PPNZ - Licence required by anyone who plays music audio and / or video recordings in public

Forums › Off topic › PPNZ - Licence required by anyone who plays music audio and / or video recordings in public

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

gzt

17125 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#999291 5-Mar-2014 10:22

Klipspringer: We have some radio stations here in NZ which are essentially owned by the community. These radio stations, Life FM for example, rely totally on funding from the community to be able to broadcast. Whats the story here?

They pay record companies just like everyone else. Unless there is a Christian Copyright similar to BSD/GPL or something?

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#999963 6-Mar-2014 09:09

Klipspringer: Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread ....

The double dipping thing really annoys me. The stories about jukeboxes and Radio stations (station pays, listener also pays)...

Going back to the radio though. We have some radio stations here in NZ which are essentially owned by the community. These radio stations, Life FM for example, rely totally on funding from the community to be able to broadcast. Whats the story here?

Kiwirock answered this already

kiwirock:
To also keep the argument balanced on the fence post, the likes of LPFM stations who aren't really in it for commercial gain, they pay $250 a year to each, but limited to $10,000 revenue to re-coup costs (so in other words the 2.5% of revenue target again). No record keeping has been requested to be handed in, yet, so they're pretty lenient in my eyes.

So a fee less than $250 a year would be okay for a company turning more than $10k a year based on those rates considering you probably have more foot traffic than listeners to an LPFM station.

gzt

17125 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#999996 6-Mar-2014 09:53

Life FM is a major nationwide christian contemporary music network. Definitely not low power ; ).

I don't know what the structure is but at least part of costs are supported by fundraising.

To my knowledge there is no exemption from copyright on religious non-profit grounds, but I have not checked the the act. I mean otherwise you could set up a non-profit religious radio station and ~~profit~~ enjoy the proceeds heartily. Btw, a fair number of churches in USA pay copyright fees for sermons and music.

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1000086 6-Mar-2014 12:30

gzt: Life FM is a major nationwide christian contemporary music network. Definitely not low power ; ).

I don't know what the structure is but at least part of costs are supported by fundraising.

To my knowledge there is no exemption from copyright on religious non-profit grounds, but I have not checked the the act. I mean otherwise you could set up a non-profit religious radio station and profit enjoy the proceeds heartily. Btw, a fair number of churches in USA pay copyright fees for sermons and music.

They do for music in churches in NZ as well..

Regards,

Old3eyes

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1000294 6-Mar-2014 18:04

gzt: Life FM is a major nationwide christian contemporary music network. Definitely not low power ; ).

I don't know what the structure is but at least part of costs are supported by fundraising.

To my knowledge there is no exemption from copyright on religious non-profit grounds, but I have not checked the the act. I mean otherwise you could set up a non-profit religious radio station and profit enjoy the proceeds heartily. Btw, a fair number of churches in USA pay copyright fees for sermons and music.

They will be paying based on turnover. They more they make the more they pay. It used to be 2.5% but if I recall correctly the last license for broadcast I saw was going to up 3-4% over a few years. So it's probably higher than 2.5% now.

The last community one I worked for didn't have to file reports and had to pay a blanket fee of around $3,000 or something annually as it's income was pretty fixed (NZ On-Air funded).

The last charity trust one I worked for still paid 2.5% of the years turnover as it's operating costs were still in the $xx,000's of dollars and varied as it sold advertising to sponsor it's costs rather than receive funding. The same as a normal broadcaster would.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1000321 6-Mar-2014 18:46

I would have thought that Hymns would be the same as classical music, old and hence outside of the usually deceased owners copyright.
A couple of friends of mine own retail outlets, they thought I was joking when I told them about this. They run smallish businesses with a turnover of 100K or less. They would simply remove the radio station as opposed to paying $270/annum.
One of them sells services B2B and advertises on radio to other businesses, he felt it was double dipping to charge business owners to receive a radio station that effectively charges businesses to receive his radio ads.
I think as more people become aware of this opposition will grow.
We live in a country where it's always been 'free' as in beer to listen to the radio. When I get a haircut I'm paying for the haircut, not the jokes the barber tells me, the radio in the background or the birds tweeting. The big loosers will be the radio stations in the above case because advertisers are not going to continue to advertise to businesses if they have to pay money to hear the adds in their normal business environment.

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1000331 6-Mar-2014 19:09

turnin: I would have thought that Hymns would be the same as classical music, old and hence outside of the usually deceased owners copyright.

They are but most churches use modern music written in the past 40 years so they are still in copyright..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1000333 6-Mar-2014 19:12

Oh, ok, been a while :)

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1000334 6-Mar-2014 19:13

turnin: I would have thought that Hymns would be the same as classical music, old and hence outside of the usually deceased owners copyright.
A couple of friends of mine own retail outlets, they thought I was joking when I told them about this. They run smallish businesses with a turnover of 100K or less. They would simply remove the radio station as opposed to paying $270/annum.
One of them sells services B2B and advertises on radio to other businesses, he felt it was double dipping to charge business owners to receive a radio station that effectively charges businesses to receive his radio ads.
I think as more people become aware of this opposition will grow.
We live in a country where it's always been 'free' as in beer to listen to the radio. When I get a haircut I'm paying for the haircut, not the jokes the barber tells me, the radio in the background or the birds tweeting. The big loosers will be the radio stations in the above case because advertisers are not going to continue to advertise to businesses if they have to pay money to hear the adds in their normal business environment.

It's not so much if they have to pay, it's whether they are paying, listening and your advertising is effective.

Pay TV like Sky was a mouthful to digest when it originally arrived. Then started playing ads between movies considering you were already paying for the service in the first place.

But advertisers don't stop advertising on Sky just because some don't pay to receive it either at home or at work because it's still effective, more so than radio ads. It's also copyright licensed similar, it's not for public commercial premises that's what Sky commercial is all about.

I know plenty who pay their fees and have the radio on in a normal business premises. But pulling radio advertising if effective in cars, homes, boats, buses, hotels etc... and business that do pay their fee which by comparison to buy a radio stations library of music to keep entertained is a small fee to pay.

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1000342 6-Mar-2014 19:26

turnin: I would have thought that Hymns would be the same as classical music, old and hence outside of the usually deceased owners copyright.
A couple of friends of mine own retail outlets, they thought I was joking when I told them about this. They run smallish businesses with a turnover of 100K or less. They would simply remove the radio station as opposed to paying $270/annum.
One of them sells services B2B and advertises on radio to other businesses, he felt it was double dipping to charge business owners to receive a radio station that effectively charges businesses to receive his radio ads.
I think as more people become aware of this opposition will grow.
We live in a country where it's always been 'free' as in beer to listen to the radio. When I get a haircut I'm paying for the haircut, not the jokes the barber tells me, the radio in the background or the birds tweeting. The big loosers will be the radio stations in the above case because advertisers are not going to continue to advertise to businesses if they have to pay money to hear the adds in their normal business environment.

And I don't think the rules will ever change in a hurry in the future. Not unless radio stations sign deals with the record studios and song writers directly, and pay a much higher fee for rights to cover any other futher commercial use on the listeners behalf that could reflect a drop in more direct record sales.

That would wipe out radio, because it would mean the of advertising would go through the roof to re-coupe costs.

Then you're starting to look at the real picture of what it costs. Like broadband, we don't pay what it really costs to provide the advertised speed around the clock, only a portion assuming the next Joe Bloggs won't be using it at the same time.

In broadcasting, they're assuming the next person is using the copyright assets of a song writer/record label for personal use not licensing it for further commercial use.

I'm all for no further costs to end listeners, but not if the cost of licensing continues to rise on radios side, because ultimately that cost is still going to get passed back on to you, the advertiser. Unless you want rights taken away from the owner of the copyrighted material by law. Then everyone will want licenses and patents everywhere changed as well and expect a free lunch.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1000348 6-Mar-2014 19:53

kiwirock:
turnin: ....ear the adds in their normal business environment.

It's not so much if they have to pay, it's whether they are paying, listening and your advertising is effective.

Pay TV like Sky was a mouthful to digest when it originally arrived. Then started playing ads between movies considering you were already paying for the service in the first place.

But advertisers don't stop advertising on Sky just because some don't pay to receive it either at home or at work because it's still effective, more so than radio ads. It's also copyright licensed similar, it's not for public commercial premises that's what Sky commercial is all about.

I know plenty who pay their fees and have the radio on in a normal business premises. But pulling radio advertising if effective in cars, homes, boats, buses, hotels etc... and business that do pay their fee which by comparison to buy a radio stations library of music to keep entertained is a small fee to pay.

Sky wasn't ever a free service like radio is today, if sky was free for 50 years, then started charging they would have a much harder job to do in selling the service. Obviously people don't like to have fees imposed on them for a service that was formerly free. whether it be plastic bags in supermarkets or toilet paper in toilets. I think the model will cause more grief than it will return money to musicians.
Free propagates pretty well- propagation can be a very effective business model. The music industry would have been better to build commercial messages/value into music , as some have, and then encourage the end user to engage with the musician or sponsoring company via technology as opposed to inventing new charges. Anyway, call me a stickler but no way in the world will I pay to have the radio on in the background.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#1000485 7-Mar-2014 08:01

Onemusic also lay claim to music in movie trailers. As a DVD rental shop, We have commercial arrangements with movie studios to display their trailers whom own the rights to all content within the movie trailer (if they didn't then the movie companies would be breaching copyright? Correct?).

Seems like a huge stretch to me to require a license.

Also, a few years ago, apra was out there selling themselves as "the" license you needed in retail and the cost was pretty small (under $100 for my size shop), now that cost is over $400. At under $100, I objected to it given we don't play music, just movie trailers, but paid up, at over $400, I don't think so Tim.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5