Music/Licensing on Part 15

Hello TAlderson

I was just about to open a new blog entry, but I can tack my comments here while replying to your questions.

Two SS Trans have been making life here very pleasant for several years. Today I rediscovered a fine-point about setting one of them up which I'd forgotten. The subject is grounding, and the three jumpers labeled S1, S2 and S3.

In recent months coverage at 1680 kHz has not been what it once was, and I thought maybe it would be time to think about buried ground radials, a hassle I'd like to avoid, but then I discovered S1, which connects transmitter ground to audio ground, was off, in which case an inductor prevents RF from reaching the audio ground. By simply jumpering S1 the old signal is back again.

S2 and S3 are also jumpered, creating a ground path through the power supply.

My 10' vertical antenna is very useful, providing indoor and outdoor coverage. The transmitter is on the floor under my desk. A 2.5' length of antenna wire stretches straight up the wall and is screwed to the bottom of an aluminum window frame 6' high, and outside on the porch another 2.5' of wire attached to the top of the window frame reaches up to the porch ceiling. The entire indoors is covered, the front yard is strong, and the back yard surprisingly good, but weaker.

I play 100% public domain, Creative Commons and open source music, but intend asking permissions for some recordings straight from the record companies. That is a legal way to do it, if they give permission. I haven't tried it yet, but I've read about it somewhere.

I think the royalty collectors assume that Part 15 stations might have listeners, which makes it a public performance in need of a license, from their point of view. Anyway, I'm also a streaming station, so that's my main reason for taking care.

Creative Commons and open source are valid for non-commercial use. If we want advertisers, written permissions or commercial licenses must be sought.

Let us know how everything goes.

If you plan to stream over the internet you must pay.
But if you are only transmitting over the air you simply do not.
Though some may say you have to, I usually just ignore them.
I've been Cruisin' with my Oldies station for nearly 2 years and haven't heard a peep from BMI, ASCAP, or RIAA. I wouldn't worry about it. The logic i use is, If they are gunna force me to pay, go find all those IPOD FM Transmitters, make them pay, then come to me.

From the out set let me explain I am NOT an attorney. I tell the truth occasionally, so, that disqualifies me from being one. That being said here is what I do with my station.

Congress and the Library of Congress have been given charge over music performance licensing over terrestrial stations and the internet. Licensed radio stations pay music licensing fees to BMI, SESAC and ASCAP, who are all members of RIAA. Composers and arrangers register their works with these companies to collect fees for public performances. These fees are collected whether money changes hands at the performance or not. The assumption is that money has changed hands anyway.

Several years ago, a new company emerged called the Sound Exchange, also a member of the RIAA. This company was an outgrowth of the record companies who were losing revenue to internet music downloads. A law called the "DMCA" ordered the Library of Congress to treat public sharing or performances on the internet just like music played on licensed radio stations. The difference being, the license fees were being collected for the performers instead of the composers.

Now for the Part 15 broadcaster: music licensing has become more defined over the past couple of years. The test issue: Is the music played over the Part 15 transmitter for personal use on ones own property or domicile? If the answer is yes, then no licensing fee. If however, the signal can and is to be heard and consumed by listeners other than the person transmitting, then a licensing fee is in order.

So, your IPOD transmitter would be for personal use. No music license required. Hook your IPOD to the trusty old SSTran or Rangemaster and a license fee would be in order. Personal use, no music license; community micro-broadcaster, music license fee (BMI, SESAC, ASCAP).

Add streaming audio on the internet and now we become subject to a completely different licensing fee (Sound Exchange). As soon as the music stream leaves your property to the broadcast server, your station is subject to music licensing fees. Let me suggest you all investigate companies like "Loud City" and "SWcast", internet licensing co-ops.

Most folks don't have huge operations allowing them to pay the minimum fees. Google the individual companies for fee schedules and licensing policies.

I personally license my internet radio stream; but because my Part 15 transmitter is for personal use, I pay no music license fee.

And now for the Canadian perspective. About the exact opposite of the U.S.

If you broadcast over the air, you MUST pay royalty fees to an organization called SOCAN - it represents most Canadian (except the independents) composers and performers, and has reciprocal arrangements with other licensing agencies around the world. The good thing - the fees aren't onerous - for non-commercial use, 1.9% of gross operating costs. Given the low operating cost of a Part 15-like station, generally around $100 or less per year.

Absolutely no licensing fees are required (at least for now - they've been talking about changing this for a while) for music streamed over the Internet. That's why some U.S. streaming servers located close to the border have been moved to Canada.

Interesting, ehh?

My Part 15 station generates a tidy NEGATIVE PROFIT.

By my calculation at 1.9% they owe me money.

By what rationale can a claim be made for a portion of operating cost?

There's no logical relationship between operating cost and music played or size of audience.

oh boy. this topic rears it's ugly head again. this is one of those topics like the ground lead issue that is better left to a google search of the site.

all this is going to do is stir up a nasty hornets nest like it always does.

There's no logical relationship between operating cost and music played or size of audience.

Where I work we pay BMI/ASCAP fees initially because we use licensed music for sporting and other events. Makes no difference the size of the audience or the method of delivery. They want the money.

As I mentioned previously, the minimum fees are based on "cash flow". Cash flow infers dollars flow one direction or the other, positive or negative. The RIAA does not give two hoots and a holler whether you are making money playing there music, only that you are playing their music.

If your station doesn't meet the minimum "cash flow" threshold for "rate or percentage oriented fees", then the minimum fee is in order. An example to consider is the non-commercial stations who don't or can't sell commercials. They still pay a music licensing fee. So, again: personal use, no fee; broadcast to an audience, pay a fee.

Some of us may need to get involved in studying the threat commercial broadcasters are dealing with right now with the Performance Rights Acts currently before Congress. Get a grip and hold on tight, this rides gonna' get bumpy.

Laws don't have to be logical. They only establish the benchmark for what's LEGAL.

The rules are the rules, whether they apply in the U.S., Canada or elsewhere. I personally find these discussions interesting, and find it difficult to understand why some people's passions are invoked over a simple discussion.

One can always choose to play non-copyrighted material if the fees to play copyrighted material are too onerous. And there's plenty of that kind of material 'out there', plus lots of independents that are just dying to get any kind of airplay (all you have to do is ask them for permission to play the material).

Or you can ignore the rules, if you are so inclined, and want to accept the inherent risk contained therein.

Looking at the various licensing agencies websites might prove helpful.

BMI has license agreements just for part 15 radio (including part 15 stations that also web stream).
http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/radio/part_15_radio_license.pdf

ASCAP's radio license agreement specifically mentions "FCC-licensed" radio stations. Of course, part 15 is unlicensed and there is no ASCAP agreement that would fit a part 15 station (after all you're not a restaurant or an aerobics gym). So I wouldn't worry about ASCAP.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/radio/pdf/RMLC_License.pdf

The SESAC agreement is vague. It refers to a radio station as "the licensee". So does that mean FCC-licensed or are they talking about the license they would issue a station authorizing it to broadcast music represented under SESAC?
http://www.sesac.com/pdf/Radio_License_2009.pdf

So if I had a part 15 station I would: pay BMI, not pay ASCAP and avoid any music licensed under SESAC.

c5

I'd use content that is not subject to any licensing agreements (and I do) because it never made sense to me to go to all the trouble of setting up my silly little operation and to then turn around and broadcast content already available all over the place.

Whether it's NOAA weather, piano rolls and and Edison cylinders from the Internet Archive or a CD my next door neighbor's garage band made last week, SCWIS avoids guild materials like the plague that they are.

You might not like what you hear on my radio station, but you probably won't hear it anywhere else.

the only reason BMI has a art 15 license on there is because people kept poking at them about getting licensed when they did not need to.

as another poster stated. we are not licensed broadcasters or any other kind of business.

and if you are only using a single site at your home and use something like live 365 for the internet i don't believe there is anything to worry about.

and if i were everyone i would leave SESAC, and ASCAP alone. let those sleeping dragons lie before you get your wish there as well.

basically if you are doing something like ken in stayton then you need a music license. if you are doing like most of us do out of our homes with a single site then i would not bother.

Mention has been made of music that's free of licensing problems, such as public domain and Creative Commons, and there's also a type called "Open Source," a lot of which has been posted on Archive.org and other places. And recently Archive.org changed the name "open source" to "Community Audio."

What do we need to keep in mind about airing these kinds of music? One stipulation I think is being non-commercial, but otherwise what needs to be said or posted regarding the status of the music? How do the royalty cops know the difference?