Settings and activity
13 results found
-
1 vote
VirtualNightclub
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteVirtualNightclub
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteVirtualNightclub
shared this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
74 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
CARP was phased out about 15 years ago. Copyright Royalty Judges are now appointed to determine the new rates under the statutory license. More often than not those fees are well beyond the means of gamers and DJs that make minimal or no income from their broadcasts online.
Honestly I think our voices will be much more impactful if we band together to form a coalition. Check out my suggestions here:
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
Having a "member fee" would not absolve use of copyrighted works in online broadcasts. The stipulation would need to be codified into federal law (at least in the United States), which is highly unlikely given the vast legal resources of the RIAA and its lobbyists.
-
13 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
I think to note about your statement: "Finally, the use of music in conujunction with a game stream or clips is arguably transformative. The pairing of msuic with action or visuals completely transforms and can add entirely different meaning to the work. It also can add a completely new emotional dimension."
That is why there is a synchronization right in copyright law, which prohibits the unauthorized pairing of music with visuals to create a new derivative work. Just thought I would clarity that point.
-
865 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
I have serious doubts that Mixcloud is legally licensed in the United States.
Either they have somehow secured agreements with every record label both domestic and foreign (which is very unlikely unless they have a team of full-time attorneys) or else they are operating under the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board statutory license and paying SoundExchange $500 per channel.
According to the SoundExchange site, it would appear to be the latter at first glance:
https://www.soundexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2018-Jan-Mar-Licensee-List.pdf
However, it raises the question how Mixcloud possibly offsets the annual $500 per channel license fee to SoundExchange with a meager $15 membership fee per broadcaster. Something about that arrangement isn't adding up.
What is really needed is a long-term solution for the entire industry, not a stopgap that is service-specific.
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
I have serious doubts that Mixcloud is legally licensed in the United States.
Either they have somehow secured agreements with every record label both domestic and foreign (which is very unlikely unless they have a team of full-time attorneys) or else they are operating under the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board statutory license and paying SoundExchange $500 per channel.
If it's the latter, then that raises the question how Mixcloud offsets the annual $500 per channel license fee to SoundExchange with a meager $15 membership fee per broadcaster. Something about that arrangement isn't adding up.
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
That's a lot easier said than done. it would require an army of lawyers to contact ever single record label both domestic and overseas to secure such rights -- and then to maintain such agreements for the foreseeable future. And even that doesn't account for the hundreds of thousands of indie and unsigned artists which would also need to be individually cleared.
-
16 votesVirtualNightclub
shared this idea
·
-
17 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
Just to be clear, ASCAP and BMI do not pay recording artist or record labels. They only remunerate the songwriters and/or their designated agents (i.e. publishers).
SoundExchange is the PRO for recording artists and record labels in the U.S. But unlike ASCAP and BMI which operate as a copyright collective, SoundExchange is the sole designated agent for royalty distribution of sound recordings pursuant to the statutory license, the rates and terms of which are determined by the Copyright Royalty Board.
What we really need is an alternative licensing model that is viable for small-scale online broadcasters for which the statutory license, administered by SoundExchange, is well beyond their financial means. For this to happen, I think we need to form a coalition and approach Congress.
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
Technically ALL musical works and the recordings are copyrighted. There are only a couple exceptions:
a) songs for which the copyright in the musical work and sound recording have expired and are now in the public domain (this is very unlikely)
b) songs that are specifically licensed as royalty-free by the copyright owner in the musical work and sound recording (such Creative Commons)
c) songs for which you have secured a license with the copyright owner in the musical work and sound recording (this is do-able, but may cost money)
Unless you manage to verify that the songs you are broadcasting fit in one of these categories, then you are at risk of receiving a DMCA takedown notice.
-
174 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
There are two copyrights in recorded music: the musical work (represented by music publishers) and the sound recording (represented by record labels). The issue Twitch is likely facing is legal disputes from the latter.
Terrestrial radio stations in the U.S. only have to secure a license for the musical works. They are exempt from paying royalties to record labels. This is not the case for digital online transmissions (a-la Twitch) which are legally obligated to secure a license for both the musical works AND the sound recordings. That is what makes this situation so much complicated.
There is no equivalent blanket-licensing agency like ASCAP and BMI for record labels. You must instead go through the statutory license which is administered by SoundExchange. And I can tell you, the rates are not cheap.
-
42 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
The problem is that copyright law in the U.S. is extremely outdated so it doesn't really account for technologies like computer games and console games moreless interactive streaming platforms like Twitch.
All content in such games, including cut-scenes, background music, sound effects, textures, models, and other assets is intellectual property of either the original game developer or their game publisher. That means if you broadcast any such content online without authorization, then you are infringing on the exclusive right of public performance (music, sound recordings) and/or public display (visual works).
Most game developers and game publishers haven't pursued legal action, thankfully. But it is well within their intellectual property rights to do so at any time they choose. Moreover, even if rightsholders haven't yet pursued legal action, that doesn't mean it is legal to broadcast games online anyway. Rather it is a gray area that has yet to be tested in a court of law.
This is why we need to extend the U.S. Copyright Act to account not only for digital artistic works and but also the vastly changing legal landscape for the use of all such works, so that both creators and consumers can benefit.
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment VirtualNightclub
commented
A lot of recording artists are signed to record labels, so they don't have the authority to clear the use of the sound recordings. Indie and other unsigned artists can conceivably grant such clearance but that doesn't help the majority of streamers that wish to incorporate mainstream music into their shows. What we ultimately need is a statutory license for hobbyist online broadcasters.
I basically had proposed this idea:
https://twitch.uservoice.com/forums/932185-dmca/suggestions/41928703-collaborate-to-form-an-industry-trade-group-and-li