I 2nd Paul Mailath
 

I use APRA/AMCOS in Australia as well. Couldn't be simpler. You can choose a single event licence with the following costs
1 to 5 copies = $48.95
6 to 20 copies = $48.95 (for 1 to 5 copies) plus $6.00 for
each extra copy.

If you produce more than 10 Weddings a year, then you can purchase the Annual licence at $462.
Here is a direct link to the page. After the 1st July 2009, you can get the single use licence again.

APRA|AMCOS : Videographers

Brett Griffin
Griffin Video Productions
Griffin Video Productions - Sydney Wedding Videos and DVD

It all looks like RIAA is trying to catch everybody at once on "stealing" music, charge arm and leg in court fees, and then be very happy about themselves. The main problem is - once every single US citizen is scared to death to even visit YouTube website, how such video websites will ever exists? What about profits from advertising if there is significant less amount of visits, because there is less videos posted?

Solution? Relocated your video operation or video sharing service to a country where copyright laws are reasonable. Like the online casinos websites did :-)

Conclusion? If you don't know what it is all about, it must be about money.

There's a reason "offshore" operations are questionable - in theory if you're doing your thing from a boat in international waters, you're outside a specific jurisdiction, or if you're in a specific location, you're under THEIR laws...

You have to operate under the "rules of the house" where YOU operate. Sometimes this stinks (just ask ANY teenager), but rules is rules... if you don't like it, either break the rules and risk the consequences, petition to change the rules appropriately, or go somewhere else.

I posted in the TCOB thread on a related event video IP clearance question, here's a link FWIW, I think it helps clarify things to some degree. In my mind there is a HUGE difference when one considers distribution of a few DVD's to a limited "private" audience vs. putting something on the web...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/taking-ca...permitted.html

I would not include the posting of a wedding highlight on youtube as part of a package due to the fact that the audio may be completely DELETED if it contains copyrighted music. However, it would be interesting to find out if they research the offending video to see if the music was used legally. Of course that would depend on if the license would also include the right to post on the internet.

YouTube's video/audio matching system is completely automated. Their method of determining if the music was used legally is to send you an email which includes the text "[If] you are otherwise authorized to use the content at issue, you can dispute this claim..."

On top of that, if their audio matching system detects you are using copyright music, it will dispatch an email to the copyright owner or their representative (typically the record label.) So posting your wedding highlight video on YouTube is like waving a big red flag in front of the RIAA shouting "here I am, using your music!!!"

You expect to get paid for your video work and the more your work circulates the more you wouyld expect to be paid for it, I would think. One minute of video for a client who wants a souvenir clip of their kid blowing out his birthday cake candles nets you a little bit of revenue. An identical one minute of video of a kid blowing out birthday candles that runs as a national ad on CBS, NBC, and ABC for a national party supplies company rightfully should net you hundreds or thousands of times more revenue. Composers, publishers, artists, producers, record labels, etc, also deserve to get paid for their work and the more it's used, the more they deserve to be paid. Usage includes not only CD sales and radio airplay, it also includes your using it in a video you're subsequently selling to a client. You (or your client) purchasing the CD you're copying the music from nets them only a small fraction of the revenue they're entitled to from when their work is used to enhance the value of the video you're producing. When you use the output of their labours in your own work without licensing it, they are losing the revenue stream they deserve from your usage. Using unlicensed music is stealing straight from their pockets just as a shoplifter steals not only the money the store paid for the product, they are also stealing the revenue the store would have received from selling that item.

That justification might fly if you're using music by an unknown indy garage band but do you really think Celine Dion, Beyonce, Brittany, Andre Bocceli, Josh Groban, you name it in whatever genre etc etc ... or their labels needs the free publicity your use of their songs in your video gives them? Think it has any impact on their sales whatsoever? What about the composers, publishers, and others involved in the business They get their benefits from one source - people paying for each and every use of their work.

I'm not arguing anything you just said. I'm just requesting that some system be put in place to enable small productions to use their music and pay a reasonable fee to do so. They choose not to have such a system, which is their right. Look through my posts and nowhere will you see me arguing for nor encouraging that one should use the music anyway.

I stand by my statement though that there is a double standard of ethics with regards to the RIAA. Nothing you said convinces me that Prince and his vultures did anything but try to terrorize a young mother for something that did him no harm whatsoever. He tried to stop Weird Al from doing a parody of one of his songs as well, even though that is perfectly legal. Because of their powerful lobby, the RIAA have come to expect one ethical standard from themselves and another from their consumers. In the USA, the First Ammendment guarantees freedom of speech (although it is beginning to be interpreted as speech approved by those with powerful lobbys), which is a wonderful freedom, but with it comes responsibility, which the music industry completely disregards. I police myself ethically and do not steal their music. I expect them to police themselves ethically as well.

Thing is, they are HIS songs, no one else's.

Yes.. but that's like saying that I live on 10 acres and one day someone walks by and picks a wild flower off my lawn. Should I honestly harass and try to sue them?

No, but it would be your right to sue them if you wanted to.

I think there's a clear difference between a wild-flower growing on a remote piece of property and the purloining of a piece of work that was created specifically in order to earn income by its creator. After all, pilfering a grape in the grocery store is only one grape .... does that make it okay?