IMRO Limited Online Exploitation Licence (2 Viewers)

[billygannon]

The problem is that IMRO will be forever chasing down websites who host music.
It's very simple to create a website and then load up some Mp3's on to it.
If this is made difficult through legislation, then it will be relatively easy to recreate another scenario where someone can create a website for hosting music in a new format.

When something like this descends into a legal mire - where the costs of catching someone and then proving they've caused an offence totally outweighs the amount that will actually be retrieved - then the legislation should be seen as a pointless exercise.

Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant. IMRO are going about this in a clumsy way and I believe their over-riding intentions are to represent the interests of Irish musicians.

But the idea that Mp3s and other electronic formats of recorded music are commodities that can be bought and sold is, well, ridiculous.

Musicians should be compensated for their efforts.
But it's not going to happen through the sales of MP3's.
The massive effort being put in to trying to create legislative boundaries around Mp3s should be transferred in to finding new ways to pay musicians, engineers, producers etc. for the music they make.

 

[Vinnie]

It might seem like a different argument but it certainly wont be presented that way. All bloggers want as many people to read their blogs as possible. As reader numbers increase so too does the possibility of making money from advertising. At what point does the blog become just a vehicle for advertising and at what point should some of this revenue be trickled down to the artists who didnt solicit content, ask for their video to be posted up or in any way seek to benefit from the blog's content even if it's demonstrably obvious that they did?

This aint my argument by any stretch of the imagination, Im just trying to understand the whole discussion and it's precedents and best/worst case scenarios.

But radio stations (that play music) don't exist to tell people about great new music - they exist to sell advertising. This is something they are entirely dependent on the music for, so of course they should be giving the artists their cut.

It's a completely different argument for music blogs like nialler9.com - bands want to exploit his audience to be heard, so they freely and voluntarily ASK him to post their stuff. But people would still read nialler9.com if he stopped posting actual music files.

 

[Cormcolash]

The whole idea that you need a fucking organisation like IMRO to make sure you get paid for any music you have online is bullshit anyway.
If you want to make money off your music online then set up a website and use Paypal or some shit like. Who the fuck needs IMRO to do something like that? Fuck them.

 

[pete]

I get emails from bands, labels & PR types all the time asking me to put their music on the site, so I can only imagine the volume of stuff the likes of nialler9 gets sent. Sure, it's a symbiotic arrangement but at no time have I ever entertained the idea of charging bands for the privilege. I've always considered it a barter system.

In fact, because of IMROs actions what I've been looking at today is putting in a revenue sharing mechanism for bands, with 100% of the ad income generated by the page containing their mp3 going to the artist. Should be good for a laugh anyway.

 

[ann post]

the shithead in me is sitting back going 'finally, pay to play for journalists, now lets see'.

 

[Vinnie]

IMRO dont exist solely to start collecting music from bloggers on the internet in a few weeks. As utterly imperfect as they are, a lot of the work that they do needs to be done and most of it is in the real world so paypal aint gonna help you.

The whole idea that you need a fucking organisation like IMRO to make sure you get paid for any music you have online is bullshit anyway.
If you want to make money off your music online then set up a website and use Paypal or some shit like. Who the fuck needs IMRO to do something like that? Fuck them.

 

[quackster]

my objection to IMRO is definitely not that artists shouldn't be paid for the use of their music in commercial premises/on websites, but through dealing with them/trying to dealing with them it's clear to me that they're not transparant about how they place a value on the music use, they're not transparant about how much of that fee is burned up in administration, and they certainly don't care about distributing collected monies to the actual artists who may be getting played on a certain blog or in a certain shop, because that's way too much hassle. so they just give all the money to U2. their whole schtick is about fairness to the artist and the songwriter, but they're not actually set up to be fair to them themselves.

my experience and problems with them are how they deal with retail outlets.
i would totally support a system where i could stream whatever music i wanted from a service like last fm or pandora, the music i play is automatically logged, and the bands are paid automatically. this is totally possible to do, and would ensure that monies are fairly distributed, which they currently are not.

 

[ann post]

The massive effort being put in to trying to create legislative boundaries around Mp3s should be transferred in to finding new ways to pay musicians, engineers, producers etc. for the music they make.

a fine point you make.

ear tax?

 

[Unicron]

If a band offers an mp3 to (say) nialler9.com because they want some publicity then he should pay them?

IMRO's position seems to be that their members can't opt out of having them collect for them on a case by case basis.

 

[ann post]

whats the whole 'host' business about?? i wouldnt be clear about that, but say for example i fire up a bandcamp widget or a soundcould on my blog, thats not hosting is it??? if it is - i'd technically owe money for putting my own stuff up. if thats not hosting then all the indie blogs could probably just chip in and communally host the stuff somewhere.

Q: Are external embeds such as Youtube, Soundcloud and the likes affected by this?
Youtube is a licensed service and therefore covered by a licence. Other external embeds will be covered under the licence as long as you can account for them.

shir thats the crux of the whole thing. happy blogging.

 

[São Paulo Punk]

Can't the bloggers just register their sites in Russia or something where there's no legislation: Niallzki9.ru etc...?

 

[Unicron]

Can't the bloggers just register their sites in Russia or something where there's no legislation: Niallzki9.ru etc...?

Imro claim that it's because the site is available in Ireland regardlessof location of hosting. I imagine they'll soon be sending claims out to pitchfork, stereogum, the quietus etc.

 

[ann post]

youtube still rolls, all thats needed (idea still gaining popularity on nialler9 etc) is that bloggers club together for a hosting spot. I havent seen anything to say that that wont work so far. blue peter badge for anyone who can write a widget that plays youtube audio without the video.

 

[Andy_aurel]

Labi Siffre's fuming.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Gambra]

youtube still rolls, all thats needed (idea still gaining popularity on nialler9 etc) is that bloggers club together for a hosting spot. I havent seen anything to say that that wont work so far. blue peter badge for anyone who can write a widget that plays youtube audio without the video.

http://mr.johanolsson.se/2009/07/embed-youtube-audio/

 

[ann post]

so basically the word on the street is that if you want stuff reviewed without screwing bloggers put it on youtube then??

 

[Jelly_Block]

jeeze. Imro should be paying people to put irish music on their blogs. Nancys

 

[egg_]

Attn bloggers - wouldn't it be cheaper to just get a full online licence from IMRO? AFAIK it's a percentage of your income, so if your income is zero or close to it then it should cost you almost nothing

 

[Foggy]

a lot of this seems very unclear. perhaps some of the IMRO people who post on thumped can clarify the confusing aspects of this legislation

 

[Space]

Egg have a read of Nialler's faq, it's a flat non-negotiable fee and it's not cheap.