MacIdol bans cover songs

[ChrisH3677]

MacIdol have announced that due to the law requiring collection of royalties for the streaming of covers songs, that they will no longer allow the posting of cover songs on their site.

Read all about it here....

http://www.macidol.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=881#881

In reality, it's exactly the same as the Aussie law that says a covers band doesn't have to pay royalties, it's the venues who have to pay (via a licence fee).

So I don't have to pay royalties for my U2 cover, just any venue I play it at (including websites) does.

So I guess MacIdol owe U2 $3000 (aussie dollars)!!!

It will be interesting to know if other GB hosting sites outside the UK face the same issue.

 

[powermac99]

Well, iCompositions is located in the US and we haven't heard about anything like this. We're going to continue hosting covers (although we won't include them on our iCompositions Creations Disk) until we get sued again.

 

[rt_brained]

I'd much rather hear original work anyway.

 

[crenz]

It's not an UK issue, it is an international copyright issue. To record someone elses song and distribute it, you need a mechanical license. Even if you distribute it for free.

 

[ChrisH3677]

Originally posted by crenz
It's not an UK issue, it is an international copyright issue. To record someone elses song and distribute it, you need a mechanical license. Even if you distribute it for free.

This is quite true for the artist, but MacIdol as a "communicator" have to pay a performing rights fee for streams and a publishing rights fee for downloads.

This quote is from the Australian site on music copyright http://www.apra.com.au/Copy/CpyMusic.htm:

In the music industry the right to perform a work in public is part of the performing rights.

communicate your work to the public, for instance, by the Internet, music on hold or by television or radio broadcasting.

In the music industry the right to communicate a work to the public is part of the performing rights.

So this performing rights fee is the same as the one venues and radio stations pay to play music.

This also means, if I host my covers on my own site, then payment of the performing rights is my responsibility.

PowerMac can continue to turn a blind eye to it, but if his site generates enough traffic, i reckon he'll get a knock on the door re the covers.

I'd much rather hear original work anyway.

I'd take that a little further.. I'd rather hear a good original than a good cover.. but i'd rather hear a good cover than a bad original.

Covers have their place but just as long as we don't get flooded with them (which happens in the Top 40 from time to time)

 

[Harald4]

There's a law in a state of the US, it is forbidden to wake up a sleeping fireman...

What is your position if you are the original composer feeding your children with these royalties...

How should this question be handled in the future?