Matt May has posted an excellent summary on the podcast music royalties/rights issue over at his site; bestkungfu weblog. He details the steps required for podcast music play in the US, a topic I have covered in previous Bradcasts. The key point is that the new reference to "pod-casting" in the ASCAP license does not add clarity. I think ASCAP's latest license revision makes things a whole lot worse. Where did they get this "60 second" rule from? And what is the stuff about not having playlists or program guides about? It is almost like saying: 'We want you to remain rank amateurs and we want your money'. Another point to note is that any linked MP3 file will play on the default client when it is clicked -- so how can that be "non-interactive"? ASCAP judiciously ignores the mechanical rights issue -- after all, that is not part of their sandbox -- but it would be helpful if these rights agencies got together and provided a clearing house for licensing.
Matt has also harpooned what may become a big issue for podcasters in a year or three -- playlist history. I can see an international team of lawyers sponsored by a group of music rights associations and maybe a large broadcast association going after the top podcasters who are playing rights protected music.
In Canada, as I noted in Bradcast 2, there is currently no mechanism for collecting royalties for artists or composers by way of podcasts. In the absence of a regulation, rights protected music should not be played on a Canadian podcast. It's not good for the artists but maybe by the end of 2005 we will have a new regulation in place. Be forewarned, SOCAN is looking for at least 25 cents per song per download (go to page 22 and 23). That is a steep price and one that will deter me from playing rights protected music.
Podcasters beware. Track the music you play along with its license permissions. Track your downloads. Somebody else will be doing it too.
Add new comment