PDA

View Full Version : Webcaster Licensing changes



tjmarx
11-05-2009, 02:46 AM
Web radio has always been a copyrights and royalties disaster but now it seems it might be getting worse.

I heard recently that the UK's royalty authority the PPL have advised their license holders that they are no longer covered for royalties for streams heard outside of the UK. That is to say, if someone anywhere else in the world picks up your stream, your not covered. Apparently you're now expected to get royalty coverage in each individual country. To me this sounds a really stupid and entirely greedy position to take, after all it means artists would get paid several times over for their song being played.

I've written to the Australian equivilant (APRA) to find out if this is indeed now the case, but as use they are slow in their reply. If to be legal we were required to either geolock a station or be forced to get licensing in every country capable of picking up the stream then this could be a serious problem for most web radio broadcasters. I know my stations wouldn't be able to remain legal if that was the case. Why they haven't set up a centralized authority to cover web radio licensing is beyond me.

Has anyone else heard anything about this? And if so, what can you tell me about it all.

Arfa B!
11-05-2009, 12:38 PM
The whole thing is a complete and utter JOKE!
Greedy people screwing life up for ordinary people, yep! That is life in the 21st Century!

GKIye
11-06-2009, 03:34 AM
Thats right Arthur ...

That is life in the 21st Century!
No decade is perfect .. but there are currently so many things happening at the internet (poker, abuse, porn etc etc) and those do earn LOTS of money
Do they pay taxes ? I don't think so ...
The best example of this is a popular poker site who is registrated at the Isle of Man : free of charge and no taxes
The rich ones are getting richer
and the low and middle class can only say "yes I'm gonna pay" when asked
At Europe We have already a chip at Our ID card ... maybe the next decade into Our head ? Who knows ... :Z:

saint
11-06-2009, 01:48 PM
More things will move underground.

I totally understand the concept of paying artists royalty fee's and I agree with that, however - this is not about compensating artists - this is about control.

The recording industry screams bloody murder about missed revenue for their "clients", but so many of their "clients" get mere pennies * if that * for their contractual obligations - even with a solid royalty payment system.

Unless you stream public domain or creative commons music, you must pay a royalty payment. So, if you stream Indie Music - you are obliged to pay royalty fees to the appropriate agency for your country. Please tell me - how in the planet of hell is that musical royalty agency going to track down that Indie artist and pay him / her. Short answer - the cheques in the mail ..... also known as .... Snow Balls Chane In Hell.

Here is your legal question for the day ........ Think carefully on this.

What if the source of your media stream is in country "A", and your media streaming server location is in country "B". How long - before some brilliant politician or mindless bureaucrat decides that the media stream needs to be licensed for both the source of the stream and the media server location ?

You paid your royalties for your streaming source - HOWEVER - does the country hosting the media server recognize that fact that you paid the royalties for another location ? Hrmmmmm ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

GKIye
11-06-2009, 04:25 PM
I agree Saint ...
problem is that politicians who leads their departements don't have the right knowledge of how everything is managed operational ...
however one of their co-members comes up with an idea and they gonna tell Us what to do.
Its a fact that more and more projects have their server at country A, their webspace hosted at country B and are using a streamprovider at country C
By doing this that project is not willing to be illegal, but they are in search for the best service for the lowest price as possible .. and its a fact that changing servers is that easy as 1, 2, 3 ... its a business between providers and customers ...
It gonna take a lot of time, maybe decades, untill everything is managed to one level
Time will tell ... I suppose ...

jamesdean
11-07-2009, 06:40 AM
A lot of the internet stations I listen to are well known to be "illegal" as in not paying royalties. They are well established and been going for years. Good luck to them I say.

Arfa B!
11-07-2009, 01:15 PM
Me too James, I am sick of these greedy B**tards taking all the time- and then not passing on the money to the poor musicians!!!

They only get a pittance whilst these guys live in big houses and drive new cars-- THEY are the one's who should be hunted down!

saint
11-07-2009, 03:41 PM
I think its time to find a nice quiet little country that is not a member of the World Trade Organization or Musical Mafia cartel and set up a server farm there :)

No hassle, no fuss - just music streaming.

GKIye
11-08-2009, 12:00 AM
Any suggestions ?
It would be a great idea to do some brainstorming about this subject :biggrinthumb:

I think its time to find a nice quiet little country that is not a member of the World Trade Organization or Musical Mafia cartel and set up a server farm there

saint
11-08-2009, 12:12 AM
It's actually not that far fetched of an idea.

The pirate bay contemplated buying an old ww2 gun platform in the north sea, to set up operations.
www.thelocal.se/6076/20070112/

All the us casino operators set up shop in central America when they got chased out by enacted legislation. They had to set up their web hosting locally as well.

saint
11-08-2009, 12:20 AM
It's actually not that far fetched of an idea.

The pirate bay contemplated buying an old ww2 gun platform in the north sea, to set up operations.
www.thelocal.se/6076/20070112/

All the us casino operators set up shop in central America when they were ruled illegal by congress. The casino operators had to set up their web hosting in central america as well.

tjmarx
11-08-2009, 01:43 AM
But has anyone specifically heard anything about these new changes requiring webcasters to have licensing in every country their stream will be received? I'm still waiting on a response from ARPA, record associations take forever to reply.

2 issues with what you guys have said so far too.

(1) are you seriously going to tell me Britney Spears or Metalica or Emiem or whoever else don't get paid in the millions? Seriously? They live off royalties... they get bucket loads of cash from them. They're not poor musicians at all. Indeed it's individual musicians who are leading the biggest charge against mp3 downloads on peer-2-peer networking. The 3 I mentioned above are most noted in this and have been known to sue individual people for it. I don't have a problem paying royalties, but I do have a problem paying royalties multiple times over for playing a song on my station.

(2) Governments have little to do with these issues. Indeed the regulatory body you pay royalties to isn't government run. They are industry organisations, founded by the Major record labels. These changes they I'm asking about haven't come from Government, they've come from the record labels. Which goes back to my original question. We're talking about the same record labels being the founders of the regulatory bodies for licensing and royalties for media streaming. It seems rather greedy and illogical they would ask for us to pay royalty fees multiple times over for each country we stream to.

So why, given they are the same Record labels involved in every country, have they not set up an international Regulatory Authority to deal with webcasters?

tjmarx
11-08-2009, 01:49 AM
By the way, if you're looking to find a copyright free region. I suggest you look no further than the Russian Federation. Their copyright laws are rather lax and their policing of these issues is even more lax.

The Russian Federation is responsible for an over whelming percentage of the pirated content on the internet today. Be that software, music or movies. There are a number of major download sites which have been around for a LOT longer than piratebay and offer far more content which are run from inside the russian federation. They have no litigation brought against them because of this fact, which is why we never hear about them in the mainstream media. Because they have no way to take these sites down, they try and limit the amount of people who know about them instead.

The problem however is, you would have to reside in the russian federation as well to be truly out of bounds to litigation. Residing in the UK, US or Australia would lead you to still be taken down for copyright infringement even though your steam is based in the russian federation. There are a lot of legal loop holes they can use to prosecute you for these offenses.

GKIye
11-08-2009, 03:01 AM
Interesting !
I found also some other Micronations ... following 2 links of :
part 1 : http://www.sealandnews.com/australian-micronations-part-1_222.html
part 2 : http://www.sealandnews.com/lands-down-under-part-2_223.html

Sealand has also a FaceBook profile : http://www.facebook.com/PrincipalityOfSealand
:D

Arfa B!
11-08-2009, 12:22 PM
are you seriously going to tell me Britney Spears or Metalica or Emiem or whoever else don't get paid in the millions?

Hey, I was talking about MUSICIANS ;-)
You are right of course!

I meant the plethora of guys I know who played session on a massive hit in the 60/70/80s and hardly receive a panny... just the ordinary guy I often meet in the pub!

I was on a Heavy Rock station at the time Metallica moaned and moaned about Napster, I point blank refused to play them ever again! I nearly got sacked over it, but I guess my boss needed me more than Metallica!

saint
11-08-2009, 04:04 PM
So why, given they are the same Record labels involved in every country, have they not set up an international Regulatory Authority to deal with webcasters?That is the million dollar question.

The concept of having a International body responsible for royalties makes far too much sense.

Why you ask ?

1. Each national organization can "dictate" terms as they see fit, regardless of what other national organizations are doing.

2. Each national organization is only accountable to itself. There is no international regulatory oversite.

3. Creative accounting principals can be used to maximize retained royalties vs actually paying those royalties out to artists.

johny c
11-08-2009, 08:23 PM
I think its about time all this rubbish has to stop. Sure the artist took time to write the music, but they did get paid when the music was sold. You don't have to pay every time you use a keyboard or use a pen. Do you pay the car designer every time you use your car or boil a jug. Sure some of the artist's get money from royalties, but I bet my life that most don't. These collection people are getting the money just to pay their own wage's and keep themselves in a job.
What about all the money people who have shops that play music in them, think of all the millions they get from them. Do the shops have to provide a playlist of who, when or how many times they played some artist, no they don't. Where is all that money going to.
My 2 cents worth that I don't have.

saint
11-08-2009, 08:53 PM
You know, a thought occurred to me. ( That is indeed a rare virtue of mind :D )

The WTO ( World Trade Organization ) takes care of matters related to trade and copyright issues. The case of royalty payment falls under copyright issues.

There are various regional associations that were established to enhance WTO policies. ( European Union, NAFTA etc. )

What about a couple of european / north american stations submitting letters to their regional trade organization and request that they look into the royalty licensing issue ?

The whole point of these trade organizations is to stream line copyright / trade issues.

Hell - i bet the 1 pirate party person in the EU parliament would jump on this !

It would be a fantastically huge feather in Broadcasting World's Hat to launch such a campaign for a standardized - GLOBAL licensing system for royalty payment. Just think of the publicity we would get. You couldn't get that kind of publicity without spending a kings ransom.

It's not like we are asking for dismisal of the concept, all we are asking is a FAIR and EQUITABLE policy that is UNIVERSAL.

GO team GO !

I will even help coordinate the project if need be.

saint
11-08-2009, 10:04 PM
The main national collection societies : www.bemuso.com/musicbiz/collectionsocieties.html#themainnationalcollection societies (http://www.bemuso.com/musicbiz/collectionsocieties.html#themainnationalcollection societies)

Each of these countries are recognized members of the WTO.

tjmarx
11-08-2009, 11:42 PM
I think its about time all this rubbish has to stop. Sure the artist took time to write the music, but they did get paid when the music was sold. You don't have to pay every time you use a keyboard or use a pen. Do you pay the car designer every time you use your car or boil a jug. Sure some of the artist's get money from royalties, but I bet my life that most don't. These collection people are getting the money just to pay their own wage's and keep themselves in a job.
What about all the money people who have shops that play music in them, think of all the millions they get from them. Do the shops have to provide a playlist of who, when or how many times they played some artist, no they don't. Where is all that money going to.
My 2 cents worth that I don't have.


Actually johny c in Australia at least (I'm not sure of licensing requirements elsewhere) yes retail outlets who play music in their stores DO have to provide a playlist to ARPA and do pay royalties. Royalties must be paid for the public performance of any copyrighted material be it music, movies or otherwise. This includes but is in no way limited to radio stations, television stations, webcasters, retail outlets, those places you can purchase legal MP3s, and so forth. Anywhere the copyrighted martial is publicly accessible royalties must be paid and a list drawn up.

The requirement of the list is so the right people get paid the right amount. A better comparison to royalty payments would be software. If for example you purchased a game, you have purchased it with a specific license which grants YOU the ability to play the game in a private setting. You have only payed enough for just you. Now if you were to take that same game and set it up in a shopping mall with a coin slot to play the game, you'd be violating the agreement because you didn't pay for a public release, you only payed for a private home copy.

Same goes for music, movies and so forth. You pay only for a private home copy. The amount you pay when you purchased your copy is calculated based on the average amount of persons whom would come in contact and benefit from a private home copy of said content, given it is used in such a way. You have not paid for a public release copy. A simpler way of looking at is like this. If you where allowed to do what you wanted with your copy of a song then technically 1 person could purchase a copy of the song and then broadcast it across the world on repeat so other people wouldn't have a need to purchase the song which would mean the studio couldn't cover costs let alone pay the artist or turn a profit. Simularly if you where allowed to do what you wanted with it, you could make tons of copies and give them away to everyone having the same effect.

Paying royalties for the broadcast of copyrighted material is fair. What isn't fair is asking that we pay royalty multiple times over for the same broadcast. That to me is unacceptable.

tjmarx
11-08-2009, 11:50 PM
That is the million dollar question.

The concept of having a International body responsible for royalties makes far too much sense.

Why you ask ?

1. Each national organization can "dictate" terms as they see fit, regardless of what other national organizations are doing.

2. Each national organization is only accountable to itself. There is no international regulatory oversite.

3. Creative accounting principals can be used to maximize retained royalties vs actually paying those royalties out to artists.

Actually saint being that there is no such thing as an international government (The UN doesn't count, it's more of a joke than anything) creating an international organisation would benefit them from an accounting point, because the only people they would be accountable to then would be their incumbent artists. They would actually be a LOT more free by setting up such an organisation.

What I suppose would be the big thing holding them back is the lack of enforcement. The same lack of international government that would provide them freedom, would also remove any enforceability they might have. So if you didn't get a license and pay royalties there wouldn't be much they could do about it.

But perhaps by registering the international organisation as the licensing authority for webcasters inside of every country they wish to collect royalties from then they would get the enforcement they require. It is a sticky issue, I can see it has a few problems with it, but certainly a model for an international licensing authority must be achieved else they will find they become irrelevant and webcasting will become the new legal mined field that peer-2-peer was and still is.

tjmarx
11-08-2009, 11:52 PM
Oh and saint, I already suggested to ARPA in the letter I sent to them before posting this threat that an international authority for webcasters would make far greater sense. But I do think your idea is brilliant. Everyone else should certainly do the same and suggest an international authority. I doubt they'll listen, but you never know til you try.

johny c
11-09-2009, 12:03 AM
In New Zealand , APRA also handle the payments here. 'Shops do NOT have a list, Club's & bar's DONT supply lists for the bands that play in them, there are many Country Music Clubs that DONT have to have a list. LPFM radio stations DONT have to show lists. All these place's are charged a blanket yearly fee by APRA. Now tell me how do they know who to pay all that money to.

saint
11-09-2009, 12:30 AM
tjmarx

If your national "collections" association does not want to give you global coverage that is commiserate with fellow broadcasters from around the world, then lodge a complain with your MP and the WTO. This is a trade / licensing issue.

A broadcaster in New Zealand should pay the same as a broadcaster in the UK as a broadcaster should pay in the USA . etc etc etc. Why should it cost more to broadcast in country A than in country B. This is not about bandwidth usage - it about royalty payments folks. Do artists in country A deserve more money because they broadcast in country A than in country B ? Ummm, what is wrong with that picture ? I would equate a higher royalty payment as a higher "export" tarrif and for some countries - you can't even export the stream - because your "export tarrif" is for internal use only.

Did you know in the United States that the Government DOES control the royalty rates for webcasters ? I would hazard a guess that other countries have governmental "input" that dictates their webcasting rates as well.

The choice is entirely up to you as a broadcaster, you can choose not to pay, you can choose to play silly games with your collections agency and hope they have everyones best interest at heart, or you can start making this a global trade / licensing issue.

Do nothing and hope for the best, or start doing something now to make a difference.

The choice is entirely up to you.

tjmarx
11-25-2009, 06:36 AM
I know factually that retail outlets in Australia do have to provide a list to ARPA. I have no idea about their arrangements in Zealand however.

Saint, ARPA is an industry association, it does not receive input from government outside of having to follow the same laws as any other company or organisation inside of Australia. I'd be interested to know Saint which part of the licensing the US government do control, as I'm aware in the US multiple licenses must be obtained, one being of course for copyright which is separate to the other licenses.

I found this resource online, it covers how payments are handled in the US and who gets paid and how. I thought you guys might be interested in it seems there is a lot of talk about artists not getting paid.

http://bandfoundry.draftlight.net/resources/copyright/license_types.php

tjmarx
11-25-2009, 06:38 AM
Finally after several weeks I have received a reply from ARPA. Of course it doesn't answer all my questions and so I've had to write a reply and no doubt will wait another 6 or so weeks for ARPA to reply to that. But here is what they've said so far.

Hi TJ,

Thank you for your email, and apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

We offer a range of Audio Webcast service licences depending on the nature of your website/service.
If your website contains advertising or sponsorship, we would offer you a general licence where the licence fee would be based on a percentage of Gross Revenue (associated to your website) depending on the level of music use (described in the table below) subject to a minimum fee of $1293.60 (incl. GST) per quarter.

Music Use Percentage

Percentage of Gross Revenue (inc of GST)

≥90%

5.500%

80-89.99%

4.290%

60-79.99%

3.355%

40-59.99%

2.420%

25-39.99%

1.54%

<25%

0.605%



If your website will not contain advertising or sponsorship, but will be taken out under a company name, we have a limited Audio Webcast service licence available. The cost of this licence is $646.80 (incl. GST) per quarter for the first Audio Webcast Channel.

Again, this licence does not allow for any advertising in-stream or onsite and is limited to 2 Audio webcast channels that must be available free of charge to the user.From what you have described below, your service would probably fit under this 'limited' licence.

Being the content provider, it is your responsibility to take out a licence. Since you are an Australian resident, you would be required to take out an APRA|AMCOS licence. So you've come to the right place!

If you would like more information, or a copy of the a licence agreement, please let me know and I will send it through.

Apologies again for the delay.

Kind regards,
Aiona Fangupo
Broadcast & Online Services
APRA|AMCOS
16 Mountain St, Ultimo NSW 2007
Locked Bag 5000, Strawberry Hills NSW 2012
P +61 2 9935 7947 F +61 2 9935 7996
E afangupo@apra.com.au Wwww.apra-amcos.com.au (http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/)

tjmarx
11-30-2009, 01:30 AM
I got the reply from ARPA much faster this time. The lady I have been speaking to at ARPA has gone down my last email to her and replied point for point. Still... I must say she has only answered questions very generally, in some cases not at all, even though I have been very specific about my situation. Anyway, the reply when like this.

------

Hi Aiona,

I have a few further questions about the Limited license if that's ok.
Under that license can I still play the FREE advertising material for my
OWN businesses and for businesses of DJ's and other station volunteers?

If you are generating revenue from the service (i.e. selling advertising space, air-time or banner ads etc) - this is when a 'general' licence would be required. If you are simply promoting your own business in-stream or on-site then a 'limited general' licence should suffice.

That is to say the station would not receive any revenue from the
advertising in any form. Also, under this license would I be subject to
a certain percentage of music content playable? Or is the license open
to as much music content as is suitable to my station?

The limited general licence is a blanket licence that is based on a flat fee, therefore music use percentage does not come in to play here. Although, we still do require quarterly music logs.

Additionally
when you say "taken out under a company name", does this mean the
license requires the registration of an Australian Company &/or State
Registration of a Business?

Correct.

Lastly, does this license cover the music being streamed to other
countries? That is to say, if someone from the UK or the US for example
were to listen to my stream would this license still cover it?

The APRA|AMCOS licence can only cover services based within our Territory. Therefore you, being the content provider, based in Australia - we are in a position to offer you a licence for your service.
-------

The provisional need to form a company for what is essentially someone playing music and speaking over the internet from their house seems rather excessive to me. I can't quite understand why this is so, I could understand it if it was a station generating revenue, the need for being an incorporated company becomes obvious in that situation. But for a station receiving no income, this seems incredibly excessive.

Especially given the price tag, rules and regulations in relation to forming an Australian Company. Being licensed to run an internet station from Australia seems to me quite impossible unless it's a commercial station which receives large amounts of revenue. I mean simply by being incorporated you have to add a money accountant fee. You also must hang a sign on the premises stating that it is where you're located. There are loads of other costs associated with it.

Seriously, all I want to do is give the guys who made the music I play some money for me being able to play it. Not over complicate the whole situation.

James
11-30-2009, 03:02 AM
APRA and their useless emails! They keep getting complicated, i swear they will blow up the internet if they keep going. :doh:


I got the reply from ARPA much faster this time. The lady I have been speaking to at ARPA has gone down my last email to her and replied point for point. Still... I must say she has only answered questions very generally, in some cases not at all, even though I have been very specific about my situation. Anyway, the reply when like this.

------

Hi Aiona,

I have a few further questions about the Limited license if that's ok.
Under that license can I still play the FREE advertising material for my
OWN businesses and for businesses of DJ's and other station volunteers?

If you are generating revenue from the service (i.e. selling advertising space, air-time or banner ads etc) - this is when a 'general' licence would be required. If you are simply promoting your own business in-stream or on-site then a 'limited general' licence should suffice.

That is to say the station would not receive any revenue from the
advertising in any form. Also, under this license would I be subject to
a certain percentage of music content playable? Or is the license open
to as much music content as is suitable to my station?

The limited general licence is a blanket licence that is based on a flat fee, therefore music use percentage does not come in to play here. Although, we still do require quarterly music logs.

Additionally
when you say "taken out under a company name", does this mean the
license requires the registration of an Australian Company &/or State
Registration of a Business?

Correct.

Lastly, does this license cover the music being streamed to other
countries? That is to say, if someone from the UK or the US for example
were to listen to my stream would this license still cover it?

The APRA|AMCOS licence can only cover services based within our Territory. Therefore you, being the content provider, based in Australia - we are in a position to offer you a licence for your service.
-------

The provisional need to form a company for what is essentially someone playing music and speaking over the internet from their house seems rather excessive to me. I can't quite understand why this is so, I could understand it if it was a station generating revenue, the need for being an incorporated company becomes obvious in that situation. But for a station receiving no income, this seems incredibly excessive.

Especially given the price tag, rules and regulations in relation to forming an Australian Company. Being licensed to run an internet station from Australia seems to me quite impossible unless it's a commercial station which receives large amounts of revenue. I mean simply by being incorporated you have to add a money accountant fee. You also must hang a sign on the premises stating that it is where you're located. There are loads of other costs associated with it.

Seriously, all I want to do is give the guys who made the music I play some money for me being able to play it. Not over complicate the whole situation.

tjmarx
12-01-2009, 06:38 AM
Finally the hidden truth starts to be revealed. Don't worry chaps, I'll get to the truth even if it takes me a year to do so. Disgusted with ARPA's fees and still without my main question answered I replied to their last email. This is what I got back

----

Hi Aiona,

Thanks for your reply. You actually didn't answer my last question in
relation to whether I'm covered for other parts of the world as well. I
understand being an Australian resident means I need to get a license
from ARPA/AMCOS but what I DON'T know is whether or not I need to obtain
a license in other countries as well.

- If you are setting up a UK website or US website (i.e. - co.uk or a .com), you would be required to take out a separate licence within each of their territories.

Also, can you please advise me why in the UK through the PPL a
webcasting license for my situation would cost 238 pounds (approximately
$500AU) for the entire year, without need to set up a company. While in
Australia I'm being forced to pay over $600 every 3 months for my
license, plus set up a company, which under ASIC laws must be
incorporated which means a monthly accountant fee as well, all so I can
play music over the internet from my home, and from the homes of the
volunteers who want to get involved. That sounds sorta wrong to me
that there is such a massive difference in price between countries to do
the exact same thing.

- The licence fees for APRA|AMCOS webcast licenses are standard across the board. The licence fees are in line with similar licences already in place for online services locally and overseas. We feel that the fees reflect the true value of musical works being used in webcast services.

However, in saying that - There is another tier of Audio webcast licensing available, which is a 'private individual' licence. You can take up this option if you would like to take the licence out in your personal name, it is limited to 1 Audio Webcast Channel and there is no sponsorship/advertising etc attached to the service. The cost of this licence is a flat fee of $517.00 (incl GST) per annum or part thereof.

Please let me know if you think this licence would be better suited, and I can send you through the paperwork.


------

So it seems there IS actually a comparable license for webcasters, it's just not advertised and they really don't want you to know about it. Perhaps they don't like the reach webcasters have.

My question about licensing in different countries STILL hasn't been fully answered although we're at least half way there. So I've written back to ask her again what the deal is. I swear, I've given this woman all the information already I don't see why she can't answer such a basic question. I'm thinking it's probably because she's trying to get me to sign up for a license before she tells me I actually need one in every other country as well. lol

johny c
12-01-2009, 07:02 AM
They are still ripping you off, why do they have different rules for the same company in another country as I pointed out before. http://www.apra.co.nz/html/music_uses.php?id=5141
Low Power FM Broadcasters

Low Power FM broadcasters are broadcasting services whose reception is limited by transmission power (under 500mW) and reception area. These services can be received on standard radio sets but according to MED specifications are available on guard band frequencies only. These services are generally funded by limited advertising or sponsorship.

Broadcast Licence
Licensees pay a set annual fee of $250 plus GST. The licence allows very limited revenue collection by the broadcaster - up to $10,000 per year.

This licence now includes the option for Low Power Radio transmission via Internet simulcast. The licence fee is $450 plus GST per annum for both transmissions.

It is envisaged that such stations should be non commercial and use advertising for cost recovery purposes only.

We do not expect LPFM broadcasters to supply play list information although we retain the right to ask them to do so if necessary.

Each station will provide a declaration each year stating that they did not collect more than $10,000 in revenue.
.................................................. .................................................. ....................................
And no we dont have to set up a company, as I said this is the same "APRA" As you can see by the rules above I dont have to supply a playlist. My point is, where's the money going to, who do they know who to pay my money to.