Commercial Use

[firstbase]

If you read that website I linked above it says the license is ~$.10 per song,so if you sell 100 DVD's with one song it would cost you $10.00.
http://www.harryfox.com/public/licenseeRateCurrent.jsp

For my particular application is seems that Harryfox.com points me to ASCAP who in turn points me to Harryfox.com. It seems that my use needs "synchronization licensing". Harryfox used to do that but quit and says to see ASCAP..and so forth. All she is doing is showing personal family vid's and photos while an mp3 plays. You know the deal. She isn't copying and distributing a collection of songs as an album or such. I guess she could end up using a particular song multiple times though. As for numbers of copies..I can't imagine that she would make and sell more than 5 at a time. This is WAY under anyones/any company's radar I'm sure but she is just trying to do the right thing. No one seems to know anything about synchronization licensing though. Not Harryfox, ASAP, no one. That should probably tell me something...

[AlanHK]

Blindly clicking Next during install and not bothering to read licensing agreements is no defense. If you don't know if creating material for commercial use requires an additional MPEG-LA license, then there are two simple words: due diligence. A couple of phone calls would clarify it. If you believe there is no legal basis to having to pay, sue the MPEG-LA or wait to be sued and then have your day in court and set a precedent. I'm sure all the behemoths that have settled with the MPEG-LA are just waiting in the wings for a producer of high school recital DVDs to achieve what they couldn't.

And yet, the only cases cited are in Germany.

So what is going on? If this is such an obvious requirement, why isn't it being enforced in the US? Clearly hardly anyone there is aware of this, it must be violated every day.

[lordsmurf]

I'm still with AlanHK on this one.

There cannot be an acceptable or reasonable expectation that anybody read and understand the EULA anymore, nor than a person can read or understand those oversized PDFs stuffed with nonsense words.

The industry has fucked itself with it's love for making these documents long and incomprehensible.

Seriously, what the **** does this mean? "ANY USE OF THIS PRODUCT OTHER THAN CONSUMER PERSONAL USE IN ANY MANNER THAT COMPLIES WITH THE MPEG-2 STANDARD FOR ENCODING VIDEO INFORMATION FOR PACKAGED MEDIA IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT A LICENSE UNDER APPLICABLE PATENTS IN THE MPEG-2 PATENT PORTFOLIO, WHICH LICENSE IS AVAILABLE FROM"

Read it word for word, and tell me that's not a bowl full of word salad, hidden in the back of some book (now in PDF digital form), in a tiny font. If it were important, it'd be more obvious and in plain English.

It's kept in about the same location as those warnings that say "Do not operate hair dryer in bath tub" or "Do not operate chain saw with genitals."

[JohnnyMalaria]

Doesn't matter. Ignorance is no excuse. That's like claiming that you shouldn't pay a fine for driving 100mph in an area posted as 50mph because you shouldn't be expected to read the official statutes of your particular locale. Same as for not paying taxes for something.

If you are involved in any kind of business venture then due diligence is one of the first and top priorities. If you enter into a license agreement with someone so that you can make money using their products but don't bother to read the agreement then you are simply stupid. And if you are an employee, you may well deserve to be sacked.

The attitude put forward by those willing to steal from others is very sad and one of the reasons that the legal complexity exists in the first place.

Seriously, what the **** does this mean? "ANY USE OF THIS PRODUCT OTHER THAN CONSUMER PERSONAL USE IN ANY MANNER THAT COMPLIES WITH THE MPEG-2 STANDARD FOR ENCODING VIDEO INFORMATION FOR PACKAGED MEDIA IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT A LICENSE UNDER APPLICABLE PATENTS IN THE MPEG-2 PATENT PORTFOLIO, WHICH LICENSE IS AVAILABLE FROM"

Read it word for word, and tell me that's not a bowl full of word salad, hidden in the back of some book (now in PDF digital form), in a tiny font. If it were important, it'd be more obvious and in plain English.

Let's see - it's obvious what is says. It's in uppercase. It's on the website. For Vegas, it is on page FOUR in BIG LETTERS. It isn't 'plain English' because it is a legal agreement. It's under your nose - not being bothered doesn't justify theft. If you can't figure it out, consult your business' attorney. Don't have one and can't figure things out, get one.

If I made and sold a wildlife DVD with five songs on it, I'd have to pay about $0.70 per disc. If I make $5 per disc, what's the problem?

[firstbase]

If I made and sold a wildlife DVD with five songs on it, I'd have to pay about $0.70 per disc. If I make $5 per disc, what's the problem?

That what I say. No problem. Just trying to figure out where to send it! I guess that if someone or some company is in a position for this to have any real monetary importance then they would have a legal team that could decypher the terms and handle it properly. Normal guy on the streets, not so much. As for due diligence, thats exactly wha tI am doing. I was under the mistaken impression that this question was easily answered. Obviously I was wrong. I will write the software company and let them tell me.

[JohnnyMalaria]

For the DVD itself, you contact the MPEG-LA (just phone them). I'd check with the software vendor, too. For the songs, I'd have thought that phoning the Harry Fox Agency would be the right thing. My wife is in the business (which involves her dealing with HF etc ensuring all the right royalties etc are paid to artists/labels etc - she's an ASCAP member) - I'll ask her where to jump in on that particular never ending circle...

[firstbase]

Thanks JM...I appreciate your help.

[JohnnyMalaria]

So here's the deal:

Putting the music on a video requires a synchronization license AND a master use license. If the music were on its own (e.g, a downloadable mp3 or a compilation CD), you'd need a mechanical license.

Harry Fox stopped dealing in sync licenses in 2002. ASCAP deal with performance licenses which would be, for example, playing the video with the music at a wedding.

According to http://www.harryfox.com/public/licenseSynchronization.jsp you contact the publisher of the music directly. BUT the licenses tend to be a flat rate in the range of $20K to $30K which grants you a master and a sync license - this is typically for things like taking a major hit and putting it into a multimillion dollar movie. But the publisher probably wouldn't care about a handful of recordings.

My wife hasn't dealt with anything on such a small scale so can't really say. I wouldn't be surprised if they say go ahead, just make sure we get credit ("used with kind permission...") - but that's me making a wild guess.

Sheesh, no wonder my wife makes her living from all this stuff.

[lordsmurf]

Doesn't matter. Ignorance is no excuse. That's like claiming that you shouldn't pay a fine for driving 100mph in an area posted as 50mph because you shouldn't be expected to read the official statutes of your particular locale. Same as for not paying taxes for something.

No offense to you personally, but your analogy sucks.

1. "Speed Limit 50 mph" is not hard to understand.
2. You learn this in driving school.
3. The sign is very visible and not at all hidden on the side of the road.
4. There is a common and implicit societal understanding that speeds while driving have maximum rate allowed.
If the only place where such language was defined is in the back of a book in odd semi-English, rest assured that "As Fast As You Want" would be the speed limit used by motorists.

Tax forms are not all that difficult for the common person either. It's all explained in a couple of pages. Software makes it even easier, nothing to read, and you're prompted with clear and understandable direct questions to guide you through the process.

WRITING SOMETHING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, BY THE WAY, MAKES SOMETHING HARDER TO READ, NOT EASIER. SOMETHING IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS. IN FACT, IT MEANS YOUR CAP LOCK KEY IS EITHER STUCK, OR YOU'RE JUST AN IDIOT THAT SUCKS AT COMMUNICATION. THAT APPEARS TO BE THE CASE WITH SOFTWARE COMPANIES AND LEGAL WRITINGS. IN FACT, MIXED WITH ODD SENTENCE STRUCTURE AND WORDS THAT SOMETIMES REQUIRE A DICTIONARY EVEN TO A VERY EDUCATED PERSON HOLDING A MASTER'S DEGREE, YOU SOMETIMES WONDER IF THEY PURPOSELY WANT YOU TO NOT UNDERSTAND WTF THEY'RE WRITING!

The other consideration here is: who pays. If I create a video for somebody, I'm not distributing it. The person who sells the video en masse is responsible for paying the license, not me. The content owner carries the responsibility as far as I can tell.

[JohnnyMalaria]

The other consideration here is: who pays. If I create a video for somebody, I'm not distributing it. The person who sells the video en masse is responsible for paying the license, not me. The content owner carries the responsibility as far as I can tell.

Not so. Depending on the agreement between you and the distributor, you may indeed end up paying. Typically, in the case of events such as concerts, movie screenings, school plays, TV/radio etc, the venue owner/broadcaster has to record exactly what is shown/played and submit the information to the right agency to ensure the original copyright owners get their money. That will often entail the publishers seeking payment from the content author (you). e.g., a Hollywood studio uses a Michael Jackson song in a movie that is screened worldwide. The cinemas report the screening and the studio coughs up the royalties. I had this very conversation with my wife this afternoon who gets paid for dealing with the mess that is the entertainment industry. It's almost as bad as medical billing.