[vorbis] mp3pro and the mp3 streaming license

[Roel VdB]

>>+ you'd only have to pay if you were selling MP3 tracks and albums
>
> No. The licensing terms for selling mp3 online are more onerous, are 
> seperate, and have been around for longer. This new stuff has nothing 
> to do with selling music online - it's for streaming. 

You are probably correct about the discrimination between streaming
and putting online mp3's.  At least, this is how the author of the
article interpreted:

> "If MP3 is used for free distribution on the Internet, we will not
> charge royalties," he says. But "if people monetize, the inventors
> should have their fair share," he adds.

if that was in streaming-context only it is as you say.

>>+ music/radio stations can freely air/send out mp3 streams
>
> If they don't make ANY money in any way, yes. How many significant
> online radio stations can you say that of? 

I don't know, but

>The royalty rate is two percent of revenues related to streaming,
>with a minimum fee of $2,000 per year.

combined with earlier statement, this time in a streaming context,
clearly states it's the intention of the licensing that you can have a
free online 'radio station' and would not have to pay any kind of fee.

>>What Moffit says is imo mistaken and does not make any sense.
>>If what he says is true then any artist must pay 2% of his global 
>>income because they give away even ONE free mp3. So rolling Stones 
>>put up some free clips for their fans and they get charged on 
>>global income? 
>
> No, you didn't read what Jack said properly. 

I think I did, but it's a non-issue anyway.  I checked their site on
"Electronic Music Distribution":

>  Electronic Music Distribution systems, where mp3 encoded data is
> sold to end-users, are licensed as follows: ...

o this means an artist was already allowed to legally _give away_ his
music using mp3 without having to pay royalties to Thomson.

I thought this was not yet the case, but seems I was mistaken there.

> This is wrong. They explicitly license online distribution seperately,
> and more expensively.

if you were selling. giving away mp3 for free is no issue.

> The new charges are for streaming. ANY streaming
> that brings in any money at all. So, you can freely stream stuff if you 
> don't charge for it AND don't make any money from doing it (which means 
> no advertising, etc.). That doesn't mean they have to give 2% of all 
> income, just income _related to_ streaming. There is absolutely nothing 
> unclear about that. 

Over the not making money we agree, but I think if or not advertising
is income related to streaming is highly debatable and far from clear.
Would receiving a donation and thanking the donator be considered
income for a free radio station?  imo, given the first statement ("not
charge royalties for free distribution") from Thomson, running a free
online mp3 broadcast and keeping it running via advertising is no
problem.  Only charging the listener in order to access the stream
would make it subject of the royalties.

So for me that boils down to:
- artist can already distribute mp3's for free and not be subject to
royalties. (very clear)
- free radio station can use mp3 to stream and not be subject to
royalties. (debatable, but what else would "not charge royalties for
free distribution" mean?)


-- 
Best regards,
 Roel                          mailto:vdbj at yucom.be

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.