEFINATELY streaming related revenue. See above. >Maybe you won't have to pay,

Hello all, it seems that at least some of the points that make OGG Vorbis superior to MP3 will be eliminated (I still prefer OGG :) Roel VdB wrote to [MP3encoder] list: -------------------------><8---------CUT HERE-------------------------- I hope Gabriel commits Jons complete LAME Tag code soon to the CVS. The LAME tag would makes all CBR(>=64kbit/s)/ABR/VBR LAME files have +

At 13:52 6/9/2001 -0600, you wrote: >So uh, you think it's worth more for mp3, than the actual music >involved? > >Come on. Hmm.. so what you're saying is that for under $2K I can get an unlimited distribution license from the recording industry? To burn, distribute, sell and market as much of their material as I like? Wow. Sign me up. >You think it would be nice if

Greetings! I've been asked to set-up an Icecast stream / live webcam for a small club, and I'm worried about what kind of payments the owner would have to make to stream the club's music over the internet. I found this article: <http://www.copyright.gov/carp/webcasting_rates_final.html> but I still don't know what to make of it. Would we have to pay $0.07 per song the DJ

At 14:45 6/9/2001 -0600, you wrote: >Streaming music is $250 minimum, with, I believe, less than 2% >royalties. For $500 a year you can stream all the music in the world >pretty much, prefectly legally. If you make a profit, it's a royalty. >But MP3's royalty here is higher than the royalty for the actual music. >That is out of whack. Especially in an age where we are

At 16:30 6/9/2001 -0600, you wrote: >broadcasting online. Nor are they subject to the compulsory license. Right.. it would be nice to see online broadcasters treated the same way. >There's still a possibility that the DMCA will be dismantled before the >arbitration is even finished. You shouldn't have to pay the RIAA >anyway, and the fact that they are even involved is

Basically, to legally broadcast music you must: A) Obtain permissions from the copyright holder (usually the publisher, record label) of the *composition*. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC offer compulsory licenses for all of the artists they represent, fees based upon roughly how many listeners your station has & how many songs in your broadcast are by artists/composers they represent. B) Obtain