I know about SOCAN, but does it also cover liveset recordings and stuff that get posted on the internet for download? If you don't have permission, then do you need some kind of license to broadcast over the net or put sets on the net available for download?

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

SOCAN does not cover liveset hosting online or downloadable mixes as far as I know. The regulations regarding this are covered by the bandwidth provider being used. Many do not allow hosting of files with music file extensions and will suspend your account if this is being done and caught with their usage sweeps.

Again, I agree with you the laws are unclear in terms of internet broadcast but there is a distinct difference between online broadcasting and Downloadable file hosting. When I have guests on my online DJ show, their PR agents always allow for the broadcast but place restriction and do not allow me to offer the set for download at a later date.

Regardless, this is all trivial however as the MAIN point here was not the illegal use of released copyright material, but the possession AND use AND download hosting of material that is not even released in any form save for the personally distributed copies by the artist himself...in this case Max Graham.

___________________
Subscribe to MCast podcasting of Beat Science Worldwide:

http://www.mcast.mercuryserver.com/?feed=rss2&cat=24

MCAST - Automated Variant Music

I've had a lawyer look into licensing (based on my involvement with 2HP.ca Radio) and the (condensed) jist of it was this:

Artists/producers are not allowed to double dip on the licensing fees.

If the licensing fees have already been paid (by DJ, by FM radio station, etc) and the distribution has been public domain (free of charge, available to all) then no further licensing fees can be collected (as long as access said broadcast is free).

In addition - based on licensing agencies's fee structure for most media distribution outlets (radio, tv, etc) the fees are a % of revenue. If a venture is revenue neutral (non-profit) then public-domain rebroadcasts (free of charge) would not qualify for licensing fees.

mwa.. my brain hurts.

___________________
- rabbit.joker [funny¿rabbit] | www.rabbitjoker.com |www.ddtt.org

Dark Dirty Tech Tribal. | Hands in air (trance) and feet on the floor (house).

Last edited by rabbitjoker on Sep-28-2004 at 01:21

well pretty much what RJ said makes sense.

if you are a DJ and got the music either by buying it or by receiving it from the producer, you are allowed to broadcast it because the producer already got paid for it so technically they can't ask to pay for it again.


but i still have a problem with people trying to justify this by hiding behind legal jargon that is unclear already. ethically, it is wrong but i guess we can't ask everyone to be ethical.

quote:

Originally posted by DigitalMP Any of you that think Alec is not in the wrong need to check your head.

I don't remember anybody actually defending his actions. Of course they weren't legit.

The point is, people shouldn't be kicking him when he's down. He learned his lesson a long time ago. With ALL due respect to Ray who I consider to be an awesome dude, I just think this thread is a bit of a cheap shot and was posted in poor taste. And if it wasn't a cheap shot, if it was an honest-to-God attempt to educate other DJs about which practices are legitimate and which aren't, then as the other Aaron said, it could have been done without directly linking Alec to it.

I am NOT defending his actions, only his character. What he did was ignorant, for sure, but I don't think it was malicious. He learned his lesson, he's never going to do it again (I assume), so do we really need to drag this out?

Ray, I think the right thing to do would be to close this thread. You've made your point, set an example for all the aspiring DJs, and from this point on, nothing constructive is going to take place in here. If you're being honest in saying that this thread wasn't just a cheap shot, then you have no reason to keep it open any longer, right?

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

for what has amounted to a dumb mistake...this has been pretty harsh

^^^agreed cant we all just enjoy the music?

FREE music sounds better.

That post was funny, although everyone who bashed the person who posted the set, shouldn't be saying anything since they download mp3s.

Even TA has links to live sets and singles.

It wasn't a big deal, the funny thing was what max graham said.


Who's going to post Armin's set? Maybe he'll answer

^^^^^^^

You are clearly missing the point here...but oh well. IT'S NOT ABOUT DOWNLOADING mp3s!!!!!

The issue was regarding using not only COMPLETELY unreleased material but also in a form ripped from another person's performance and presented in dubious fashion.

Had the track been released in it's full form...there would have been no issue. Period.

___________________
Subscribe to MCast podcasting of Beat Science Worldwide:

http://www.mcast.mercuryserver.com/?feed=rss2&cat=24

MCAST - Automated Variant Music