SERIOUS question for slaygon

Subzero · Post by **Subzero** » 07/12/2004 - 20:41

Do you have to have a radio license to broadcast on the internet?

Phantom66uk · Post by **Phantom66uk** » 07/12/2004 - 21:20

I'm not slaygon (obviously) but I wouldn't have thought that radio licenses apply to internet radio unless perhaps you're playing copyrighted music.

I'm sure the only things that you'd need to worry about would be having a decent connection with a substantial upload, a great collection of music for the listeners and some technical knowledge to keep it running all smooth.

I'm sure slaygon or someone else will give the 'Official' word

Post by **Slaygon** » 07/12/2004 - 22:04

What Phantom66uk said. ;>

Pretty much says it all.

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 08/12/2004 - 0:30

The official position is: actually, the music IS copyrighted, so technically Slay would require a licence, but since no record labels are being infringed, no one cares. And C64Audio.com has given Slay Radio its official blessing to play commercial C64 CD tracks and the music that we administer, such as Rob Hubbard, Martin Galway, etc. That pretty much covers it, since all the performers are also fine with Slay Radio

Internet radio stations do technically need a licence.

Chris

Subzero · Post by **Subzero** » 08/12/2004 - 9:22

Ok ta chaps - what I was told was troo then....

Post by **tas** » 08/12/2004 - 9:51

well ofcourse sub, anywhere that publically broadcasts music needs a license. Be it on a radio or in a church.

I used to be a videoman for weddings n the like with my dads buisness years back and even churches required a license. Infact we too required a license when we put music on the video.

Post by **Slaygon** » 09/12/2004 - 17:55

Chris Abbott wrote:The official position is: actually, the music IS copyrighted, so technically Slay would require a licence, but since no record labels are being infringed, no one cares. And C64Audio.com has given Slay Radio its official blessing to play commercial C64 CD tracks and the music that we administer, such as Rob Hubbard, Martin Galway, etc. That pretty much covers it, since all the performers are also fine with Slay Radio
Internet radio stations do technically need a licence.

Ok.
What kind of license would I need to be fully legal? Who do I get it from and how?
I would have thought that music provided to the masses for free, with the intent to get it spread, also for free, wouldn't need licenses to broadcast, be it over the internet or over the airwaves. I haven't read up on copyright law and stuff like that, but logically, this would be the case. Not that law is always logical, but anyway. =)

Obviously, I am talking about the freely available music over at R:K:O and stuff that I have gotten from the composers directly now. I understand the need for licenses for commersial stuff like anything from c64audio.com (which you so kindly have given SLAY Radio the blessing to play for free, that we always trash somehow with talk so stream rippers won't have recordings of entire songs =)

Don Peppino · Post by **Don Peppino** » 09/12/2004 - 18:05

Slaygon wrote:What kind of license would I need to be fully legal? Who do I get it from and how?

The licence from the Mafia, what else?

But you've got it a long time ago....

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 09/12/2004 - 18:10

Precis of the below: just because a cover of a track is meant to be given away free doesn't mean that the owner of the track covered would allow it: the person who covered the track has not acquired rights over the thing covered.

The thing is: draw a distinction between the actual music content (i.e. "Monty on the Run"), and the aural realisation of it ("Boz's Monty on the Run Super Duper High Score Cover"). That means for radio broadcast you're actually dealing with two licences: in the UK, that means PRS (for the music behind the track), and PPL (for the actual track itself). If you're offering things for download it gets even more complicated, since you're also looking at needing permission from MCPS for the "mechanical reproduction" aspect. You can have permission from the artist, but still not have permission from the publisher.

<<<
I would have thought that music provided to the masses for free, with the intent to get it spread, also for free, wouldn't need licenses to broadcast, be it over the internet or over the airwaves. I haven't read up on copyright law and stuff like that, but logically, this would be the case. Not that law is always logical, but anyway. =)
>>>
Well, there's another component to that argument: one is never entitled to give someone else's intellectual property away for free without permission: primarily because the owners of the IP are charging for it. And that person would be creating unfair competition for them by giving it away. And because they're usually entitled to have a say in just how it gets exploited. Free ringtones, for example: it creates a direct competition with the people who have bothered to get a licence (and thus charge). That's why people distributing ringtones on the net (anyone!) needs to get a ringtone licence from their local copyright agency and contribute 10p per download, even if they're giving them away.

Of course, in real life record labels fight like rabid dogs to get their stuff played on the radio, because they don't lose out by it: they gain exposure and listeners. But performance income is a major part of the income from any publisher, radio stations being a large part of that.

But, in your case, no one is complaining. And it's only when complaints are made that these things start becoming problems.

Basically, I wouldn't bother. All they'll do is charge you an annual fee for providing a free service. OK, so a lot of that money would go towards Rob and the like, but most would end up in someone else's pot (for various reasons). If you did get a licence, you'd also be entitled to play pretty much anything, though.

It would be STIM/NCB providing you with the licence in Sweden, BTW.

Chris

@TAS: I saw what you did... hehe

Post by **tas** » 09/12/2004 - 18:25

lol, you have good eyes

i wrote it then deleted it, cos i knew i was talking bollocks!

Then i was reasurred i was talking bollocks when i read yours

Post by **Slaygon** » 09/12/2004 - 18:51

Chris Abbott wrote:The thing is:

Oh. Ok then. ;>

Post by **Slaygon** » 09/12/2004 - 18:54

Slaygon wrote:
Chris Abbott wrote:The thing is:
Oh. Ok then. ;>

Uhm. What I was trying to say, but failed to do, was: Thanks for the answer! I'll go back and read it again when I'm not ill and not at work. =)