Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sid

Sound Punk APRA License?

19 posts in this topic

Hey,

I put up a post recently asking for peoples favourite sad song. I looked back later and there was a decent amount of replies. Looking through the replies I naturally wanted to listen to the songs I'd never heard. With the Internet the way it is now, it's possible to go to a web site and listen to the songs for free.

As a student of RB's we talk about the pros and cons of the Internet and piracy etc often. Now, I feel that the majority of music piracy hurts the industry and that idea of 'all music should be free and available to everyone' (Original Napster Style  ;D) just won't work out. But here I am getting song referals 'word of mouth' almost. This must be great for the industry right? But I can't go down to the the local music store with a list I've scribbled down off the screen and say "I want to listen to these songs, they'd be from all different albums, from all different times. I might buy something or I might not. I don't know I've never heard them before."

So I go onto some site that either has streaming music or illegal downloads and check them out.

So yes that song is now digitised and it could now be downloaded by me with out me paying a cent to the artist and all involved. But here the artist has a potential customer personally refered to their song by a group of people whose opion the customer actually cares for. Great right?

Now I'm pretty sure YouTube pay for a massive blanket license so that they can stream songs legally. Is that right? So when I click on that Jonny Cash video clip, is it noted down so the copyright owner gets royalties? That would be cool. So what if I add the same YouTube video in a Sound Punk post, does Sound Punk (strickly speaking  ;)) need a license for that? Or is it covered by the YouTube license because the link goes back to the YouTube page, just the same as if you went to the usual YouTube page?

So I'm getting at something here but I'm not sure what.

My original question was "what's the deal with putting music examples on Sound Punk?" Say I want to show someone this song, I have to play them the song right? But if we all started putting up songs I could see us being crowded by all these people who just want to download free music.

My original thought was what if Sound Punk got an APRA license? Note down what songs are being played so that artist gets royalties. Considering that most of the songs posted are by members the royalties would go to Punkers! - Figuring that the songs have to be registered first but hey, if they're only draft ideas then royalties don't really matter. Great right? There's some real SP talent, why not put it all up? It would increase the running cost of the site but it would create money aswell.

- just not directly for Sound Punk  ;D... but it would indirectly :) - more people seeing ads?

So that idea of "music should be free on the Internet..." is half right in my opinion. It gets paid for, just not by me hehe! But seriously, I knew when I walked into the local music shop today the odds of me walking out with a CD were slim and I was right. Just the same as I know that if I could listen to the list of songs feautured in the 'saddest song' post the chances of buying something would be high. In what format I don't really care but I want the license to play it at home whenever I want.

Any geniuses out there want to connect the dots? Plenty of kudos (and a ****load of money) for you if you can.

Sid. :cans:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, interesting ideas there Sid ;)

Before I get to the bigger picture of licencing music, I think Sound Punk would only really benefit from an APRA licence if we were running a proper streaming service, a la soundpunk radio. Although Ajent X and Cheyne have put the idea to us...

http://www.soundpunk.com/index.php?topic=1312.0

Although you've got me curious now - because APRA do have licences for music download sites as well... *RB strokes chin in pensive thought*

If it's easy and worth it and our punks here can put uploads to SP on their misc performance returns each year, that would be cool. It's only a tiny royalty but every bit helps.

Cheyne leave this with me, I have the APRA links bookmarked at work - this could be worth it! Might have to pass a hat around for the licence fee, in which case we'll all end up $20 behind at the end of the year! ;)

Only thing is an SP representative would have to look after logging the uploads and submitting to APRA each quarter  :)

Regards SP and posting copyright content, the overwhelming thing here is independent material uploaded direct from the artist - samples as well as music. This is intentional - we actively discourage posting unauthorised copyright content because despite the common practice and the convenience, like it or not it's illegal, and we want to stay away from the prying eyes of the internet police.

One company has already given us grief over unintentionally posting an article they were selling.

When we post media and pics from other sites, we are providing a link to the site, not hosting the content ourselves. It's a fine line, but an important one. If a post was person, it's the difference between saying "hey, look at this movie I copied" and "hey, I found a place you can go and watch this movie". We do the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say if you're streaming a Youtube vid, complete with youtube watermark, that youtube's license should cover that. Yes, the URL in your browser says www.soundpunk.com but that particular square on the page you're looking at is just a window to that other site. It's still "their" content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And YouTube has had its own battles against the majors for blatant copyright abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its an interesting thought Sid,  and whilst im all for helping artists receive what they deserve , its an overhead I just couldnt be bothered with at the current time.     Soundpunk is a non-profit site,  and although if you have under 100 posts you'll see Google adverts on thread pages,  the costs of running the site far outweigh the minor income those adverts bring in.  Not to mention the costs of other various things iv forked out for over the past year (licence fee's for the file manager, various iStock photo credits etc etc) , i dont really fancy paying more fee's  for something thats not necessary .. I should also mention it is my wallet alone this money comes from.   

The beauty of soundpunk in its current form is its simplicity, and while we teeter on the edge of certain laws here and there we're still able to do it.  We dont offer any official forms of distribution and our current methods are hardly mass marketed, its purely word of mouth someone will find your links.

The ideas iv had for SoundPunk 2.0 do consist of various web radio, podcasts and video sections, all of which are going to be bigger overheads and costs for my self (not to mention the administration).    All these ideas are sitting much higher on my radar than APRA licensing at the moment,  I am going to direct all my attention at providing a better experience to all soundpunk users,  including those who are just starting out, and not just those actively producing quality music.

Dont get me wrong, I do have intentions to support artists in other ways,  but music licensing , artist fee's and music sales are slightly detering from the original vision I had for soundpunk.   And to be blunt ,  if people started demanding money for their music to be played on soundpunk I would tell them to beat it .. its just not in the spirit of the community.

Longer term members will remember I had removed download links from the embedded MP3 player , this was an effort to prevent people being able to download as they please,  and i do intend to improve on this more, so people can post their music and be certain it will not be downloaded, just played. 

When soundpunk reaches a maturity level and functionality level that I consider of a higher level , then id like to focus more on the individual artists and supporting them for their work..  

Rob, if im thinking in the wrong head space here by all means correct me ,  this is your field not mine so I may need some direction ..   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, if im thinking in the wrong head space here by all means correct me ,  this is your field not mine so I may need some direction .. 

No I don't think so - at the moment. From what I've seen the APRA licence is really for commercial sites with a high turnover of music. The sites are either full-on radio like kiss FM or retail sites like itunes or purpose-built download/promotion sites like mp3.com.au

At present that's not soundpunk. The highest music turnover has been the lychee remix comp and the user track reviews. In both cases I don't think APRA would know what to do actually! Licencing remix comp entries that are subject to their own rules and restrictions, or half-finished tracks that may not ever go public is in the "too hard basket" for APRA. Remixes themselves are a nightmare (which is why we need RB's guild! http://www.soundpunk.com/index.php?topic=1516.0 :P ).

I will look into the actual dollars, from the view of annual cost per year vs return to artist per play. But I suspect the ratio won't look good.

I think you're right Cheyne, would need to have the infrastructure for web radio and podcasts up and running before worrying about APRA.

Not to discredit your ideas Sid, it's a thought-provoker and worth discussing  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh , its not even on my radar at the moment ,  theres 100 other things that are in the field for my attention before this one .. 

I dont want soundpunk to get caught up in legal and financial issues ...    The site was never going to be about making money for people,  but i fully support poeple using the site for their owns means to make money or promote them selves ...      So long as it doesnt involve me copping a fee for it ..

Maybe later on down the track , when we get more exposure , and I can maybe speak to some larger companies about possible advertising to replace the google ad's it will facilitate the costs and over head involved in a proper APRA setup .. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Amen, it's a discussion forum not a music outlet. I think users here understand that if they post material for streaming, they do so without financial incentives driving it. We can make money elsewhere ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I see what you mean...

By the way thanks for that generous back pocket of yours  :clap:

I was just thinking out loud, thought you might find it interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest whats the deal with copyright for a website like this;

eg, lets say poster a writes an awesome tune. poster b downloads and claims it as their own - uses it for their own financial gain. Poster a then sues poster b.

I realise its unlikely given the calibre of most people posting here (and most uploads aren't release quality renders) but could soundpunk be considered implicit in this scenario and possibly in legal trouble, because poster a decides to blame soundpunk for not protecting their copyright? or is there a waiver somewhere saying all material posted remains property of author etc etc.

Or is it irrelevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poster A could sue Poster B and win.

Poster A's copyright is protected simply by being Poster A, that is, the owner of the piece of work in question.

That's pretty much the law in every country, however, it all starts getting difficult when Poster B isn't living in the same country as you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so poster A couldn't then turn around to the web owners/admin and say - hey you didn't protect my material by not having copyright warnings or whatever. Or does it come down to personal responsibility ( a concept which sadly seems to becoming non-existant in this day and age).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so poster A couldn't then turn around to the web owners/admin and say - hey you didn't protect my material by not having copyright warnings or whatever.

Nope. It should be assumed that the work is copyright protected.

http://www.copyright.org.au/information/basics.htm

How do you get copyright protection?

There is no system of registration for copyright protection in Australia.

You do not need to publish your work, to put a copyright notice on it, or to do anything else to be covered by copyright — the protection is free and automatic. There are no forms to fill in, and there are no fees to be paid. You do not have to send your work to us or to anyone else.

A work is protected automatically from the time it is first written down or recorded in some way, provided it has resulted from its creator’s skill and effort and is not simply copied from another work. For example, as soon as a poem is written, or a song is recorded, it is protected.

Australian copyright works are protected in most other countries, and copyright works from most other countries are protected in Australia.

For information about who owns copyright, see our information sheet "Ownership of Copyright".

The copyright notice

You do not need to put a "copyright notice" on your work for it to be protected in Australia. You may choose to put a copyright notice on your work to remind people that it is protected by copyright. You can put the notice on your work yourself; there is no formal procedure.

So in your example, the onus is on Poster B to seek permission from Poster A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do we have some form of blanket creative commons in place for uploading musicians present or is it inherent ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do we have some form of blanket creative commons in place for uploading musicians present or is it inherent ?

As Spectrum suggested, we actually don't need one. Creative Commons is only a subset of overall copyright law, not an alternative to it. All Creative Commons licences are issued within the bounds of general copyright law.

CC gives copyright owners a relatively simple way to issue non-commercial licences to others, by stipulating how the music can and cannot be used.

However, I have been scared off CC as a result of reading something on the Copyright Council website:

http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/articles_pdf/a06n06.pdf/download

Amongst other things, the copyright council claims that:

- the plain English versions of CC licences are "misleading"

- the handing out of non-commercial licences does not prohibit people still earning income from your music in other, ancillary ways - and they have no obligation to give you a royalty or share

- a CC licence lasts for the life of the copyright and is almost impossible to revoke

- music licenced under CC cannot claim royalties through APRA or AMCOS

I've stopped using CC and will just stick to my normal rights and responsibilities under copyright law itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A work is protected automatically from the time it is first written down or recorded in some way, provided it has resulted from its creators skill and effort and is not simply copied from another work. For example, as soon as a poem is written, or a song is recorded, it is protected.

You could potentially have issues then if 2 people were arguing they wrote a certain piece of music (or very similar at least). They would both need to prove the existence of the work prior to the other. In which case would you use "created on" dates in a computer?? They can be doctored easily though too...

A band member from ages ago used to burn rough copies of stuff to a cd and post it to himself (back before intranets) - to prove a date for copyright purposes (not that he needed it cause no one would steal his work but you get the idea)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Spectrum suggested, we actually don't need one. Creative Commons is only a subset of overall copyright law, not an alternative to it. All Creative Commons licences are issued within the bounds of general copyright law.

CC gives copyright owners a relatively simple way to issue non-commercial licences to others, by stipulating how the music can and cannot be used.

However, I have been scared off CC as a result of reading something on the Copyright Council website:

http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/articles_pdf/a06n06.pdf/download

Amongst other things, the copyright council claims that:

- the plain English versions of CC licences are "misleading"

- the handing out of non-commercial licences does not prohibit people still earning income from your music in other, ancillary ways - and they have no obligation to give you a royalty or share

- a CC licence lasts for the life of the copyright and is almost impossible to revoke

- music licenced under CC cannot claim royalties through APRA or AMCOS

I've stopped using CC and will just stick to my normal rights and responsibilities under copyright law itself.

wow, that is scary  :wtf:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could potentially have issues then if 2 people were arguing they wrote a certain piece of music (or very similar at least). They would both need to prove the existence of the work prior to the other. In which case would you use "created on" dates in a computer?? They can be doctored easily though too...

A band member from ages ago used to burn rough copies of stuff to a cd and post it to himself (back before intranets) - to prove a date for copyright purposes (not that he needed it cause no one would steal his work but you get the idea)

Yep the 'mail a tape to yourself' method is tried and true, many people still use it. The truly paranoid store copies at their local bank in the safe deposit box...

A burnt backup CD/DVD with the creation date is ok, it's nigh on impossible to alter the creation date of a CD unless you burn it again. To ensure it's the real deal, you can then mail to yourself and it's double protected.

The mail method still works because the post office date stamp is a legally recognised mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0