Internet radio in the UK

[Agamemnon]

Does internet radio in the UK come under any form of regulation from OfCom
or the copyright bodies ie. PRS, PPL and MCPS and if so what are the rules
for playing copyrighted music if the station is internet only. Are there
international arrangements on paying royalties which are recognised by UK
law or can you more or lass play what you like or do you have to make
separate arrangements with every copyright body going ?

If I were to broadcast from the UK from my own server and people were
listening in the the UK and US who gets paid for what. What do the BBC pay
for example ?

[Sanddancer]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 09:53:09 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
Does internet radio in the UK come under any form of regulation from OfCom
or the copyright bodies ie. PRS, PPL and MCPS and if so what are the rules
for playing copyrighted music if the station is internet only. Are there
international arrangements on paying royalties which are recognised by UK
law or can you more or lass play what you like or do you have to make
separate arrangements with every copyright body going ?
If I were to broadcast from the UK from my own server and people were
listening in the the UK and US who gets paid for what. What do the BBC pay
for example ?

Our local radio station lets people listen over the Internet. There's
a late night phone in program that I listen to if I'm in the car and
the presenter mentioned that the rules have just changed. Apperently
they're now going to broadcast on the Internet a day last so they can
take all the music out of it. He mentioned something about new rules.

I hope that's some help.

Sanddancer

[Molly Mockford]

Post by Sanddancer
On Fri, 5 May 2006 09:53:09 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
If I were to broadcast from the UK from my own server and people were
listening in the the UK and US who gets paid for what. What do the BBC pay
for example ?

Our local radio station lets people listen over the Internet. There's
a late night phone in program that I listen to if I'm in the car and
the presenter mentioned that the rules have just changed. Apperently
they're now going to broadcast on the Internet a day last so they can
take all the music out of it. He mentioned something about new rules.

Have a look at
<http://technology.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329470634-117422,00.html>
which explains the problem. It's not happy news.

(That page is the "printable version" of the Guardian's story, as the
main page doesn't seem to work in Firefox.)

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 16:20:43 +0100, Molly Mockford put finger to

Post by Molly Mockford

Post by Sanddancer
On Fri, 5 May 2006 09:53:09 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
If I were to broadcast from the UK from my own server and people were
listening in the the UK and US who gets paid for what. What do the BBC pay
for example ?

Our local radio station lets people listen over the Internet. There's
a late night phone in program that I listen to if I'm in the car and
the presenter mentioned that the rules have just changed. Apperently
they're now going to broadcast on the Internet a day last so they can
take all the music out of it. He mentioned something about new rules.

Have a look at
<http://technology.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329470634-117422,00.html>
which explains the problem. It's not happy news.

The collection agencies are numpties of the highest order. They seem
determined to protect their own revenues at the expense of producers
and consumers of recorded music - that is, the artists and listeners.
I sincerely hope that the entire licensing model breaks down
completely under the pressure to make music more widely available.

Mark

[Agamemnon]

Post by Molly Mockford

Post by Sanddancer
On Fri, 5 May 2006 09:53:09 +0100, "Agamemnon"

Post by Agamemnon
If I were to broadcast from the UK from my own server and people were
listening in the the UK and US who gets paid for what. What do the BBC pay
for example ?

Our local radio station lets people listen over the Internet. There's
a late night phone in program that I listen to if I'm in the car and
the presenter mentioned that the rules have just changed. Apperently
they're now going to broadcast on the Internet a day last so they can
take all the music out of it. He mentioned something about new rules.

Have a look at
<http://technology.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329470634-117422,00.html> which
explains the problem. It's not happy news.
(That page is the "printable version" of the Guardian's story, as the main
page doesn't seem to work in Firefox.)

Is the PPL's extortionate scheme legally enforceable if I use a US based
server. In fact is it legally enforceable at all. Has parliament approved it
? I don't see why they should have to be paid royalties if US broadcasters
don't have to pay them and I don't see why they can't just charge a
percentage of advertising revenue for internet only broadcasters since the
fee they are charging now is 20 times higher than terrestrial broadcasters
would have to pay for the same number of listeners and 1000 times higher
than you could possibly make from internet advertising considering most of
your listeners would not even be in your home town and there would be no way
to restrict the service to just that. Further more what use is a PPL licence
if the music that you are going to be broadcasting is no covered by their
jurisdiction anyway. PPL is a British organisation so what right has it got
to collect royalties for listeners listening outside of the UK or to non-UK
music.

Post by Molly Mockford
--
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 6 May 2006 17:41:35 +0100, Agamemnon put finger to keyboard

Post by Agamemnon
Is the PPL's extortionate scheme legally enforceable if I use a US based
server.

Yes, because you are based in the UK (assuming that you are).

Post by Agamemnon
In fact is it legally enforceable at all.

Yes, because the actual copyright holders have delegated their
enforcement rights to PPL/MCPS/PRS/etc.

Post by Agamemnon
Has parliament approved it

They don't need to. It's a purely commercial transaction. If they sued
you, it would be a civil case not a criminal case.

Post by Agamemnon
? I don't see why they should have to be paid royalties if US broadcasters
don't have to pay them and I don't see why they can't just charge a
percentage of advertising revenue for internet only broadcasters since the
fee they are charging now is 20 times higher than terrestrial broadcasters
would have to pay for the same number of listeners and 1000 times higher
than you could possibly make from internet advertising considering most of
your listeners would not even be in your home town and there would be no way
to restrict the service to just that.

Those are all very reasonable arguments. But reasonable arguments are
not what the collection agencies are interested in.

Post by Agamemnon
Further more what use is a PPL licence
if the music that you are going to be broadcasting is no covered by their
jurisdiction anyway.

If you're only broadcasting music that isn't covered by the collection
agencies then you don't need a licence. That's always been the case,
no matter what medium you are broadcasting in. But there isn't a lot
that isn't covered by the collection agencies - anything that's
commercially released in the UK almost certainly will be, so to avoid
the need for a licence you would need to stick to independently
released material or stuff that's never been released at all (even on
import) here. (Or, if you're big enough, you can negotiate directly
with the rights holders and bypass the collection agencies - but you
need to be a very big organisation to manage that).

Post by Agamemnon
PPL is a British organisation so what right has it got
to collect royalties for listeners listening outside of the UK or to non-UK
music.

It's the location of the broadcaster, not the listeners, that is what
matters.

Mark

[Agamemnon]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sat, 6 May 2006 17:41:35 +0100, Agamemnon put finger to keyboard

Post by Agamemnon
Is the PPL's extortionate scheme legally enforceable if I use a US based
server.

Yes, because you are based in the UK (assuming that you are).

Post by Agamemnon
In fact is it legally enforceable at all.

Yes, because the actual copyright holders have delegated their
enforcement rights to PPL/MCPS/PRS/etc.

Post by Agamemnon
Has parliament approved it

They don't need to. It's a purely commercial transaction. If they sued
you, it would be a civil case not a criminal case.

Post by Agamemnon
? I don't see why they should have to be paid royalties if US broadcasters
don't have to pay them and I don't see why they can't just charge a
percentage of advertising revenue for internet only broadcasters since the
fee they are charging now is 20 times higher than terrestrial broadcasters
would have to pay for the same number of listeners and 1000 times higher
than you could possibly make from internet advertising considering most of
your listeners would not even be in your home town and there would be no way
to restrict the service to just that.

Those are all very reasonable arguments. But reasonable arguments are
not what the collection agencies are interested in.

Post by Agamemnon
Further more what use is a PPL licence
if the music that you are going to be broadcasting is no covered by their
jurisdiction anyway.

If you're only broadcasting music that isn't covered by the collection
agencies then you don't need a licence. That's always been the case,
no matter what medium you are broadcasting in. But there isn't a lot
that isn't covered by the collection agencies - anything that's

I am talking about the fact that their jurisdiction does not extend to
Europe or the US therefore they should have no right to charge me for
European and EU listeners. If I were to transmit music on a satellite to the
US it would be the US copyright agencies I would be paying not those of the
UK.

Post by Mark Goodge
commercially released in the UK almost certainly will be, so to avoid
the need for a licence you would need to stick to independently
released material or stuff that's never been released at all (even on
import) here. (Or, if you're big enough, you can negotiate directly
with the rights holders and bypass the collection agencies - but you
need to be a very big organisation to manage that).

Post by Agamemnon
PPL is a British organisation so what right has it got
to collect royalties for listeners listening outside of the UK or to non-UK
music.

It's the location of the broadcaster, not the listeners, that is what
matters.

See my example about satellites. Astra is based in the Netherlands but Sky
does not pay the Dutch copyright agencies since it doesn't broadcast its UK
content to Holland. I should not have to pay PPL royalties for listeners
outside of the UK especially when the US rates are lower or nonexistent in
the case of performance copyright. It my server were in the US and most of
my listeners are in the US and lets suppose UK access is blocked and my
advertisers are US based what jurisdiction does PPL have ?

Post by Mark Goodge
Mark
--
Visit: http://names.orangehedgehog.com - British surname distribution profiles
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 6 May 2006 21:18:33 +0100, Agamemnon put finger to keyboard

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Agamemnon
Further more what use is a PPL licence
if the music that you are going to be broadcasting is no covered by their
jurisdiction anyway.

If you're only broadcasting music that isn't covered by the collection
agencies then you don't need a licence. That's always been the case,
no matter what medium you are broadcasting in. But there isn't a lot
that isn't covered by the collection agencies - anything that's

I am talking about the fact that their jurisdiction does not extend to
Europe or the US therefore they should have no right to charge me for
European and EU listeners. If I were to transmit music on a satellite to the
US it would be the US copyright agencies I would be paying not those of the
UK.

if you were solely a US broadcaster, then yes. But if you were running
a UK-based Internet station then you wouldn't be.

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Mark Goodge
commercially released in the UK almost certainly will be, so to avoid
the need for a licence you would need to stick to independently
released material or stuff that's never been released at all (even on
import) here. (Or, if you're big enough, you can negotiate directly
with the rights holders and bypass the collection agencies - but you
need to be a very big organisation to manage that).

Post by Agamemnon
PPL is a British organisation so what right has it got
to collect royalties for listeners listening outside of the UK or to non-UK
music.

It's the location of the broadcaster, not the listeners, that is what
matters.

See my example about satellites. Astra is based in the Netherlands but Sky
does not pay the Dutch copyright agencies since it doesn't broadcast its UK
content to Holland.

Astra isn't a broadcaster, any more than the company which manages
terrestrial transmitters in the UK is a broacaster. Sky (and any other
satellite company) is the broadcaster, and they pay according to their
own location and licence.

Post by Agamemnon
I should not have to pay PPL royalties for listeners
outside of the UK especially when the US rates are lower or nonexistent in
the case of performance copyright. It my server were in the US and most of
my listeners are in the US and lets suppose UK access is blocked and my
advertisers are US based what jurisdiction does PPL have ?

If you broadcast solely to the US from equipment located in the US,
then you are a US broadcaster that just happens to be under UK
owwnership. So you'd come under US licensing and charging systems, not
UK ones.

Mark

[Agamemnon]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sat, 6 May 2006 21:18:33 +0100, Agamemnon put finger to keyboard

Post by Agamemnon
I should not have to pay PPL royalties for listeners
outside of the UK especially when the US rates are lower or nonexistent in
the case of performance copyright. It my server were in the US and most of
my listeners are in the US and lets suppose UK access is blocked and my
advertisers are US based what jurisdiction does PPL have ?

If you broadcast solely to the US from equipment located in the US,
then you are a US broadcaster that just happens to be under UK
owwnership. So you'd come under US licensing and charging systems, not
UK ones.

What if you were to broadcast to the US, UK and Europe and the rest of the
world and most of your listeners were in the US. This what I expect will
eventually happen after you begin broadcasting even if the internet
broadcaster in located in the UK since the US is where most internet users
are located so I do not see why PPL should have any jurisdiction over non-UK
listeners and start demanding extortionate royalties on a per listener basis
especially if I offer to pay the US copyright agency which does not charge
performance royalties at all what it wants. Doesn't the UK or EU have laws
to stop extortion like this ? PPL does not even charge this extortion fee to
internet broadcasters who have a terrestrial licence so it is also
responsible for discrimination which should be against EU law.

Are there any unions of internet broadcasters that could fight PPL in the
courts ?

Post by Mark Goodge
Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 7 May 2006 00:30:01 +0100, Agamemnon put finger to keyboard

Post by Agamemnon

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sat, 6 May 2006 21:18:33 +0100, Agamemnon put finger to keyboard

Post by Agamemnon
I should not have to pay PPL royalties for listeners
outside of the UK especially when the US rates are lower or nonexistent in
the case of performance copyright. It my server were in the US and most of
my listeners are in the US and lets suppose UK access is blocked and my
advertisers are US based what jurisdiction does PPL have ?

If you broadcast solely to the US from equipment located in the US,
then you are a US broadcaster that just happens to be under UK
owwnership. So you'd come under US licensing and charging systems, not
UK ones.

What if you were to broadcast to the US, UK and Europe and the rest of the
world and most of your listeners were in the US. This what I expect will
eventually happen after you begin broadcasting even if the internet
broadcaster in located in the UK since the US is where most internet users
are located so I do not see why PPL should have any jurisdiction over non-UK
listeners and start demanding extortionate royalties on a per listener basis
especially if I offer to pay the US copyright agency which does not charge
performance royalties at all what it wants.

You may well have a good argument there. But, as things stand, the
collection agencies can, and do, enforce payments in the situations
you describe. I'm not approving of it, merely pointing out the reality
of the situation.

Post by Agamemnon
Doesn't the UK or EU have laws
to stop extortion like this ?

It would seem not.

Post by Agamemnon
PPL does not even charge this extortion fee to
internet broadcasters who have a terrestrial licence so it is also
responsible for discrimination which should be against EU law.

Actually, they do. And it isn't against EU law. The EU, in this case,
is on the side of the agencies rather than the consumer.

Post by Agamemnon
Are there any unions of internet broadcasters that could fight PPL in the
courts ?

Not yet, no.

Mark

[Stuart]

The service provided here http://www.jkcmedia.co.uk/content/view/23/42/
(aka Live-Cast UK) was originally intended to be the UK version of
Live365, which allows anyone to set up as an internet broadcaster.
Live365 pays for the broadcast right of all music in the US, and JKC's
subscriptions cover them for licensing with the PPL in the UK.

However, now it seems that any potential smalltime UK broadcasters have
been stopped, by the new Geo-Lock law, from reaching anyone outside of
the UK. Which means JKC's service seems rather redundant now.

If a UK broacaster set up a station via Live365.com (which can transmit
worldwide from the US), are they still breaking the law, as they are
based in the UK?

[Agamemnon]

Post by Stuart
The service provided here http://www.jkcmedia.co.uk/content/view/23/42/
(aka Live-Cast UK) was originally intended to be the UK version of
Live365, which allows anyone to set up as an internet broadcaster.
Live365 pays for the broadcast right of all music in the US, and JKC's
subscriptions cover them for licensing with the PPL in the UK.
However, now it seems that any potential smalltime UK broadcasters have
been stopped, by the new Geo-Lock law, from reaching anyone outside of
the UK. Which means JKC's service seems rather redundant now.
If a UK broacaster set up a station via Live365.com (which can transmit
worldwide from the US), are they still breaking the law, as they are
based in the UK?

It probably dependeds who is listening. PPL have no jurisdiction whatsoever
in the US. If US citizens are listening to a UK feed on a US terrestrial
radio station the UK based copyright organisations cannot claim royalties
from the US stations and even if they could, performance royalties are not
payable in the US so PPL has no right whatsever to claim them outside of the
UK. So far PPL has desisted from suing US based broadcasters who have
listeners in the UK and I doubt a US court would hear their case and I doubt
they could prove who is listening to the station anyway without some sort of
industrial espionage. If they tried to sue the US broadcasters in a UK court
then the question is weather UK courts would have jurisdiction over a US
company. I think in the world of business if two companies from different
countries sign a contract then the contract states that only one country has
jurisdiction over the contracting parties. PPL have no agreements with US
broadcasters or the US government since it is illegal to claim performance
royalties in the US in the first place and if you were to sign a contract
with a US service provider it would probably come under US law so PPL would
have to sue you in the US courts, if they wanted to claim royalties from
non-UK listeners, who do not recognise their authority in any case so they
would lose. The most PPL would be able to do in a US court is force you to
block UK listeners but they would have to apply that policy to every US
broadcaster as well in order for a US court to force your service provider
to do that. If PPL were to sue in a US court they would be accepting US
jurisdiction over listeners in the UK and since US law prohibits performance
royalties the US court would probably rule against them.

If PPL do not know where you are located in the UK I doubt they could sue
you in a UK court. They would have to apply to a US court to force your
service provider to give them your details but the offence PPL are accusing
you of is not illegal in the US so why should a US court rule in their
favour. If your office was registered in the US then all that PPL could
obtain is that address and not your actual location. If you masked your UK
IP address on the upload stream I doubt PPL could find you or even know you
are UK based.

[Agamemnon]

Post by Stuart
The service provided here http://www.jkcmedia.co.uk/content/view/23/42/
(aka Live-Cast UK) was originally intended to be the UK version of
Live365, which allows anyone to set up as an internet broadcaster.
Live365 pays for the broadcast right of all music in the US, and JKC's
subscriptions cover them for licensing with the PPL in the UK.
However, now it seems that any potential smalltime UK broadcasters have
been stopped, by the new Geo-Lock law, from reaching anyone outside of
the UK. Which means JKC's service seems rather redundant now.
If a UK broacaster set up a station via Live365.com (which can transmit
worldwide from the US), are they still breaking the law, as they are
based in the UK?

I've looked up the copyright rules regarding US based internet broadcasting
and they are as follows.

http://www.riaa.com/issues/licensing/webcasting_faq.asp

Unlike PPL's extortion scheme which charges nearly double the US rate per
performance and discriminates against small broadcasters, small internet
broadcasters in the US whose revenues are less than $1.25 million have the
option of paying royalties as a percentage of station revenue or if you are
non-commercial broadcaster at a cheaper rate than lager stations which is 5
times cheaper than PPL want.

http://www.soundexchange.com/licensee/forms.html#services

http://www.soundexchange.com//licensee/documents/SWSA_SOA_for_Commercial_Webcasters_Simulcasters_2003.pdf

Clearly there needs to be European legislation which closes the gap if
European broadcasters are going to be able to compete.

If you expecting to get more than 15 listeners to your stream then you
should register with a US service provider. I doubt PPL will be able to take
any action against you if you nominate a US collection agency as opposed to
them.

[www.sixtiesradio.co.uk]

Post by Stuart
The service provided here http://www.jkcmedia.co.uk/content/view/23/42/
(aka Live-Cast UK) was originally intended to be the UK version of
Live365, which allows anyone to set up as an internet broadcaster.
Live365 pays for the broadcast right of all music in the US, and JKC's
subscriptions cover them for licensing with the PPL in the UK.
However, now it seems that any potential smalltime UK broadcasters have
been stopped, by the new Geo-Lock law, from reaching anyone outside of
the UK. Which means JKC's service seems rather redundant now.
If a UK broacaster set up a station via Live365.com (which can transmit
worldwide from the US), are they still breaking the law, as they are
based in the UK?

I have been broadcasting through Live365 for years, and have had a number of discussions with their legal people about this.

I should add that, like all broadcasters with Live365, my fee includes a royalty payment covering the music I play. According to them, providing I use mp3 files played on their servers in the U.S., and do not enable the broadcast to be launched by clicking on a British website, I am covered.

I cannot also broadcast live, as that would contravene UK law, but by broadcasting from the U.S. it is outside the jurisdiction of the UK. Isn't it terrible that in a supposed free country we have to go to these lengths?

Exactly who are the UK royalty collection agencies serving by pricing their clients' product out of the market?

Surely by making their product affordable, they could generate a lot of revenue for the people they purport to represent.

[kevin heath]

I've just been to JKC's web site

they can not be serious about their prices £25 a month for 10 listeners? !!"!!!!!

I'll stick to live365 a great product at a great price


Kevin

http://www.ypraise.com

Post by Stuart
The service provided here http://www.jkcmedia.co.uk/content/view/23/42/
(aka Live-Cast UK) was originally intended to be the UK version of
Live365, which allows anyone to set up as an internet broadcaster.
Live365 pays for the broadcast right of all music in the US, and JKC's
subscriptions cover them for licensing with the PPL in the UK.

[www.sixtiesradio.co.uk]

I've just been to JKC's web site

they can not be serious about their prices £25 a month for 10 listeners? !!"!!!!!

Post by kevin heath
I'll stick to live365 a great product at a great price

Indicative of the Americans free market thinking, rather than the British "prevention" approach

Gary

[charles]

In article <***@pipex.net>,
Agamemnon <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

[Snip]

Post by Agamemnon
See my example about satellites. Astra is based in the Netherlands

actually Luxemburg