a cheap and easy way to stream and comply with US/Canadian copyright

Anybody used the stream hosting cited?  They do look inexpensive.

I can't comment on the stream licensing site and how it pertains to U.S. copyright laws, but I can comment on the Canadian connection.  I don't see a reason to use their services if you are a hobby Part 15 broadcaster, and stream, but have no revenue.  It's far easier to go directly thorugh SOCAN to get your license and pay the $100 minimum fee.

And if you do have revenue, I would imagine that it would also be cheaper to again go directly through SOCAN to pay your fees (in Canada, you pay a percentage of your revenue, based on your programming content, but in return you don't have those nasty rules you find in the U.S., limiting what you can play, such as a certain number of songs by the same artist within a certain period of time).  It's probably just as easy to go direct than to go through these guys.

Finally, I've never heard of anyone, individual or company, effectively reselling SOCAN licensing services.  They may have a SOCAN license, but that's different than reselling.  I think I'd do more research before buying into that.

it's legal because you are their affiliate and your player must stream through their domain. this site was given to me by a commercial broadcaster. the biggest advantage to them is they take care of all the reprting and logging of playlists the disadvantage is you must stream the now playing song through your stream and all tags must be proper song names to enable them to log your playlist and report it to soundex. the problem here is we have ominous reporting requirements and it is usually beyond the ability of the hobbyist. this company automates that process.

see their faq...

http://www.streamlicensing.com/?action=page&page=faq

and their TOS

http://www.streamlicensing.com/directory/index.cgi?action=page&page=legal_tos

I've recently (over the past two weeks) exchanged several emails with the owner of Streamlicensing. Their system simply will not work for me, nor for many broadcasters. 

As with most, it's only legal if you stream all the metadata with the music -- title and artist. That's fine if all your music is generated from a computer and all your tags are correct.  For me, no chance as a large percentage of my broadcast day is made up of songs from records, tapes, produced commercials, etc.  They are simply not setup to offer licensing for anyone with analog audio source.  I simply don't need the complicatons.

This would also not work at the stations where I work. the AM station where I do a morning show every day is made up of songs and material from the computer, from CD's, from internet sources, from 33's, 45's, and even 78's.  Not to mention the occasional cassette. Just not going to happnen.  At work we use SecureNet. I'm not privy to all the details but our streams for the two stations are 100% legal and do NOT involve any metada, tags, or other digital data.  In fact our stream for both stations is literally an analog audio cable from the board to the computer that sends the audio to Securenet. I do know we pay a slight premium for a license that allows our stream without having to provide the title/artist data, etc.

Most of these streaming outfits are geared to people simply generating "radio" from computers digitally and not involving any sort of analog audio.  Technically, if I open the mic and sing "Heartbreak Hotel" Soundexchange needs to know that was performed, so they can send me my royalty.  Interesting thing about all this.  If you're an independent artist who is not represented by one of the PRO's or SoundExchange you don't get a penny. Apparently copyright enforcement and licensing only counts for the big guys. 

Tim in Bovey

"Apparently copyright enforcement and licensing only counts for the big guys."

You're right about that.

I have a friend in the music industry, who used to get 4 figure royalty checks quarterly.  He was never signed to a national label, but was big on the local Vancouver scene.  Now, after Canada revamped SOCAN policies, they're single or double digit, if at all.  But artists such as Burton Cummings, Randy Bachman etc. benefit much more.

There is virtually no liklihood that the copyright payments measured by "listener numbers" is done ethically or honestly.

A "listener" to an online stream is merely an "ip connection" with no verifiable means of "proving" that it represents a true listener.

The copyright royalty collection agencies would find it quite simple to "grow" their royalty income by assigning banks of computers to "act" as listeners by making conterfeit ip connections to streaming radio stations.

There's no way to prove they're doing it, but no way to determine that they're not.

I have StreamLicensing and it works well for me.  I've transfered any Analog music I had to Digital (Mp3) and made sure every song in my library was IDv3 tagged correctly.  Then I use NextKast which is an awesome Broadcast automation program that works well with part 15 as it has the second sound card feature as well as Online Broadcasting.  Without StreamLicensing to be legal you'd have to report and pay SoundExchange, BMI, SESAC,ASCAP and if your music is heard in Canada or you broadcast from Canada SOCAN.  So that said paying all four entities each year could cost you close to 1K or more each year.  Yes there are copyright trolls that check to see if your station is cheating by connecting to your stream with fake IP's.  I can tell because it will say Winamp 5.0 or iTunes 2.0 which was way way back and doubt listeners are using those old players anymore.  And then there are Stream Ripper programs that record Radio stations.  Type a set of artists your looking for and the program scans and records stations that plays these artists.  So you pay for recorders on your station.  Some I am sure are the enforcement cops.  One time I pulled the IP address from one and it came up Sony Music (Record Label) so they were checking my station to see what I was playing and to see if I paid royalties for streaming.

You can use a program too that you type what your playing and it sends to the server and StreamLicensing monitors your server.  It really is easy.

Mr. thelegacy you have provided evidence that my suspicions are right on target... some of the copyright collection agencies are connecting to your stream, counting themselves as "listeners," and charging you for it. That is extra free money for them, while at the same time they are insulting your honesty by checking up on you like a crotch-sniffing dog.

Composers, musicians and publishers of the world, take notice that these buzzards are working as your representatives and as so many have said, "Where is all this money that you aren't getting?"

It's silly of me to speak up about it, most people respond to the pocket picking as "the cost of being free."

Yes. That's exactly correct.  If you don't use a service like Stream Licensing, you have to pay ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and Soundexchange.  This is exactly what the commercial station I work for does.  Obviously, they've been paying the three PROS for decades, and SecureNet handles our billing, etc for SoundExchange. And we pay a small additional fee to the others for the stream rights.

I haven't looked closely at streaming costs for my Part 15 because I don't need it, and don't need the extra paperwork and details, and computers, and etc. I'm doing quite well just broadcasting.  However, if you are paying BMI for your radio broadcast music rights (and if you are broadcasting music you should be) BMI offers a special low cost stream license for Part 15 stations.  It's all on their website. ASCAP does not offer such.  SESAC sent me a waiver for broadcast rights, and I've never investigated their stream costs. 

Speaking of ASCAP.  As I've mentioned before I have had, over two years, no luck in getting them to license me for Part 15 broadcasting.  I've called, emailed, called back, been  referred to others on the phone, and in emails, etc.  Finally a couple months ago I wrote them a letter, explained the station, and that I purchased a Part 15 station broadcast music license from BMI and would like to do so with ASCAP.  I explained that I have spent two years trying to get someone there to help me.  Finally I offered that I would imagine that their Part 15 license would probably cost about the same as a BMI license, so I wrote a station check to ASCAP for that amount and sent it with the letter.  I told them I would consider myself licensed.  Well, they cashed the check. If anyone ever complains that I'm not licensed I'll be able to demonstrate that they accepted my money and we'll go from there.

Tim in Bovey

I promise that if you send me a check I will cash it.

http://www.streamlicensing.com/directory/index.cgi?action=page&page=faq

Am I able to launch my players from my site?
... What about embedded players or player links?

Answer:

Yes you maintain your branding and launch your own players from your site.

However, since our StreamLicensing.Com web domain is the copyrighted domain name (not your domain name), your popup players, embedded players, and / or player links must OPEN under our domain. Our Radio Button Player makes this happen easily and automatically for you. However, if you want the player page to completely reflect your branding and website, we will host your custom page (player page hosting included at no extra charge) so you can do that virtually seamlessly and meet copyright law. Your listener notices nothing and your branding remains intact. Contact us for examples of Affiliate sites.

mac dev I can't post suspicions and complaints about copyright compliances in front of your back, so I need to take a different tone.

My situation is different than the typical streaming radio station. I do not broadcast copyright songs from CDs or vinyl records, having a mainly talk format with permissions from all my program sources. They all use library music that's either Creative Commons, public domain, or commissioned privately. There's no worry about that.

But I produce the occasional talk show of my own and like to pick brief seconds from my 10,000 disc record library as bumper music or bridge music for these noncommercial educational programs made available free to Part 15 stations.

Some of my music usage could be viewed as "fair use," but that's unsteady ground and not a safe zone.

There are no funds earned from this effort, nor leftover time to maintain elaborate books, making any claims by copyright agencies a veritable "unfunded mandate."

If small hobby playtime program production is rendered criminal by corporate giants, we might as well explore affordable housing in North Korea.

I'm already transistioning into a new hobby as bird house architect.

You'll have to pay a fee to the State Licensing Board of Architects and include your P.E. diploma.

Also, you must comply with the National Birding Society housing codes.

The zoning board is pulling up as we speak.

Bob, if it weren't so funny it would be serious.

That's another thing that gets me bent out of shape... seriousness.

This whole universe expects us to be impressed by it, but I think it's highly over-stated.

Mini-radios in bird apartments solves a lot of what we've been talking about, now isn't a convenient time for family intervention.

Sorry, but all the words put here by members with their personal ideas of how copyright compliance works all assume one kind of programming, namely, a playlist of songs from commercial recordings.

But there are radio stations that have other forms of programming, not including songs from popular recordings.

A very sincere adviser told me that if "you play it by the book you'll have no problem."

But that has no meaning at all because "the book" is only a metaphor, a simile, a euphimism, a slang term. What "book", exactly, and where is it found?

Secondly, and I have myself to blame for not explaining it enough times to actually be heard, but my concern has nothing to do with my online audio streams.

There is a whole other copyright department applying to so-called "podcasts," a word I have never used, but "podcast" has come to be synonymous with "pre-recorded radio program." According to the Art Bell website in his travails trying to post a free download of his program, he learned that he had to keep a REPORT on how many people downloaded the program, a list of every production theme played on the program even if it's only 1-second, and pay royalties based on the free downloads of his show.

No one can tell me how to measure the downloads of my radio programs nor how I can verify that the people who download are legitimate listeners. Again I point out that the collection agencies could download a hundred copies and charge for each one.

Being criminalized by criminals is prison stuff, it shouldn't be happening in the "free" world.