| Isn't that weird? Don't you guys have performance rights separate from copy rights? I mean... yeah, using the music means that a payment should be made, but why is it copyright rather than performance rights? This is just a general question. I used to work in the industry and only reading this do I see how weird it is. We had the MCPS and PRS. One does physical copies of recordings, and the other does performances of a recording. Performing rights are what should be applied here, no copy is being offered, it's simply a broadcast. That being so... why would copyright apply? And if that is the case, then surely all of the fair use doesn't apply because that's related to fair use of copyrights, not performance rights. Example: If I made a video and had the Beatles on as a sound track. Then I need to make sure I have performance rights (usually by a blanket fee), and don't need to consider copyright at all. PRS music fees are covered here: http://www.prsformusic.com/users/broadcastandonline/onlinemo... Obviously this all has a UK slant, it's what I know... just curious as to why a similar thing doesn't apply here and it's considered copyright (MCPS equivalent) when no copy is being made. |