Is it possible to stream WITHOUT owing royalties?

[The Beave]

Well I operate a Part 15 Station. I dont pay royalties. And I certainly dont plan on it either. They can kiss my a**.

Do you plan on going to jail for copyright infringement?

Better read the law... Having a really small station on AM certainly does not exempt you.
But an infringement judgement will get your station seized.

www.ascap.com

Just thought you should know.

 

[JeeperOne]

Hi everyone:

If I'm not mistaken (hey, it could happen), Part 15 stations are exempt from royalties, since it's assumed that on a signal that small (if it's legal!), you're simply beaming your own music to radios on your property.

No, not true.. BMI has been trying to get Part 15 stations to cough up money and license them...

But if you utilize a stream service such as Live365 like radiowayne & I do which covers royalty payments if you get a personal account, you won't have to worry about a thing besides running the station itself.

Cheers

 

[JeeperOne]

Hi everyone:

Mr. Lowpay, obviously you have never dealt with extortionists like ASCRAP or BMI. They also now license beauty shops, drug stores and bowling alleys. I believe it's anyplays with a radio with more than 1 speaker.

Mr. Walker, Part 15 radio is certainly NOT exempt.

I used to own 4 stations and sold them i 1985. I know that they take roughly a bit more than 2% of a commercial stations GROSS REVENUE - not just a fee. Part 15's must pay a fee.

If they catch you they will CERTAINLY SUE, no if's ands or buts. They will WIN because they represent the composer's work, and unless you pay, you better NOT play.

Well I operate a Part 15 Station. I dont pay royalties. And I certainly dont plan on it either. They can kiss my a**.

If you broadcast copyrighted material & aren't streaming through one of the aforementioned hosting providers, The labels WILL kiss it.

Only it will be via a process server armed with legal documents indicating you are being sued.

You can count on it.

 

[RadioMan203]

There seems to be a simple misunderstanding of terms as far as "stations" go:

A Part 15 "station" is basically an iPod modulator - nothing more. the day that people go buy themselves a $20 modulator and get a bill from ASCAP and the like is the day I burn all my music and tell them all to go stuff it. A Part 15 "station" is little more than radio for one's own backyard.

Streaming is totally different. I used Live365 with their bundled royalty coverage for my streams and I would highly advise anybody who streams, no matter what the size of the stream is, to go with Live635, LoudCity, SWCast, etc and make certain they are covered. Streaming is going to be the new moneymaker for the RIAA, ClownExchange (oops, SoundExchange) and the like so they will go after streams not paying royalties with vengeance ... especially now that all the file swappers pretty much took them to task and creamed them. Streaming will be monitored more closely than the cop waiting to catch a jaywalker!

 

[JeeperOne]

Hi everyone:

There seems to be a simple misunderstanding of terms as far as "stations" go:

Yeah. And it's on yur end.

A Part 15 "station" is basically an iPod modulator - nothing more. the day that people go buy themselves a $20 modulator and get a bill from ASCAP and the like is the day I burn all my music and tell them all to go stuff it. A Part 15 "station" is little more than radio for one's own backyard.

Try telling that to the record labels & to the FCC. It's LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as broadcast radio.

Streaming is totally different. I used Live365 with their bundled royalty coverage for my streams and I would highly advise anybody who streams, no matter what the size of the stream is, to go with Live635, LoudCity, SWCast, etc and make certain they are covered. Streaming is going to be the new moneymaker for the RIAA, ClownExchange (oops, SoundExchange) and the like so they will go after streams not paying royalties with vengeance ... especially now that all the file swappers pretty much took them to task and creamed them. Streaming will be monitored more closely than the cop waiting to catch a jaywalker!

Agreed, which is ALL THE MORE reason that there needs to be someone overseeing SoundExtortion.

As it is now, Washington seems to think that SoundExtortion can somehow police itself, which we all know can't be done. That makes about as much sense as allowing the low-security risk inmates in a prison RUN the prison instead of staffing it with guards & a warden.

Don't get me wrong. I DO agree that SE should go after those who are streaming (Or otherwise transmitting) copyrighted material to the public without paying royalties or having any desire to (Like a certain other poster on this board who seems to think SE can kiss his a**). But I DO NOT believe they should be going after people who actually give a damn about compensating artists whose work is not posted on the PodSafe Music Network or similar sites.

Just my opinion....

Cheers

 

[LowPayDJ]

Anyone can sue anyone else these days. However collecting is something different. Even if you have a court judgement, it still doesn't mean you'll get the money. You can't get blood from a stone.

 

[LCJohn]

Anyone can sue anyone else these days. However collecting is something different. Even if you have a court judgement, it still doesn't mean you'll get the money. You can't get blood from a stone.

But you can ruin the stone's credit, preventing them from getting a good job, a house loan, car loan, etc with that judgement.

Nobody has ever mounted a successful defense to a lawsuit on the sole basis of not having any money.

 

[LowPayDJ]

Credit Lmao Good Job?! Pleease

Anyone with no credit, that is self employed with basicly no assets, what are you going to do,..take away their birthday? All you would have is a big judgement that you will never collect.

There are plenty of people in this country that live under the radar. Many are self employed, and they hide their money in ways that it can't be touched. If they don't own a house, or deal with banks, then what?

 

[LCJohn]

If they don't own a house, or deal with banks, then what?

Copyright law infringement is considered a Federal crime and penalties may include fines up to $250,000 and/or jail terms up to six years. So, to answer your question, there's always a little jail time

Honestly, arguing in favor of breaking the law on the grounds that penniless people are immune from punishment just sounds a little foolish to me. Violations of federal statutes are not just civil matters - they are criminal matters too.

The CRB rates are absurd. I think even SoundExchange realizes that. But negotiating a resonable rate is far better than risking personal freedom. The jails are full of people who never figured they'd get caught - that's all I'm saying.

 

[LowPayDJ]

Putting someone in jail for playing a song that they have already bought and paid for, is like putting someone in jail for giving someone a ride in your car. OK, maybe that's a stretch.

But there really needs to fair rules regarding this.

A Non-Profit, for fun station should be exempt from any payments. Being non-profit, there is no money to take fees from. It's hard enough for most stations to come up with the fees for web space and a streaming host as it is.

Stations that operate for profit should be charged a sliding scale on fees. A station that bills $200 a month, should be paying less then a station billing $5000 a month. I'm in full agreement that if someone is making money off of someone elses work, then their needs to be some sort of compensation. Lets just be fair about it.

I know plenty of small internet radio operators, and NONE of them pay. None! Only the big operators pay. And that is because they are the only ones that can afford to pay.

One that I talk to quite regularly said to me, "let them put me in jail". "Then I won't have to pay rent, buy food, or pay for anything anymore." "The Government can pay for everything for me." Although I don't share that attitude, I can see where he's coming from.

 

[easyfm]

I know plenty of small internet radio operators, and NONE of them pay. None!

.. then they are all THIEVES & CRIMINALS - it's really as simple as that ..

 

[Starbucks]

Please, I hate stupid statements. You don't think attorneys from Sound Exchange are theives. Let's just call them parasitic opportunist. So they they sue you for streaming music....that justifies all the other crime in America. So far, no CEO or mortgage broker has been arrested or sued....but your a crook for streaming music to 25 people online. Let's hear it Mr. Doogooder.

 

[easyfm]

Please, I hate stupid statements.

You don't think attorneys from Sound Exchange are theives.

.. er .. and you say you hate stupid statements? .. how stupid is that one then .. (correct spelling is presumably optional).

To answer your absurd question, no, the attorneys from Sound Exchange are doing the job that they are paid to do .. upholding the law. If you don't like the law, then lobby someone to have it changed, don't just break it because you can't be bothered to abide by the laws of the country in which you live. Law breakers are the real parasites.

 

[LCJohn]

I know plenty of small internet radio operators, and NONE of them pay. None! Only the big operators pay. And that is because they are the only ones that can afford to pay.

Over ten thousand small webcasters are broadcasting legally via Live365, SWCast and LoudCity. So I have to dispute the notion that only the big operators pay. Coverage for small stations at outfits like those start out at about $30 a month. That's more affordable than the penalty for operating illegally, and most hobbies cost a little money anyway.

Sure, there will always be webcasters who choose to fly under the radar and operate without paying royalties. They know the risks they are taking and if they're just broadcasting privately to a group of buddies, chances are they won't ever get caught.

But the average webcaster presumably wants to attract listeners and it's hard to do that while also staying invisible to the Performance Rights Organizations.

The real issue, IMO, is that the new rates determined in 2007, barring any settlement that may still materialize, are so high that no webcaster can afford them. The notion that any internet radio outfit broadcasting to just 1000 people at a time should pay quarter of a million dollars annually to the labels and artists is economically ludicrous. How that flawed math escaped the CRB and Congress still just stuns me.

To understand how I arrived at the $250,000 number for 1000 listeners, here's the flow...

15 songs per hour avg X $0.0019 per song per listener (2010 rate) = $0.0285 per hour per listener
24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year...
$0.0285 x 24 x 365 = $249.66 per listener per year.
1000 listeners at $249.66 per listener is $246,660 annually

By terrestrial standards, and audience of 1000 is miniscule. The new rates are ridiculous, which is why negotiations continue between webcasters and SoundExchange to find a reasonable solution.

And to address the original question on this topic, yes - it is possible to stream without paying royalties legally. Either be a talk radio operation, or obtain releases from the copyright holders (artist, label, composer, songwriter, etc) for each work you play.

 

[Starbucks]

Please, I hate stupid statements.

You don't think attorneys from Sound Exchange are theives.

. er .. and you say you hate stupid statements? .. how stupid is that one then .. (correct spelling is presumably optional).


>>>>>>So I mistyped thieves....so what does that have to do with your stupid statement. Does everyone have to respond to you with an essay report or something?


To answer your absurd question, no, the attorneys from Sound Exchange are doing the job that they are paid to do .. upholding the law. If you don't like the law, then lobby someone to have it changed, don't just break it because you can't be bothered to abide by the laws of the country in which you live. Law breakers are the real parasites.

>>>>>This law was out to discourage people from streaming period!....If it was 250.00 dollars a year, i can deal with that. Not $250,000. When laws get to be communistic, dictative, or absurd, people will rebel. But the nice pacifist doo-gooder man is willing to except anything because it's the law. It's a law that most people find ridiculous and never voted for.

 

[easyfm]

But the nice pacifist doo-gooder man is willing to except anything because it's the law.

Yes, you may prefer anarchy, but I like to live in a lawful democracy.