Since it's been a topic of discussion again I'm curious.
Exactly how many of you are actually paying for the rights to broadcast music on your stations?
I'm pretty certain I can guess the answer. Note: Paying for streaming does NOT cover the licensing for radio broadcasting of music.
Now, I'm sure no one wants to post here that they don't pay, worried that the Music Nazi's are checking in regularly. So, if you feel like letting on please send me an email.
Promise I won't spill any beans, but I'll report back should anyone reply, with the stats.
You know how they say to never discuss religion or politics? Two things Part 15'ers NEVER voluntarily give up in a public forum -- actual field intensity readings, and info on their music licensing. The FI readings I can understand as I'm sure many don't have the equipment to get the readings. But if you're broadcasting ANY music at all, and you're in the USA to be legal ya gotta pay da man. How many are?
Tim in Bovey
I have a SOCAN license, which pays for the song (not the performance). SOCAN was only interested in the streaming license - they stated that since the range for a BETS broadcaster was extremely limited, they didn't care about the over-the-air licensing. First time someone didn't want to take my money.
At the time, I did not realize that Re Sound needed to have a license fee paid for any performance not in the public domain in Canada (i.e., anything newer than 50 years). Virtually everything I've played was over 50 years old, and since I've found that out now everything is over 50 years old.
It's too bad, because I really enjoyed playing 80s music and some 70s (such as punk) but I also don't feel like paying for another license when I don't bring in any revenue (my choice). If that ever changes, then I'll reconsider.
Despite exhaustive reading and endless searching, I do not clearly understand the maze of royalty obligations, and so have tippy-toed for years trying to steer clear of paying for something I don't comprehend.
The majority of programming on KDX Worldround Radio is talk, with permissions from producers, and the music themes on their shows are used "with permission" or are composed especially for those shows.
Many shows on my schedule are free through Creative Commons Licenses, but even those come in varying flavors and require careful scrutiny to make sure of compliance.
There are "free music" sources, which I'm learning more about, and these are handy for themes, bumpers and music beds.
Right now my series "The Low Power Hour," free for part 15 stations, is withdrawn pending a copyright review to make sure I can offer such a show, considering a small amount of material from commercial records.
As Artisan said, when no money is produced by a "hobby" or non-commerical operation, there is literally no money on hand to pay royalties.
At times it feels like hobbying is a criminal enterprise.
There is more than one "bottom line," and for me the main one is "number of listeners."
My radio station exists to serve myself with excellent radio. Is one's self an audience?
Other connections appear on my streams, but I have no assurance they are listeners. They could easily be royalty trolls, which by any measure are not listeners.
A cynic would expect to be sued for millions of dollars on the exact occasion when he thought all obligations had been met.
My station playlist was built around originals recorded at our project recording studio. All of the artists gave their blessings and thought it was pretty cool.
Sent a reply to timinbovey off this forum but when I saw a few other posts I thought I'd post my answer here also.
No, don't pay, and here's why.
Was going to after reading a post from Artisan quite a while back about this(am in Canada), and how it worked and the cost wasn't that much, and I could provide them with what was played once in a while, but when I mentioned this to my brother who is in the music business he said to me they(Socan), can be pretty nasty, and gave me a couple of examples. He said to better just do your station and follow Industry Canada and CRTC rules and don't worry about Socan. He also said that since you make no money at this and who knows if you even have listeners....maybe a few people at most and you have no operating costs other than the cost of the transmitter where are they going to take their percentage of revenue from? They most likely don't care.
Also he mentioned that Socan is a private organization and have no law enforcement ability....they are not an arm of the government like Industry Canada and the CRTC.
So no I don't pay.....but I do not encourage anyone to do what I do(a disclaimer)
But I follow BETS and CRTC rules, do no streaming.
Mark
I don't know enough about Canada specific laws on this, so offer little insight.
Car - your situation is quite unique. Broadcasting to yourself. Technically, use of a Part 15 transmitter for private use does not need a license, e.g. those little transmitters people use to get their cassettes to play into their CD car stereo (LOL) or play their mp3 players into their radios, etc. The trouble is, if push came to shove, if your on air presentation sounds like it's meant for others to listen to (if you sound like a radio station) they're gonna say you're broadcasting to the masses, even if the masses are 10 people on your block.
Was it mram who is playing originals recorded in his studio? That's excellent! And very correct that you wouldn't need any licensing for that, as long as the bands aren't doing a cover version or anything and it sounds like they're not...
As for other radio programs, etc even if the music was recorded or used by permission for that show, if it's copyrighted music there can be issues. Those types of whos assume that the stations airing them are licensed to do so. Even some production music libraries that are free, or buyouts (no contracts and ongoing payments) in the contracts specify they are cleared only for use on licensed stations.
Remember, at least in the US making money or not has nothing to do with if you need a license, however it CAN be a factor in how much your license costs. EVen if you're doing it as a hobby, I don't really know of any hobby that doesn't cost money, and licensing music for your hobby station is part of your hobby expense, just like tubes for the ham radio amplifier, bait for fishing, or books for stamp collecting. It's just part of the expense. Very few hobbies are free, but your music would be if you were creating it yourself.
Someone in Canada -- said that the licensing group there wasn't intersted in his money as he had a tiny signal and few listeners. This is what SESAC told me. They considered me to be either "educational" or an "experiment" and told me no license was needed from them.
Tim in Bovey
Tim, I very much appreciate your continuing discussions on the maze of licensing concerns that weigh upon broadcasters and streamers.
Here is a statement you made that I have a response to: "Even some production music libraries that are free, or buyouts (no contracts and ongoing payments) in the contracts specify they are cleared only for use on licensed stations."
My thought is that a part 15 station is legally authorized under FCC rules and so qualifies in the same status as a licensed station.
Trying to stretch my permissive view to apply to streaming might not be so easy, but ultimately it depends on how those who pin down definitions structure their description of "streaming" as compared to radio broadcasting.
I tend to see streaming as yet another part 15 application for the obvious reason that all the computor components contain Part 15 Labeling.
When licensing agencies and other regulative bodies pose streaming as something apart from broadcasting I think it is they who are making an absurd stretch, however they have the large courtroom furniture and the costumed goons with guns.
Not me, I haven't looked into it, but I'm opposed, I'd go off the air more than likely if faced with higher costs and the burdon of it. I'll fall back on the fact that part 15 is wireless extension to a phonograph that, like any speaker or multiple speakers, could potentially be heard by others near by.
It was discussed that way in some article from decades ago, constructing a phono osc. that might be heard by your friends in nearby buildings, FCC and music licensing = none, that was the selling point of building your own station in the first place. I'm standing on that one.
Think about this, how many kids had the Wild Planet DJ, which includes a casette player and a mic, with a transmitter to broadcast to nearby radios. Those are approved by the rules and have one specific purpose, hobby broadcasting. I think if the music industry didn't like it, they would have filed an objection to Wild Planet's part 15 app originally.
I don't know why anyone would be wanting to pay anyway, I need more expenses caused by my station like I need a hole in the head!
The royalty collectors refuse to tell the artists how much money has been raised in the artist's name
Sort of like what we nad happen here. A preacher was caught spending church money on personal issues. We had the church get together and hire an investigator to follow him around and we found out that the money he was putting into the Gas was really so he could go see a certain woman for his enjoyment. The money he had put into the cell phone was for his own personal gain. When we had a local meeting at the church and he was asked to itemize the expense he got irate and refused (sort of what the RIAA and followers are doing). Being that as it may I think this organization needs to be hung out to dry. They screw the fans and artists alike and anyone in between and where is the money going? Only God knows for none of us will ever get a truthful answer from the mafia like organization that they are.