![]() The only “service” they could honestly be said to offer are those stations which Vivendi hosts on their own servers, which are subject to copyright flags & are frequently pulled from their hosting service if violation is detected. The vast majority of Shoutcast channels accessible through their protocol are hosted by users, not by any Vivendi machine. ![]() This lawsuit attempts (successfully, based upon comments I’ve seen, both here and on other blogs) to conflate Vivendi’s hosted channels with the entirety of their Shoutcast channel listings. And being as this particular case is so incestuous and whored up, it’s probably no surprise it’s taken this long to get some real answers from either side. Though it’s doubtful that any US PRO will go after any individual broadcaster. Just from reading their fairly well hidden TOS years ago, it was quite evident to me that their “escape clause” to any foreign (US) PRO that should come knocking was to seek relief under whatever international safe harbor provision available.Īs for their clients/broadcasters, well despite their website sales pitch to “any and all” the fine print clearly leaves them in the cold without a coat. But I’m desperately thirsty for some clear cut answers and/or comments from the US PROs regarding their present AND historical relationship with Radionomy. I get the sticky international cob webs and hoodwinks of the situation. (For more CRB background, see our extensive coverage here.)Īs I remarked yesterday in the comments of the RAIN – New Radionomy App article, I do wish that “the press” would dig their claws into this issue further. ![]() The case is explicitly about back royalties during 2015. The recent ruling of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which raised webcast royalty rates for 2016, and which also marked the expiration of a law which offered a lower royalty calculation to “small” webcasters falling under a revenue threshhold, does not seem to directly apply here. Copyright Act, and the American statutory license available to webcasters, which is administered by SoundExchange on behalf of record labels. ![]() All these stations produce a large amount of streaming audio ad inventory, which is represented by TargetSpot - also part of the Radionomy Group.Īlthough Radionomy is HQ’d in Belgium, the lawsuit is set within the governing context of the U.S. Radionomy also owns ShoutCast, which is home to about 55,000 pureplay stations, many of them semi-professional ventures operated by music lovers in a particular genre category. The legacy platform hosts station-building tools for ambitious Internet radio producers. The Radionomy Group is a holding company for related webcasting businesses. We heard from the same unverified sources that Radionomy offered an explanation to its producers of a power failure. RAIN News heard anecdotally that Radionomy’s Internet radio platform, which hosts online stations created by individuals, small businesses, and broadcasters, went dark yesterday evening for several hours, roughly synchronized with news of the lawsuit reaching the Internet. Three labels are participating in the filing: Sony Music Entertainment, LaFace Records, and Arista Records. ![]() They further admitted that they do not require their users to comply with the performance complement set forth in Section 114.” copyright law, including the payment of the statutory license royalty payments for reproduction or public performance of sound recordings in the U.S., and admitted that they had not paid royalties to SoundExchange since 2014. The filing notes communication with Radionomy as recent as early this year, in which: “Defendants acknowledged that they are not currently in compliance with U.S. The suit complains that Radionomy has not paid appropriate licensing royalties for use of music recordings since late 2014. Sony music labels have filed a lawsuit in a California federal court. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |