no it is not, when it comes to legal matters, opinion doesn't carry any weight at all, nor do assumptions.. that is why i am being careful and asking for clarification regarding Royalties and Copyright payments, and who from now on is legally bound to take care of them. again, so far from what i have been able to find out, broadcasting rights are not the same as paying royalties, and it is this change in the language of the pacts that needs to be clarified by someone from Radionomy. the other example you mention there, is basically Radionomy making absolutely sure that in the case you have uploaded some illegal that they are totally blameless and you will be the one that will be in big trouble. that is NOT the same thing as saying they are paying royalties on music that has been bought and uploaded legally..

if what you guess, is true, about them covering this, why change the wording in that section? there would simply be no need to.. again RN management, put us all at ease, just pop in and clear this up in simple language

_________________
best albums of the year more than 60% new bands and musicians
https://www.facebook.com/martin.NBTMusi ... 8595855751
http://nbtmusic.de/
http://nbtmusicradio.org
http://nbtmusicradio.playtheradio.com/

Windows 8/10
Chrome

with your law knowledge what is your take about the changed wording with regards to this section?

Old pact.. ''RADIONOMY hosts and broadcasts the Radio Stations created on its platform and covers all costs including royalties. .'' new pact '' RADIONOMY hosts and broadcasts the Radio Stations created on its platform and covers all costs relating to broadcasting rights.''

_________________
best albums of the year more than 60% new bands and musicians
https://www.facebook.com/martin.NBTMusi ... 8595855751
http://nbtmusic.de/
http://nbtmusicradio.org
http://nbtmusicradio.playtheradio.com/

Windows 8/10
Chrome

Gut reading that right off says to me, they are looking for a back out for royalties and palm it onto us.
I'm looking into "broadcasting rights" V royalties. It looks like you are right NTB so far theres is a difference.

and OK people yes Ive been critical lately for good reason. This Pact is important ( although still not legally binding) and Ill be 100% impartial trying to make sense of it. For all our benefit.

Right to the point Eleu...

_________________

Yep I'm Scottish, explains why Im totally blunt

Thu May 19-2016 - France

First, thanks for posting the May 2016 replacement Pact between Radionomy and the individual Radio Producer.

My thoughts/Considerations:

1. Where it states in the agreement that producers can upload music for broadcast if they have legally purchased a copy of the music is incorrect.

On all Cd's a form of this text appears on the disc:

"All recordings © XXXRecordsLabel 20XX. All rights of the producer and owner of the recorded work reserved. Unauthorized copying, public performance, broadcasting, hiring or rental of this recording prohibited."

This clearly expresses that without permission for the holder of the master rights (in most cases the label) broadcasting content included on the disc is strictly prohibited. If material from a recording is broadcast without permission then the producer has breached copyright.

2. Regarding Mechanical performance and publishing royalties. Any performance (i.e. Broadcast) of copyrighted material requires that the broadcaster must pay a mechanical royalty equivalent to the statutory rate applicable in the territory where the performance takes place. In my case this would be France. In France Royalties are based on the licence fees that are collected from the radio stations playing the songs, so royalty payments will vary. In the Radionomy agreement it is not stated who is responsible for these payments. In most cases this would be the platform (i.e. Radionomy) however this is not stated clearly anywhere in the agreement. There are a number of vague references under clause 7. that eludes to the producer being responsible.

"Moreover, the Radio Station Producer must comply with the general musical piece broadcasting rules in force in its country of origin.."

The other statement in clause 7.

"Each broadcast involves royalty payments to the relevant right holders."

Is vague and does not state who is responsible for the payment of these royalties.

My take on the matter (and remember I am not a entertainment attorney) is that each and every producer on this platform may be at risk and could potentially be sued for breach of copyright and non-payment of royalties.

Therefore I have decided to exercise my rights based on the original Radio Producer Pact that I agreed with to deactivate my connection with Radionomy and its associated partners etc. I am frankly concerned after reading the California court documents that a company would change its Radio Producer Pact while in litigation with a document that effectively destroys what it claimed it stood for. "Themed online radio stations, accessible anywhere, produced and run by passionate people is the next frontier - Alexandre Saboundjian CEO, Radionomy".

Thanks to the moderators and other RP's for your valuable input and passionate support of each other.

Into Hibernation - JazzRepublicRadio (aka Nigel J.)

_________________
www.JazzRepublicRadio.eu
Anything goes with Jazz, anytime!

New Way? It's always been like that :p

Broadcasting rights = they have obtained the required licenses for podcasting and internet radio streaming. I cannot find a thing about royalties in these licences. Guess well have to make our own mind up here ( I do contracts not royalties remember) Suffice to say when this gets sent as a hard copy. I'm outa here.

My interpretation too. again I'm not a musicrights lawer. lube up guys looks like they've made a get out clause and dump it on us if they want. Again soon as a hard copy comes. I'm outa here

the royalties line is interesting; broadcasting rights are the most expensive, and are paid by Radionomy; royalties are usually related to artists, and the statement is quite vague, however, if we should pay royalties, it would be in the 30,- EUR / month area, while we would avoid the 150-600 EUR / month for broadcasting rights; it could be a good compromise;
anyway from a legal point, it doesn´t make much sense - under which form would we pay royalties? as program generators - which by the way is what the Italian SIAE said closing down Italian stations?
I wouldn´t worry too much, anyway...
Andrew