Re: Clear Channel ends streaming broadcasts ... please explain

["Aaron 'Bishop' Read" <aread@speakeasy.net>]

At 11:32 AM 1/6/2003, Howard Glazer wrote:
>I believe the rule is _no more than_ twice in a row. However, WUMB
>Boston  recently dedicated a week to the top 100 folk artists as voted
>by its listeners. Each artist had three or four songs played,
>consecutively, and every minute of this programming went out over the
>Web, via Live365.com.

The details of the CPB-brokered webcasting deal have not been made public 
AFAIK, so it's possible that WUMB was legal in doing this as they are 
CPB-funded.  However, if there was no provision for that in the CPB deal, 
then WUMB was indeed in violation of the DMCA.

Remember that the content restriction rules in DMCA are a separate issue 
from the webcasting royalty fees.  The fees are still somewhat up in the 
air and being hashed out, whereas the content restrictions have been in 
place since DMCA was passed (1998), albeit they are largely ignored.


>unnecessarily? Does the fact that WUMB streams via Live365 make any
>difference?

No, the server you use is completely irrelevant.


>Also, couldn't taking your streams offshore be a way to work around the
>onerous DMCA?

No, because the DMCA doesn't care what servers you use - it goes after the 
source: your studios.   You would have to be legally incorporated 
overseas...and likely you'd need to have your servers overseas as well 
since DMCA grants pretty broad powers to shut down violators.


_________________________________________________________
Aaron "Bishop" Read       aread@speakeasy.net
Fried Bagels Consulting   www.friedbagels.com
AOL-IM: ReadAaron         Brighton, MA 02135