Have reached out. Thanks!

Looks like Vegas City just announced something with a third party called Lick'd which might help land owners with music licensing. This feels like the right type of solution. Maybe worth hitting them up to see if this is scalable? https://www.blockchaingamer.biz/news/19016/lickd-partners-with-decentralands-vegas-city-to-bring-commercial-music-to-the-metaverse/

Should Decentraland DAO pay for an annual Blanket Music License? This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc)

Looks like the community is fairly split on the issue. Thank you to everyone who voted and contributed to the conversation.

Should Decentraland DAO pay for an annual Blanket Music License? This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Dao pays retroactive music licensing fees and for blanket license annually 7% 189,712 VP (29 votes) * Leave the responsibility to land owners to obtain their own licenses 93% 2,212,875 VP (25 votes) * Invalid question/options 0% 0 VP (1 votes)

YIKES! Will have to look into it their licensing further. Thanks for the heads up. :pray:

Yea but then what bro. We gonna pop off one by one each nation, country and independent republic that requires a license. Then follow that by each record label and millions of artists cause some scrub cant remix a song or not take profit off of it and just host a party.

First off, I would like to thank you for answering my questions earlier in this thread. I think we're golden on that front. As for Vimeo, I have only one point to raise. I wouldn't even call this an objection, but I do want to raise awareness of what happened to StoryFire. The short version is that StoryFire essentially used a corporate Vimeo account for their back end, and from what I've heard mentioned in passing on some podcasts, StoryFire got a massive bill from Vimeo one day and had to close their doors. Looking at their plans, I see room for some surprise bills. That caveat aside, it sounds like a good work-around. :+1:

BTW i think we may have found a work around that may be useful to other event projects. If you host videos on vimeo and then pipe into land via m3u8, then should be covered under vimeo licensing. From my understanding the "live" component is the problem. The hosted video method actually registers each individual hit on the video. One user = one instance. This allows Vimeo to do the heavy lifting. The intention of this poll was to solution this problem and bring it to everyone's attention so they can protect themselves and the artists. Be safe out there. ☐3

No ZESTY. I have not and will not.

I find the part about not doxing anyone interesting. It brings up another question that may seem redundant, but I'm going to ask it for clarity's sake anyway: Have you in any way assisted SOCAN or any other group with information about other clubs? Examples would include (but not be limited to) club owner names, club names, or LAND parcel coordinates.

I haven't added my comments here yet, as most have probably read my thoughts in various discord channels and on voice chats. But... This is a very COMPLEX and LEGAL conversation. And as we do proceed forward with whatever conversations and actions, what I hope for is 1. All music artists and performers(In DCL and outside) to get their dues, and to be protected, 2. The land owners, users who will attend, and the platform of DCL itself to be protected, and 3. We do this in the best way possible to suit our goals and mindsets we have with decentralization, and putting the power within all of our hands, and not a centralized entity. But that might mean in some way, even if we go with a 3rd party who is in web3, a blanket license will be needed to cover all in one piece of legal, which is in a sense centralized. But we will always vote and decide on this together. Even if it's something we renew year after year. Based on the conversations from todays DCL Town Hall, here are a few resources we should be looking into, https://dequency.io + https://www.monstercat.com. As much as we'd love to only use web3 music, and independent artists and music NFTs, not all will, and those will be parties we will participate in. We're doing it right now. So even if it doesn't directly affect us as land owners, we should as a DAO and community find the best way to move forward with. If we don't now, the labels and big licensing companies will come here and do it themselves. Please keep an eye out for more, as the foundation and DAO committee is aware of this topic, and we will continue to work closely with each other going forward!

I am here to do whatever GrizzledGatsby and ckbubbles wants since agree would be great for solution! Also if it helps anyone can use the Waifumon Song in any location IRL, Decentraland or metaverse or planet forever for FREE!

Thanks for weighing in. :slight_smile: The problem is you need to be licensed in every jurisdiction in which your end users reside not simply your own. No such global license exists and the cost to a small project would be astronomical not to mention the reporting and administrative requirements. Hence why an integration with a third party platform that is licensed makes sense or a blanket license for the platform that covers all land owners.

I believe there is an interesting point here. Streaming third party content through any media involves questions not only regarding copyright but also performing rights, etc. Music as an industry is quite complex from the legal side, and we could write tons of material about it. Having this being said, I personally believe this matter should be left to each owner, given that due to the descentralized ownership of Decentraland, you literally own virtual parcel where you stream content. I am part of a project that has music as its main vertical and with a presence in the Metaverse. What we are doing is reserving the right to request the list of tracks to performing artists so we can comply with our local performing rights organization. This is the way we have found so far to comply.

My understanding is, any platform that communicates works that have been registered by a member of a performing rights organization is required by law to be licensed. SOCAN is a third party, but ultimately is the organization that the copyright board of Canada has delegated to enforce their certified tariffs. The question is, is each individual land owner "the platform" or is DCL proper? If you are working with registered members of these performing rights orgs without a license, then you are exposed, anonymity aside. There will be a twitter spaces AMA with some amazing panelists coming up on the 28th. I encourage everyone to participate should they wish clarification on current regulations and would like to participate in finding a way forward that preserves the culture of our space while protecting land owners and artists.

No I get no discount and no I am not doxxing anyone and have only represented myself and my organization in these conversations.

I'll ignore all but the most important bit in order to keep it "above the belt," so here's my next question, which is really just a narrower/more explicit version of what I asked previously: As part of this negotiation that you're working out with SOCAN for Parcel Parties, have the other LAND owners or the Foundation ever been mentioned? e.g. You get a discount or other consideration if more people sign up?

Parcel Party, the project that I am currently leading.

Fantastic feedback. It would be great to explore new models. I have started this poll to reify these issues and to start the conversation. Do you have in-roads to gala, audius or united or any insights into their licensing model?

This is a tough conversation. Let's try and keep comments above the belt Zesty. These licensing bodies have been knocking at the DCL Foundation's legal department door long before I approached them. SOCAN is working with me to develop a blanket license for my parcel as opposed to paying for each individual concert we put on, we are currently in negotiations for my specific parcel. No, I have no formal business relationship with SOCAN and they are not compensating me in any way. I am simply a landowner who has become aware that our "online concerts" require licensing to not be exposed and am bringing this information to the broader DCL community to see how we would all like to proceed, hence this poll.

forgive me, but I do not understand well, I am an ignorant in these topics... I do not know how the rights issue works well and even less in these jurisprudences still to be defined... as a dj, selector or whatever you want to call it, I have always had a lot of respect for the creators and that is one of the reasons why I play vinyl and not mp3.... but I have to say that I love to go down with my speakers to the park or to the mountain and enjoy the music at full volume among friends... if you charge tickets for an event or if in your plot is commercialized, I understand that you have to pay royalties, but to go down with the ghettoblaster to the park is crazy to have to pay royalties... on the other hand, I have uploaded sessions in different platforms... (youtube, facebook, mixcloud, soundcoud), and all of them have allowed me to share the music not having monetized any channel ... I do not know what kind of rights pay these platforms, but it would be interesting that a committee of investigation clarify what are the options that we can shuffle, so that both artists how users who want to share pleasant moments we respect . peace, love and havin´fun.

Grizzled Gatsby, It’s my understanding that this entire dilemma with SOCAN exists solely because you reached out to them first, not the other way around. Typically, real life bars in America will open for business and start by playing whatever music they want. ASCAP sends them a letter after a few months, the bar pleads stupidity, and they negotiate a licensing deal. SOCAN likely views you as a sucker for going to them first, and whatever licensing you’re working out, they’re going to make you pay the price because they see you as a sucker with a conscience. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could have negotiated for a fraction of whatever you’re being told you should pay. As it stands, it’s my opinion that you handled this in the worst possible manner, and if your lawyer really told you to handle it this way, you need to find a lawyer with a backbone. You were on a community Twitter space yesterday, defending this licensing body in ways that brought some questions to mind: Are you getting any sort of compensation or discount from SOCAN for getting people on board with licensing? Is your business relationship with SOCAN limited solely to you paying some sort of licensing cost?

Bless JRR I’m not 100% sure on what exactly warrants a land owner responsible for paying for music or a DJ for that matter. There is a lot of gray areas in the whole thing. I was always under the impression that as long as you aren’t making money you aren’t responsible for paying. Just like as long as you don’t monetize a Youtube video you can have whatever music you want. I really don’t know how they would determine how many people are listening at any given event and how much is owed. As a recording artist and member of ASCAP myself I understand the need to make sure music artists are compensated properly for their hard work and music. I know that TRAX submitted a set for the Jason Derulo event and it was flagged by the record company and DCL wasn’t able to use/ play it. I am in a unique position myself because I have been recording and producing music for years now, I literally have over a thousand all original unreleased songs that feature me on all instruments so could easily continue playing events no problem. I however feel it is extremely important to continue being able to have land owners play music at their events. Events are so much more fun and engaging when there is music and help build a sense of community so that when new users come into the space there are cool things going on. TY to all the people who are active in this forum and helping build this community regardless of your stance on this particular issue much love.

I understand the point but need some more information on what types of events/music fall into this category. I can see people who loop straight mp3s on land as ambient music getting shazamed by the record industry at some point but how are they calculating use, listens, streams etc. For DJs like Traxx, Stoney and Cat5 who are djing live mixes, are they usually paying record lables for each song they play? I used to dj and dont remember needing to play lisence fees since i paid for the vinyl or beatport tracks and then do what I need with them as along as they are played for a crowd vs used in a commercial spot. Think we need definitions of music usage in DCL and what we can and cannot do legally before we decide to start paying licensing agencies. Might even be a reason to lean into music platforms like gala music, united, audius who are leaning into decentralized music vs going back to more traditional music industry who are looking to claw back their control.