• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Attention Web Streamers

When it comes to any music recorded before February 15, 1972, there is no federal copyright protection so the intellectual property czar will have no effect on this music unless the federal copyright laws are changed to include music recorded before February 15, 1972, which is unlikely.
 
I don't believe that will hold water as far as the DMCA rules are concerned, which is probably another method they would/could use to define illegal streaming.

I still wouldn't want to be in the shoes of somebody who gets their site pulled or otherwise gets nailed for not playing by the rules. If you think paying the royalties is expensive I bet they're just champing at the bit waiting to make an example out of their first case.
 
And what are they going to do to the 15 year old kid streaming a few tunes to a dozen of his High School friends? Take away his Birthday? The kid has nothing, and they will get nothing.
 
LowPayDJ said:
And what are they going to do to the 15 year old kid streaming a few tunes to a dozen of his High School friends? Take away his Birthday? The kid has nothing, and they will get nothing.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, being broke doesn't mean a person is immune from prosecution or civil lawsuits. Judgements can last for decades, cloud a person's ability to buy a car, a home, even rent an apartment - it can lead to paycheck deductions that last for years.

As for making unlicensed streaming a felony, a felony conviction would also follow a person the rest of their life - just as movie piracy convictions already do today.

I don't agree with it, by the way. But since the labels have lobbyists and the people don't, guess who's probably going to get their wish...
 
A felony? You can be sued...but going to prison for 1-5 years or more for streaming? There is no money for that in the system.
 
LCJohn said:
the labels have lobbyists and the people don't, guess who's probably going to get their wish...
Click to expand...
The labels also realize how they are generally regarded by the public with respect to their attempts to prosecute for file sharing. I ask people why they feel comfortable illegally downloading entire music libraries (Gigabytes worth). Their invariable response is that it's easier to get free access to music illegally - the legacy of the failed DRM - and that the labels deserve to go out of business.

The labels will have to weigh how much more they want to alienate their potential customers vs the benefit. The labels don't stand to gain much financially by reducing illegal streaming - reduced access to streams would likely result in an increase in illegal downloading, which the labels and the government cannot control without regulation that goes far beyond what the constituency will accept.

The labels have had better luck partnering with business models that bring more access and convenience to the consumer than the illegal options (multiple platform access to services such as iTunes, Pandora, Last FM, Slacker and satellite radio).
 
Boycott the recording industry.When this performance tax going to get pass.they cant even balance the countrys budget by this friday the 8th.Keep lining the pockets with the poor peoples money.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom