around the 25/10/07 Bill Cammack mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me.... that: >Even what you're saying is interesting to me. Why should shop owners >need to pay a fee to play music in their shops when someone could sit >down at their shop and play music from their radio or laptop >license-free? I mean, I understand WHY... since the music is adding >value to the owner's shop, but you see how it doesn't make any sense? >You can play your radio, that you bought with your own money, that's >receiving music from radio stations, in the park and pay nothing. You >can play your own CDs, that you bought with your own money, on a >laptop and pay nothing. One can argue that the licensing fee was >built into the CD that the person bought or whatever media the radio >station's playing. However, if that's the case, why isn't that same >license built into music that someone on YouTube bought with their own >money and put in the background of their non-commercial video? > >Seems like more than a DOUBLE standard... Seems like A FEW different
I'll answer this in bits :-) there is a distinction made between personal use nad broadcasting. turning on the stereo in the shop becomes broadcasting. it isn't about adding value, it is simply a technical definition of broadcasting. Radio stations here pay APRA fees, which cost more than the restaurant's :-) As do dance clubs. The fee is reasonable and its aim is not to stop the practice but to return royalties to the artists. I don't know the specifics, but I do know that radio stations sent their playlists to APRA, and also that they do spot audits just to try to get an idea of the sors of material being played so that they have a reasonable idea of who should be getting the royalties. youtube, you're broadcasting. So the rules are different for making a home movie that once upon a time really was a home movie (ie was only viewed at home by immediate family/friends). Personally I like the licence system as it provides revenue back to copyright holders. Related to all this, i know we all would like to use our favourite bands on our videos but if they have copyright, or signed it away, and we don't have a licence ot use it, we can't. But at the moment while this is pretty silly in this day and age, my response is just to find material that can be used and encourage and support this alterrnative copyright economy and regime. I'm a sad idealist, i don't think you will get far with Sony et al, so I prefer to go around them by using material they don't control. if we do this enough then the power of the big owners must decline simply because they no longer control access to publishing/distribution/broadcasting and as importantly now republishing/redistribution/rebroadcasting/remxing. -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A
