mp3 licensing
mp3 licensing
I e-mailed wiseguy and asked him about mp3 licensing, got no response. So some of you that rip your cdg's into mp3 format might want to go to mp3licensing.com and check the site out. They own the technology for mp3 and have both the patent and copyright for it. I e-mailed them to ask what kind of licensing it would take, if any, to convert cdg's to mp3 for use in shows. The answer was 2 licenses and a min. of $15,000 dollars a year for the use of thier technology. You might want to take a look.
I don't recall receiving this email, but then I receive dozens of emails like this every day and I can't always respond to every one.Phxkj wrote:I e-mailed wiseguy and asked him about mp3 licensing, got no response. So some of you that rip your cdg's into mp3 format might want to go to mp3licensing.com and check the site out. They own the technology for mp3 and have both the patent and copyright for it. I e-mailed them to ask what kind of licensing it would take, if any, to convert cdg's to mp3 for use in shows. The answer was 2 licenses and a min. of $15,000 dollars a year for the use of thier technology. You might want to take a look.
So who needs to own these licenses, the DJ/KJ who is playing mp3 files from a hard drive or a company that is selling song tracks in the mp3+g format?
A KJ can simply use an alternate format like MTU's KMA format which does not utilize mp3 technology.
Well in the same vein as wiseguy's post, you have to understand who really needs to have the license. For instance the recurring $15,000 wouldn't be on you. The maker of the software you use has already licensed the technology (presumably if they're legit) for distribution purposes. You've then purchased a copy of their software, which licenses you to use it, including the distribution licensed MP3 technology. I don't see how they'd have any legal claim that you owe them anything for the use of MP3 decoders at your show.
Second, the other two licenses are a little more interesting. One license I presume is the royalty paid by the manufacturer to sell "versions" of the original artist's work. The second would be the license you're venue owner is required to hold for public performance of copyrighted materials. So ultimately what you've discovered doesn't shock me in the least.
Second, the other two licenses are a little more interesting. One license I presume is the royalty paid by the manufacturer to sell "versions" of the original artist's work. The second would be the license you're venue owner is required to hold for public performance of copyrighted materials. So ultimately what you've discovered doesn't shock me in the least.
That's why I said you might want to go to the site,I'm sure there are other formats, According to the e-mail I received I as the one doing the shows would be responsible for the licensing and it is a yearly fee just for the use of the mp3 technology. I wouldn't be so sure that mtu hasn't used some of the patented technology that is owned by mp3. You check it you decide.
If that were true about the recurring fee then every owner of windows would have to pay such a fee just for having media player installed. I don't know who you talked to or what line they tried to feed you but they obviously don't understand this industry a bit.Phxkj wrote:That's why I said you might want to go to the site,I'm sure there are other formats, According to the e-mail I received I as the one doing the shows would be responsible for the licensing and it is a yearly fee just for the use of the mp3 technology. I wouldn't be so sure that mtu hasn't used some of the patented technology that is owned by mp3. You check it you decide.
