Confessions of a Social Tools Architect
15 Feb
Matt May has provided a great overview on the many hurdles to properly licensing music for your Podcasts. Though many people are violating copyright like it’s nobody’s business, simple truth is IT IS someone’s business and they’re gonna track you down.
I’ve commented to many in the past that Podcasting is most coquetish when it comes to violating copyright. Peer to Peer provides users with a certain threshold of anonymity, and therefore,”protection”. Of course, Podcasting is the exact opposite. We produce a show, violate the law, and then ANNOUNCE it to as many people as possible. The expression “shooting fish in a barrel” seems aptly appropriate.
I’ll wrap up with Matt’s wise caution:
It is important to know this stuff now, to avoid a meltdown later. Should you decide not to go the licensing route, and your show becomes popular, you may be in for a rude awakening down the road. Remember the filesharing lawsuits? Of course you do. That’s just a publicity stunt compared to what people could be facing if they ignore these rights wholesale. All of these agencies sue infringers like it’s their job. Because it is. And the law is on their side.
I can hear it already: “But I’m a non-profit! I’m not making any money on this at all! Yes, we know. But there’s no provision for that in the law. You’re broadcasting, as far as they and the law are concerned, and that means keep records, report playlists, and pay up.
3 Responses for "Matt May Dissects Music Licensing"
Thanks for the pointer, Gregory. This is a real issue, although it seems to be prosecuted only where profit exists… auditors visit bars and stores where they think they can make a profit. Informal voice-recordings probably haven’t hit their radar yet.
It’s a mystifying issue, too — the history of Tin Pan Alley is rife with legally-stolen tunes, and by the time The Beatles arrived the entire biz seemed pretty fully corrupt. But then again, how is uncompensated copying of tunes different from uncompensated copying of text, websites, applications, and other digital content? The “music industry” may have set a dysfunctional example, but we still need ways to sustain the creation of digital content.
A world where you cannot sing “Happy Birthday” just doesn’t seem right…. ;-)
jd/mm
This makes me not a little angry.
As someone who is both a producer and performer of music, and also setting up a podcast station and trying to make the numbers match, I understand the issues and the desire to broadcast for free. Those licences chuck a spanner in the financial works, for sure. We’re so used to playing music (apparently for free) in our homes via the radio, etc, that we just wish the net was an extension of our natural surroundings - and so wish domestic rules (i.e. don’t charge your mates for listening to your music in your house) apply.
Domestic rules DO NOT apply across the net. It’s broadcasting - it’s one of the things people produce their music for, in the expectation they’ll get paid for it being listened to by lots of people (as well as bought to be used domestically). It may seem funny / slightly cool / mildly wayward to ‘guerrilla broadcast’ free music to the masses. Not so funny when the poor sod who produced the stuff can’t feed his children. So PAY UP for what, technically, is not yours. Don’t forget - you’re paying for the privilege of using someone else’s creativity. Please read the small print on the back of your CDs (if they’re legally bought in the first place. Y’bastards!) if you want a quick lesson in copyright.
Make the music yourself if you want it for free. Remember the Pied Piper of Hamelin.
lots of love
John
Leave a reply