“They are very quick, very sharp, and very well organised when it comes to taking the legitimate broadcaster’s money, issuing invoices, and getting on the phone when a payment is late”

If only they then paid this money out correctly. I can only assume it is the same in radio, but a lot of tv broadcasters barely need to record the music they use, as MCPS do not pay out on a line-by-line basis for all channels. For example, MCPS only distribute OnDemand/Frontrow’s music license across the 10 most used tracks per quarter. Kinda defeats the whole point, no?

Draconian? Yes. Extremist? Yes. Bullies? Most definately.

The truth is it would be great to airplay material by artists that rarely get airplay on the radio. Not only would it generate public interest in their work, and create an income stream for the forgotten peformers.

Ultimately, it is PRS that are killing music more than piracy.

Now I don’t run a radio station, be it online or traditional wireless, but I do feel sympathy for those who pay their way and are honest with the collection agencies.

In helping Kevin Coy with some of his enquiries (as he is a busy man), I note that besides MCPS/PRS & PPL not lifting a finger to do anything, neither do the BPI, the RIAA and SoundExchange.

It’s baffling to me that the BPI will launch legal action to those that fileshare a few dozen mp3 files and sweep car boot sales and flea markets for counterfeit cds. Yet they won’t get involved with an unlicensed online radio station that claims to have tens of thousands of weekly listeners and forecasts millions in profit and has 2 business awards to legitimise these claims.

Neither will the RIAA or SoundExchange lift a pen in anger when it’s pointed out that said online radio station uses servers based in the USA. This is the legal and jurisdictional complexities ‘Frankie Roberto’ is hinting at in his comment. But surely when the stream is not blocked to listeners in the USA, the servers are based in the USA and no copyright is being paid to SoundExchange, either directly or through PPL, then the onus is on them and/or the RIAA to do something proactive within their laws and jurisdiction. But it seems that is not the case!

So what is it with all of these IP protection bodies then? BPI, RIAA, FACT, AACP, BMR, etc, etc. Are they just talking shops for the industry to set up to look busy whilst at the grass roots - the artists & publishers are getting ripped off?

If I was running a small online radio station and read all this, I’d quickly close it and start another without any licensing in place. It seems that “crime” pays in this.

Besides, I don’t think it has ever been conclusively ruled that if you run a website or web service, you have to comply with the legal rules of every jurisdiction in which your service can be received (ie all of them, unless you use some form of flaky IP-restriction). There seems to be the general understanding that this is theoretically the case, but difficult to enforce, and probably open to dispute.

After all, as far as I’m aware, French radio broadcasters don’t have to pay UK broadcasting licences, even though you can sometimes pick up their signal on a good day with a decent aerial.

I’m interested in which rights musicians actually sign-over (or ‘assign’) when they sign up to PPL and the likes. If PPL only hold the UK rights, do artists also assign international rights via reciprocal agreements, or do artists retain the rights for all the countries in which they haven’t signed a specific agreement for that country to that country’s national collecting society?

Blogged about it here.

Neither the collection societies nor their members have adapted to a digital world yet.

I asked a question at the end of the session entitled “Author’s societies - building a new model!” on the first afternoon which was:

“Is there something on the horizon that, if I start up an Internet company tomorrow, will help me with online rights or should I go the much more profitable YouTube/MySpace route and just do copyright infringement?”

To which the resounding answer was - Nope! Nothing on the horizon.

It’s the classic “Cris-atunity” though.

They are beginning to understand that their existing business models and cosy cartel-like arrangements are fundamentally broken. They’re just not doing a lot to fix them at the moment. Hence, only the honest will bear the burden for the time being - as I think they are refraining from going after the “infringers” to see if they can build a new model from their ideas.

Call it outsourcing of business model development.

Anyone playing by the rules at the moment has every right to feel aggrieved - but I can’t see the situation changing any time soon.

Boston tea party anyone?