Re: CARP Passed - This sucks!

[mark_hamburg@baymoon.com]

IANAL, but....

I suspect that if a station only played submissions and insisted that such 
submissions came with a release of rights with respect to Internet 
broadcast, then that station would presumably be in the clear with respect 
to royalties. I don't know whether the submission itself could be 
considered an agreement to those terms, but it probably ought to be 
possible to set things up that way.

So, assuming this passed muster with an entertainment lawyer, then I 
could envisage a system whereby stations register themselves as being 
interested only in broadcast-royalty free music and thereby gain access to 
a library of musician/small-label submitted material. I could even 
envisage terms whereby the stations need to provide playlists such that 
listeners can link back to where they could purchase the music.

What the webcasting royalties shut down then would be the all Britney 
Spears, all the time station. Or that station needs to make enough in 
advertising revenue to cover it's royalty costs. True, this means that 
I'll 
probably never get to hear a radio station segue from Britney Spears into 
Ted Killian's "Leaving Medford" but that's a loss I think I can live with.

Mark

on 6/22/02 3:44 PM, Paul Weissman at paul@nioterra.com wrote:

> but how can you guarantee that music being played on your internet 
radio
> station ISN'T affiliated with BMI/ASCAP?
> 
> in order to to run a station like this you'd have to accept mp3s/cds from
> artists who want you to play their music.  what if some people (maybe 
even
> the record companies themselves) decide to pass you material that is
> actually covered by BMI/ASCAP?  all they have to do is monitor your 
station,
> wait for a song of theirs to come up and all of a sudden you're in
> litigation.
> 
> i have no idea if this is actually how the law works, but it's a thought.