A question concerning using an Ipod as a MOH source is being discussed in the Avaya forum.

While the subject of the topic is about hardware, a sub discussion about obtaining licenses to use music covered by ASCAP, BMI and others has developed.

It was suggested that licensing should be spun off and discussed as a separate topic.

So...here we are!

My feeling on the subject is that existing rules should be followed even though the chances of being caught are very slim.

I've noticed a very different and conservative attitude from East coast techs..I guess it the constant sunshine that gives the west coast techs a more liberal stance.
Well Dexman...you brought it up so let the opinions flow on this issue...
I'll start by saying, paying royalties has seen its day and should disappear.......with XM radio
and many other forms of the medium...the royalty
is covered.
I have never cared about paying royalty licenses.
Nor do I.
As I stated on the other forum..it is ponzi scheme.
BMI and ASCAP should disappear...but its attitudes like yours that keep the fear of getting caught by the compliance police a real
possibilty. I for one DON'T agree with you on
"following the existing rules".
Times have changed and so should the "rules".

It may be the rules should change, but until they do you're putting your customer and yourself at risk.

If my customer wants to use a radio or CD or whatever, I just tell them the consequences and risk than I show them how they would hook up a licensed music source. They want to hook up an unlicensed source that's their call.

dexman only stated his opinion on the matter Dvader, there is no reason to get snippy with his post, after all he was nice enough to start this post I believe per your request so you could address the license issue on MOH.

Personally I feel you should inform your customer and let them decide if they want to take the risk, I mention to them that though it is very unlikely they will ever hear about it there is always a chance.

I'm not opposed to playing moh with a ipod or radio or such but the point I make to customers is MOH with a custom recording is a great marketing tool for a business. For the customers that use a radio station they run the risk of advertising someone else's business while your potential customer is on hold listening to a lower advertised price from the competitor than you just quoted to them. Thats a shot in the foot right there. Also a custom recording and a quality MOH device may run you about the price of an employee's weekly pay,but its going to do it advertising job 24/7/365 with out calling in sick or having to be poked and prodded at to get back to work everyday.

Is an XM / Sirius radio source legal to use? What do you mean by "the royalty is covered" ?

XM/Sirius does offer business subscription for businesses and covers this particular use as a MOH. It's the non-commercial subscription that prohibits you from re-broadcasting it.

XM's website says that the subscription fee for their commercial service covers licensing only if the establishment doesn't charge admission or a membership fee.

It was not my intention to get "snippy" with any
ones point of view...looks to me like there is alot of confusion and mis-infomation on the subject.
Whether a customer chooses to use any music source or go private message is their choice....
I'm referring to the idea that paying entites
like BMI or ASCAP for the right to use music as
a MOH source is what gets to me.
OK...is MOH actually broadcasting the music??you
don't hear until your put on hold...it is not amplified like overhead speakers...so what is
the technical definition of "broadcasting" that
would apply to this issue.
I know that with the Legend/Magix series there is
no way to send music thru the station speakers.
I'm asking anyone who might know where the line
is drawn on this subject.

Saw this post and thought I'd comment.

My personal opinions are right in line with Dvader's. The music licensing model as it currently stands is outdated and archaic.

Licensing could be very simply decided on the percentage of revenue your company makes from the "Public Performance" of the works. i.e. if your company is in the Commercial Tile Business, that percentage would be 0%. Obviously Radio Stations would be the other end at 100%. Likewise, music included in other works of art (movies, documentaries etc.) would be the in the $25-50% range. Keep the bar and restaurant rules as they stand. These are of course rough estimates.

The reason this schema of Licensing/Royalties is not feasible for ASCAP is because they would simply be taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other. So in that aspect, it is as Dvader puts it a 'Ponzi Scheme' where Small Businesses and New Comers pick up the tab for the boys at the top.

Morally (yes, as in what is right/fair/just) the question a business owner should ask himself is "Am I making any sort of revenue from the use of this music". If so, you must act accordingly.

You can find the "legal's" on the Internet. You and I can say it's not right, but law is law until it's changed.

In my opinion you do your customers an injustice if you don't make them aware of the slim yet possible ramifications by violating the law.

Do these guys police MOH, probably not cause they're after the big offenders. But they do encourage and reward those who report offenders.

Here is one other instance where licensing was discussed. It looks like the subject has been talked about several times here in the General forum.

I always have an opinion.

dtmf and justbill said it for me.

Here is the quote that Justbill posted from another topic...ASCAP.com "Music on Hold is not exempt."

"The scope of the exemption in the old law had been unclear, and led to much litigation. The new law contains objective standards which will enable both music users and copyright owners to determine whether particular radio-over-speaker and television performances are exempt from copyright liability. Two types of music users are exempt, under different standards: a food service or drinking establishment(defined as "a restaurant, inn, bar, tavern, or any other similar place of business in which the public or patrons assemble for the primary purpose of being served food or drink, in which the majority of the gross square feet of space that is nonresidential is used for that purpose, and in which nondramatic musical works are performed publicly") and an other establishment (defined as "a store, shop, or any similar place of business open to the general public for the primary purpose of selling goods or services in which the majority of the gross square feet of space that is nonresidential is used for that purpose, and in which nondramatic musical works are performed publicly").

A food service or drinking establishment is eligible for the exemption if it (1) has less than 3750 gross square feet of space (in measuring the space, the amount of space used for customer parking only is always excludable); or (2) has 3750 gross square feet of space or more and (a) uses no more than 6 loudspeakers of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space; and (b) if television sets are used, there are no more than 4 televisions, of which not more than 1 is located in any 1 room and none has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches.

An other establishment is eligible for the exemption if it (1) has less than 2000 gross square feet of space; or (2) has 2000 or more gross square feet of space and satisfies the same loudspeaker and television set requirements as for food service or drinking establishments."

Now that makes alot sense doesn't it...I don't
see where this applies to MOH...
If you take what is being written by fellow techs
about the licensing legalites as gospel truth..
where is the technical facts that support MOH is
a broadcast medium, so far I haven't seen anything written that would convince me otherwise. You can't believe everything you read
especially from entites that want money.
I guess, what this all amounts to is that we have
choices...to pay or not to pay!!!!
I want a definitive answer to my question..if no
one can give that answer...it does render the
Royalty payments issue moot.
Let our conscience be our guide.

It's quite simple. If you don't want to CYA that's 100% up to you, I choose to cover mine.

It's been stated by many the odds of getting caught are slim, but they do exist.

Your last line says it all. "Let our conscience be our guide." I do and I won't knowingly break a law nor put my customers in that position.

You can read the copyright law on music here 17 U.S.C. SECTION 101, but unless you're a copyright lawyer you're not going to understand it.

I found many definitions on the Internet, this link explains it best.

I don't feel this will change any minds, but it will give others who come here for advice more than just our opinions on the matter.

Yes I know this is a MOH service, but it combines everything else I found from non MOH services into one condensed version. Feel free to search for yourselves.

If the technical question I asked can be answered, then maybe we can move on to the moral
concerns of this subject.

I viewed the link....it says alot...and they are
selling their own licenses as well.."sounds like
the fox guarding the hen house."
We can go on forever with how all this legal stuff is interpreted...lots of info to digest.
Read the link and determine for yourself what is
right...

One last point...given what this country has had
to deal with lately..I am very wary of any entity
using the legal jargon to threaten us with fines
and jail time...Wall St, banks, etc. all hide behind enormous amounts of legalese and look what
they did to ALL of us.
So, are BMI/ASCAP et al....any different????
I guess thats the rub.
This is my opinion...take it for what it is worth.

I was configuring a Nortel/Avaya BCM phone system, and they have the option to stream music from an internet source (ip address). Does anyone know of a free intertnt source for streaming music on hold?

Where's the ambiguity?

ASCAP defines a public performance as:

"A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances.) A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet."

BMI's definition is similar.
So, regardless of what we consider a public performance. They are defining what is a public performance, and therefore define the legality. In the same way that the Federal Reserve Bank (a private entity)defines laws that it expects our government/leagal system to enforce OR Microsoft defines what is or is not software piracy. The difference in the later being that you consent to said rules, my point being that a private entity is defining an action that is punishable by law.

That is why, in my opinion, it is a racquet.

Regardless of anyone's opinion or the morality of the situation. If one plays music on hold of copywritten material without paying royalties, they are in violation of the Law. Pretty simple.

While you're at it telling them about the legalities, why not sell them a MOH system that comes with licensing?

As a good friend of mine says, "You're only mad cause you aren't getting paid too"

Did you read this? Like I said, feel free to search for yourself so you can make an informed decision as to take the chance for you and your customer or not.

Does anyone know of open-source or non-copyrighted performances which are available for download or public usage?

Really, it just needs to not be too annoying and sufficient to keep a caller from hanging up. I suppose that one could record "clementine" as played on a touchtone phone (4441,6664,4688,654,4566,6564,465,1354) except that most callers would find it annoying when the novelty wore off.

Go out and grab a copy of Message Studio 3.0. It comes with 20 tracks and you can spring $15 or $20 and get another 40 or so tracks. It's the typical hold music that everybody has...
https://www.onholdplus.com/categories/MessageStudio-Software/

Carl

BMI's fees for using their artist's music is included in this Music License for Music On Hold agreement.

Depending on what socket type they're talking about connecting to, of course, there's plenty of commercial free stations on Shoutcast. And from what I gather about the shoutcast license you need from ASCAP ( I actually toyed with the thought of making a station) the station itself is responsible for the license and it is taken into account that more than one end user would be listening at any given time i.e. playing in an office, so logically it'd be no different for MOH...but then again there's nothing logical about the way licensing works, so who knows.


https://www.shoutcast.com/Internet-Radio/commercial%20free

the shoutcast stations typically take the form of numericIP:Port i.e. 123.456.78.90:1234 so it might work.

(I was actually going to post this earlier after the MOH radio station comment, but chose instead to argue the legal implications and forgot)

There ARE 2 wide open, non-copyright tunes.
Home On The Range, and Greensleeves. And Greensleeves turns into 'What Child Is This' on December 1st and back to Greensleeves on January 1st. (Not really, just the same melody. )

Oh, and Home On The Range was written in Nebraska, Bill's home.