12 replies to this topic

[Jon]

What are your thoughts on having music on a site just for people to listen to.

Not for download but just made available for listening.

Is this riding the edge of copyright? Or no problem?

[Brad]

Not a lawyer, but I don't think you can rebroadcast (renarrowcast?) music without permission.

Virgin radio has a do-hicky that you can put on your site to let visitors listen to their Internet radio stream - that might let you offer music without the worries.


Do you think people will really use the music?

[bragadocchio]

And, you don't mean, for instance, having ILoveJackDaniels singing Swing Low Sweet Chariot

There are a number of things I do know:

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is pretty serious about Piracy. From their web site:

Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of "streaming" technologies from the Internet.

Their lawsuits are targeting people who would never expected to be sued by some of the largest and wealthiest corporations on the face of the earth.

It isn't copyright infringement if you have permission, and getting permission often costs money. You're not really sending music out as if you're an internet radio station, but they may see this as applying to you, too. The RIAA's web site discusses webcasting in a FAQ that's pretty informative. It's at:

http://www.riaa.com/...casting_faq.asp

If you have a number of songs created and performed by other people, and you're concerned about the copyright holders, you might want to look into webcasting requirements.

Radio Stations don't have to pay recording copyright owners. Why should Web site owners? That question is asked and answered in the FAQ. I'm not sure that it's a very good answer.

The Radio and Internet Newsletter stays on top of legal issues involved with music on the internet.

Keep in mind that there are quite a few people who disagree with the RIAA. But, a copyright infringement defense could be pretty costly to maintain.

It's a shame, Jon.

There are songs on the web that are in the public domain. There are others from people who might give permission without having to pay.

You can find a number of artists (possibly into the thousands) who have songs on their sites. They might not mind your putting their songs on your site if you ask first.

[Jon]

I don't understand what the difference is between having people come to your "home" and listening to music and having people come to your "site" and listening to music......except the number of people.

They're not taking the music with them, the music remains where it is. No one is making money off of it, no ad's are being sold, and no one leaves with any copies.

[bragadocchio]

Yep. I agree with you. You would expect the law to echo common sense. But there are lots of times where it doesn't.

There's a very real possibility that someone would come across your site and listen to a song that they hadn't heard before, and actually go out and buy the CD. I could see that happening.

But what the Recording Industry seems to be thinking is that if the milk is free, no one will ever buy the cow. No one will purchase CDs if we let copies of them stream from anywhere on the web. Well damn! Turn on your radio, record executives. The songs are there. No one is stopping anyone from taping them, either.

From an excellent article by Jonathan Zittrain, The Copyright Cage covers the mess that is copyright law.

Recall the reaction of the Motion Picture Association of America to the prospect of a VCR. "The VCR is to the American film producer . . . as the Boston Strangler was to the woman alone," warned Jack Valenti, the president of the powerful group. In the now-famed Sony case of 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the VCR was not an illegal instrument of contributory copyright infringement. Valenti to this day rues the loss despite the staggering revenues gleaned from video rentals ever since.

Here's another:

Attempts to reconcile the colliding regimes of statute and practicality, law and life, have been hamfisted at best. A formal report by a commission chartered by the British Patent and Trademark Office suggests, without a trace of self-consciousness, that we encourage schoolchildren to include the © symbol on all their homework.

It also discusses the webcaster issues.

[Jon]

From the article "The Copyright Cage"
"The law—Title 17 of the federal code—proscribes such acts as the public performance of music without payment to the composer......"

That's funny because most musicians out there that are being protected by todays copy right laws probably started out in small groups or bands playing "other" people's music.

What's next, are the small garage/bar bands going to have to start paying royalties for every song they play that's not their own creation.

[DianeV]

> public performance

I think that's the issue. Your home is not "public", and so playing a video for friends is not an issue.


© 2003 Diane Vigil. All Rights Reserved.

[bragadocchio]

:rofl:

Good one, Diane!

What's next, are the small garage/bar bands going to have to start paying royalties for every song they play that's not their own creation.

We'd see quite a few less cover bands. Think about all the people who do sampling, too. There have been quite a few legal battles over that, when the "samples" are recorded.

[RisaBB]

Hello,

I did a search and just found this post from 3 years ago.

I just want to confirm what Bill said and that it's still relevant.

It is NOT OK to put music on your site without permission and paying royalties.

I just hung up from a potential DJ client who already has music on his site.

He wants a form on his site so the bride and groom can choose online what music they want to play.

For ex. for the First Dance there will be a list of 20 songs and you can hear each song before you choose it.

I asked him where this music is coming from and he said that he uploaded all of the songs to his server and that he found out that it's OK to do this. (I think his prior web designer told him it's OK.)

So, based on this post, I can feel pretty confident telling him that it's illegal to do this and that I couldn't work for him if this is what he wanted, right?

Thanks.

Risa

[Black_Knight]

Actually, if you invite enough people to your home, it counts as a concert, and that too requires that you pay royalties for 'broadcasting' the music to a sizeable audience.

Risa, it means seek genuine legal advice for the laws in the jurisdiction involved really. Here there's little doubt it is illegal.

[Ruud]

On that note, no pun intended, even "just" providing samples is no way out, at least not in the USA. Several rulings in cases where "sampling" for other songs was involved have come down in favor of the original artists. Full royalties have to be paid to those artists whom you sampled from.

If money is an issue, and it could easily become so, an alternative would be to point to places on the web where said songs or samples are already available. Amazon.com features "previews" of various tracks while Rhapsody, an online music service (US only), comes with 25 free songs/month.

[RisaBB]

Thanks, guys!

Risa

[Jozian]

I've dealt with and negotiated some contracts directly with the music and video industries.

While their approach, through RIAA and directly, is pretty stupid in my mind, they are on solid legal ground.

They are actively searching for violations - even small ones that make little sense monetarily - and they are not taking prisoners. The strategy is to build case law in their favor and to change the mindset people have that music is free to distribute.

I especially wouldnt risk it on any site site that generates any kind of business

-Jeff