Comments on: Podshow's Gold Mine, the RIAA, Sound Exchange, and sucking less

By: Web Radio RCM

Web Radio RCM — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:05:00 +0000

Hello,

I discover your blog with a research on the radio.
I use it to announce you the arrival of the new website of RCM (Small French local radio).
I also offer you to listen to us ( http://www.rcmlaradio.fr a ‘good morning’ on Tchat will please us).

Excuse me for bad English, it is not my native language (if you speak three languages you are trilingual, if you speak two languages you are bilingual and if you speak a single language you are French

Thank you for this small message on your blog.

Zeb

By: Ron

Ron — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:32:52 +0000

All legal jargon aside, I think that any creation, whether it is music, writing, poetry, etc. should be protected as a work of original content. It is important to remember why these laws exist, they act also as an incentive for those who are afraid of never collecting on their work.

By: Ron

Ron — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:32:00 +0000

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:34:28 +0000

I don’t know, Todd, but let me tell you this. When it comes to savants and attorneys and all that, you will not find a greater superhero than Whitney Hoffman. In addition to being a podcaster, an organizer of PodCamp NYC, and an all around great person, she’s also a kick-ass lawyer. Glad to see the two of you are collaborating on PodCamp Philly.

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:34:00 +0000

By: Jersey Todd

Jersey Todd — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:54:06 +0000

I can’t believe that I got a “C” in copyright law…all I can remember is something about Ansell Adams paintings and that I had a crush on the girl in the front row that I never spoke to. Yeah, I really accomplished something by taking that elective.

That being said, I’m still punting on this one…like anything else, nothing’s certain until a Judge says its so, and even then, there’s always Appeals and the like…

Wasn’t Adam’s savant-attorney supposed to do some research and come back to the DSC on this issue?

By: Jersey Todd

Jersey Todd — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:54:00 +0000

That being said, I’m still punting on this one…like anything else, nothing’s certain until a Judge says its so, and even then, there’s always Appeals and the like…

Wasn’t Adam’s savant-attorney supposed to do some research and come back to the DSC on this issue?

By: Whitney

Whitney — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:39:02 +0000

This is really complicated to read through, but emphemeral rights inder 17 USC 112 applies to broadcast stations, and licensed FCC transmission.
and it is not an infringement of copyright for a transmitting organization entitled to transmit to the public a performance or display of a work, under a license, including a statutory license under section 114(f) [17 USC 114(f)], or transfer of the copyright or under the limitations on exclusive rights in sound recordings specified by section 114(a) [17 USC 114(a)], or for a transmitting organization that is a broadcast radio or television station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission and that makes a broadcast transmission of a performance of a sound recording in a digital format on a nonsubscription basis, to make no more than one copy or phonorecord of a particular transmission program embodying the performance or display, if–

(A)
the copy or phonorecord is retained and used solely by the transmitting organization that made it, and no further copies or phonorecords are reproduced from it; and
(B)
the copy or phonorecord is used solely for the transmitting organization’s own transmissions within its local service area, or for purposes of archival preservation or security; and
(C)
unless preserved exclusively for archival purposes, the copy or phonorecord is destroyed within six months from the date the transmission program was first transmitted to the public.

I take this to mean a broadcast station can make a transient recording of work, and podcast it, but can’t then go an sell it without violating copyright.

The bulk of the amendment is about what judges can and cannot do when they are asked to step in and negotiate rights and fees.

I believe you are right that the PMN license is a separate license; and that people can negotiate what rates they feel are fair; It’s the collection de facto and random rate sets I haven’t sorted yet.

By: Whitney

Whitney — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:39:00 +0000

I take this to mean a broadcast station can make a transient recording of work, and podcast it, but can’t then go an sell it without violating copyright.

The bulk of the amendment is about what judges can and cannot do when they are asked to step in and negotiate rights and fees.

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:07:35 +0000

@Whitney: the issue is with SoundExchange, the Copyright Board, and the Podsafe Music Network. It’s my understanding that the Copyright Royalty Board established that webcasters who play streaming internet music stations are required under law, without a license, to pay royalties for all music played as dictated in the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004.

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl108-419.html

Further, the CRB designated SoundExchange to be the reporting and collections agency for all music played, regardless of whether or not the artist was a member of SoundExchange or the RIAA.

The exemption that I read in the law, to the best of my knowledge, says that SRCOs are permitted to license out their work under other licenses to broadcasters and distribution outlets and directly negotiate any royalties to be paid, if any. The existence of such a license would override the statutory rates dictated by the CRB and SoundExchange.

The PMN License above is here:

http://music.podshow.com/music/artistTerms.htm

By my read, Section 3 of the Artist Terms would constitute a separate license and waiver of royalties for streamed audio.

Am I correct, or should I have gone to law school?