I've started a net radio station and i can't really find anything on the net (as the government site is retarded)
Anyone know anything about licensing ?

Contact APRA. You have a few options. The Bespoke B-12 license we were using allowed us to use 20% of our airtime for licensed music, with unlimited total airtime. You have to keep detailed information about tracks played (including Artist, Label, Track, time played, and duration it was played).
I can't recall what we were paying for this, but TNN was basically what caused APRA to have to write this license, as we were the first ones without a big contract (eg, Austereo) doing streaming. You also need statistics on number of listeners at any point.

Also, no music can be included downloadable content (eg, later downloaded podcasts etc).

HTH.

--Raven, formerly TNN-Raven ;)

Yes. Good f***ing luck.

http://www.apra.com.au is where you'll need to start (probably here). Last time I looked (~2 years ago) they were almost useless to the point of it being criminal, but their site has a lot more information now about Internet radio licenses.

Last time I checked they did not offer any sort of blanket license that you needed to be "allowed" to broadcast all music - this meant you needed to go to every single copyright holder individually (eg, Sony, Warner, etc, etc) and ask for permission to play their music. Not really feasible.

In the radio world the PPCA could give you a license to do that, but when I was chasing it up they had no such thing for the Internet. They got back to me and said they were working on one and it was a few months off; my subsequent emails to both them and APRA have not been replied to.

I gave up long ago as they were just too unorganised to be able to respond. However from the look of APRA's webpage they've certainly pulled their finger out a little bit - but I'll be pretty surprised if they're organised enough to make anything happen.

I'd be interested in finding out how you go though.

edit: Oh yeh, what Raven said about reporting. They need that info so they can calculate royalty payments for the artists.

last edited by trog at 17:30:13 14/Jan/08

They need that info so they can calculate royalty payments for the artists.don't have to bother signing up new artists

fixed

ref: music/isp tax thread

Cheers guys :)
Working on getting a license for the radio station i started.

a guy i know got one for his station. He said it cost him about 500 bucks. We a dJing stations with kiddies all over aus playing so I'm not sure if this effects it. I'm gunna give apra a call tomorrow and i'll keep you posted :)

Are you talking about paying royalties for music? Or are you talking about getting some kind of accreditation for your radio station - because I didn't know such a thing was neccessary...

So you have to pay broadcast royalties even if your playing your own mixes? But what about DJ Strex? Ohhhhhhh, yeah he went there! :sassyheadshake:

for some reason i really dont think it works like that. I think once you own the song you are able to play it as you will. I'm hoping that the case.

dunno about that jigzie, if you own your music you can play it out in clubs and s*** but that's cause the clubs pay a fee to apra or whoever it is.

i reckon to play music you own over the net you're gonna need to pay someone something

for some reason i really dont think it works like that. I think once you own the song you are able to play it as you will. I'm hoping that the case.

When you buy a cd you're not buying the song, you're buying the right to play the song to yourself. Technically playing it to a friend is illegal(but like format shifting, it's unlikely to get you arrested unless it strays into the making extra copies realm). Broadcasting licensed songs across the internet without getting a broadcast license will likely get you a cease and desist very quickly.

(In case you were actually asking about a broadcast license, that shouldn't be necessary as i doubt the internet would be considered a broadcast medium)

I think once you own the song you are able to play it as you will.

You would need to pay millions of dollars to 'own' the song.

just keep it underground yo!

firstly, you can chin scratch n remark to others just how damn underground you are.
& secondly, the labels are too pov to bother tracking you down for royalties.

it's a f***ed system.. like dj's play dance music in clubs in the valley & the clubs pay apra (or whoever) a blanket fee that is supposed to cover track royalties. but where does that money actually go? it sure as hell never reachs the small labels... coz the club owners wouldnt even know what labels are being played. so in all likelyhood it just gets divvy'd by apra to the larger labels in the industry which is bollucks.

I love it how commonsense and copyright rarely meet.

for some reason i really dont think it works like that. I think once you own the song you are able to play it as you will. I'm hoping that the case.

You only "own the song" if its an original composition (ie, you wrote the music), an original performance (ie, you actually played the music) and an original recording (ie, you actually made the recording). If its any of those you do not in any way own the song, let alone the rights necessary to play it on a radio, Internet or otherwise.

You are able to use copyright materials in things like parodies (maybe even using samples?) under the 'fair use' policy - which means that if you significantly contribute your own creativity to it, the original copyright doesn't really affect it...

I love it how commonsense and law rarely meet.

Fixed it for you.

Copyright is really no more broken than anything else.
The idea itself is wonderfully common sense.

Don't rip off someone elses s***. If it's worth using it's probably worth paying for.

The problem with law is that it has to be specific. How do we qualify if person a has ripped off person b's s***? What is an appropriate penalty? What mitigating circumstances are reasonable(insert fair use here)?

And that doesn't even get into things such as Patent Law which would be fine except that it's adjudicated by people who aren't qualified to do so.

idol: yeah you can use samples - girl talk's music is made entirely from other people's samples (it f***ing rocks too) and he doesn't get done because of the fair use thingy

You are able to use copyright materials in things like parodies (maybe even using samples?) under the 'fair use' policy - which means that if you significantly contribute your own creativity to it, the original copyright doesn't really affect it...

"Fair use" is a US/DMCA term; we don't have it in Australia (see here [pdf] for more - in fact, the whole of copyright.org.au is really, really good).

There are some things you get a "fair use" equivalent from, IIRC - for example, you can use small parts of a copyrighted work for a critical review (eg, clips from a movie, for example).

You are able to use copyright materials in things like parodies (maybe even using samples?) under the 'fair use' policy - which means that if you significantly contribute your own creativity to it, the original copyright doesn't really affect it...

Fair use is as much russian roulette as anything else. The problem is it's pretty hard to draw a line and say "on this side it's ok, on this side it's not". Or perhaps stated better, it's pretty easy for copyright lawyers to make the line enough of a gray area that the bar is constantly in motion. In America, the use of sampling is one such area in flux with recent lawsuits setting a precedent of requiring licenses for sufficiently large samples(although it seems like there's still some quibbling over where sufficiently large lies).

At the end of the day, if some multi-national feels you owe them money fair-use isn't going to stop you getting a lawsuit. At best it'll mean you'll only have to pay money to your lawyer.

The exception being in very obvious cases such as Research, Comedy shows and the like.

"Fair use" is a US/DMCA term

I believe it was in the Berne Convention as well, so it applied internationally.. I did an assignment on it...

"Fair use" is a US/DMCA term; we don't have it in Australia

As a specific legal entity this is true. However we do have similar analogues in our own copyright law so much that the term "Fair Use" appears in some ACC official documents. Probably safest to assume however that the only thing you can do is parody or research with it(properly referencing where appropriate). Oh and get a lawyer. :P

At the end of the day, if some multi-national feels you owe them money fair-use isn't going to stop you getting a lawsuit. At best it'll mean you'll only have to pay money to your lawyer.

You do realise that is only if you take the law suit seriously. You can ignore law suits. You can ignore a judge's decision in a civil case. Nothing happens to you! I see it happen all the time. You don't have to play their games.

You do realise that is only if you take the law suit seriously. You can ignore law suits. You can ignore a judge's decision in a civil case. Nothing happens to you! I see it happen all the time. You don't have to play their games.

IANAL, however i'm pretty sure that "ignoring a judge's decision" isn't going to be conducive to maintaing a free and happy lifestyle.

In particular if you get slapped with an injunction that prohibits you from doing what ever it was and you keep doing it, i'm relatively sure that's going to be a criminal case, not a civil one.

You think the judge ever follows up on what happens to their decisions? I don't think they care...

You think the judge ever follows up on what happens to their decisions? I don't think they care...

Err... thats why the company files a grievance at which point the quickest way for the courts to deal with the whole thing is to throw your ass to the wolves.

Like i said. This is assuming the company wants to nail you to the wall. If they don't give a s*** about you it'll probably go no-where which is, i daresay, what happened with your civil case.