<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
</head><body style="">
<div>
 
</div>
<p> </p>
<blockquote style="position: relative; margin-left: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: solid 1px blue;" type="cite">
James Cridland <james@cridland.net> wrote: I think Pulse in Somerset is another example of a CR on DAB as well. I think you could argue in all cases that there is significantly more exploitation of content on a DAB simulcast for a CR, since the coverage area is a lot larger. I don't think you can argue that for the small scale trial.
</blockquote>
<p>That's what I meant about a lack of rationale in PPL fees. I could quadruple or more my FM coverage area, and there is no automatic change to PPL fees - until and unless the effects of that increased coverage flows through into increased revenues. Why should overlaying a DAB service on the same area not follow the same principle?</p>
<blockquote style="position: relative; margin-left: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: solid 1px blue;" type="cite">
<br />
<p>On the monopolies thing: there isn't a monopoly here, I'm told. You can deal direct with record companies - many online companies have done. But that means that instead of a catch-all licence covering (almost) and track you'll ever want to play, it massively changes the complexity of what you do, since you end up only being able to play Warner tracks and not Sony ones, for example. You can also buy music licencing from any EU country's music licencing agency, but - oh, ho - you'll find they all charge the same based on a reciprocal agreement. Sounds less like a monopoly and more like a cartel, you might think, but apparently it isn't that either.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think that's the consideration here James - whether one could in theory negotiate with individual companies is irrelevant to the discussion - there is a monopoly on colelcting societies, which are recognized as the most practicla way to handle the whole issue. The law does explicitly grant a stautory monopoly to collecting societies as such. Their existence and underpinning is set in statute, with the supposed safeguard for their repertoire users of the Copyright Tribunal being able to sit in judgement on the reasonableness or otherwise of their licences. In recognition of the legally granted monopoly, the law provides that a user may deem their own reasonable licence and follow that pending an application to the Copyright Tribunal to settle the case. Unfortunately, as I said, that protection is ineffective for small players. (Incidentally, I believe the relevant agency in charge is the Designs and Patent Office (or was last time I looked), not the competition authorities.</p>
<p>Alex</p>
<div>
 
</div>
</body></html>