Google search says –
Frank Sinatra’s original release of his performance was 1964. Copyrighted until 2067. The music was written in 1954, copyrighted for 95 years (you can look up the required renewal notice filed in 1922). Anything recorded after 1972, and published with proper copyright notice, is copyrighted for 95 years from date of recording (or 70 years after death of any individual who performed in it without having signed a work made for hire agreement).
Any song or music published prior to 1922 in the U.S. is in the public domain and can be used. However, you want a particular recording of Frank Sinatra to be used in your movie, I think you have to contact his estate for permission to use it.
That being said it doesn’t appear Roku cares unless they get a DMCA takedown notice after the fact, so you can probably skate. (developer agreement says free or not, you should have rights to stream your content)
You say to email the channels who are streaming content you don’t think they own, or if it’s your own content file a DMCA notice with Roku.
Roku isn’t going to pro-actively look at channels and ask for licensing agreements to be mailed into them - just they are going to do that for Dishworld since Dishworld owns/exclusive foreign content on all Roku platforms and devices forever.
Destruk -
the thread you link, Joel was describing existing processes of handling copyright issues.
Filing a DMCA notice is a legal/formal act by a rightful owner, compelling RokuCo to act. That takes high priority, what with a known plaintiff who asserts copyright (but note that sending a bogus DMCA claim is a perjury).
That does not mean that if the company was made aware of violations in other ways, they will definitely ignore it. If they willfully disregard piracy reports, they risk being charged as accessory to piracy (remember Napster/Grokster/Kazaa/Megaupload?). But investigating these cases is difficult - how can you tell if something is legal or not? - unless someone sends a message voluntarily admitting they are using unlicensed works in their channel… :twisted: and even then one cannot be sure because that might have been just a competitor posing as the real channel author, to cause a take-down.
The Dishy World case is unrelated to copyright - there RokuCo is making conscious choice of giving first dibs of international content to DW - and whatever they don’t “eat” may be left for others to scavenge. Which is a shoddy move, sure. But while it may be exclusive-ish, it is about content access and not ownership “on all Roku platforms and devices forever” - don’t bunch them together.
Well see, we just don’t know - ther terms of their exclusivity deal have never been disclosed - the length of exclusivity hasn’t been disclosed (meaning it’s most likely renewed when the original expires) so it would be indefinite/forever, and Dishwold and Roku actively enforce this exclusivity and ensure the content is legal or at least allowed by Dishworld. Although Dishworld hasn’t added any languages since they launched on Roku they have this to say –
“We intend to continue to expand the languages we offer on Roku and aren’t prepared at this point to provide blanket waivers of our exclusivity.”
They have nothing for American Indians content language so I wanted to ask if they would allow a waiver for all American Indian content - but they want to keep their options open, and have developers PAY them to have said content available on roku, and then it gets merged into their expensive package deals as you get bought out. No thanks - we’ll just provide said content on every device EXCEPT roku.
You would have to think there is some kind of vetting process for channels that pay Roku for their premium support like Hulu, Netflix, Dishworld, etc - it’d be both a problem for roku and these other businesses if something somehow got in that shouldn’t be there. All I’m saying is at least during the initial channel approval process Roku is big enough now (10 million devices) that it might be a good idea to look a little closer at the content rights itself before simply adding it to the channel store to begin with.
I see, ok it looks like
Standalone Non-portable Subscriptions, Streaming Only" license which I believe to be a flat 10.5% of monthly proceeds. Anyway, that is for me to figure out.
30% Roku
10-20% AWS cost
10% Licensing
10-20% (?) Taxes
I guess I have to figure out if this is worth developing, I know there are ways to save on some of the costs as well.
“jayseattle” wrote:
[on fees]
…
30% Roku
…Isn’t that more like 33% ? If i understand correctly that RokuCo will only pay via Paypal (where the moochers will collect ~3% of errr, “service fee”). Kinda sad (nay, amateurish) if they can’t do money transfer nor check but instead force “service” down the throat. Does Roku discount that fee from their 30% by any chance?
I don’t think PayPal takes a cut on payments we send to developers, at least they are not supposed to.
Paypal takes a cut when an individual or small business pays someone, but we have a different kind of account with PayPal that is not supposed to do that.
“destruk” wrote:
Well see, we just don’t know - ther terms of their exclusivity deal have never been disclosed - the length of exclusivity hasn’t been disclosed
For RokuTVs, exclusivity ends on about May 18th 2015, although up until a few weeks ago exclusivity wasn’t going to apply to RokuTV at all, but that changed.
There are enough variables, negotiations and options to renew that we really aren’t sure when it will end for Roku STB devices, (although I believe going forward from 05/18/2015 it probably won’t apply to newly purchased devices - unless DISHWorld opts to renew.)
They have nothing for American Indians content language so I wanted to ask if they would allow a waiver for all American Indian content - but they want to keep their options open, and have developers PAY them to have said content available on roku, and then it gets merged into their expensive package deals as you get bought out. No thanks - we’ll just provide said content on every device EXCEPT roku.
I can’t imagine that we would hold up a Native American channel over Dishworld, but if we did, it would only be about 6 month hold - Automatic exclusivity waiver is on a language basis, so DISHWorld would have to create a separate Navajo channel, a Hopi channel, a Tlingit channel etc within 6 months of our filing the request for a waiver… of course they could invite you to be part of their network, which also would prevent us from carrying the channel as a stand-alone. Interestingly, DISHWorlds business model pays the channel owner revenue to be on their platform.
You would have to think there is some kind of vetting process for channels that pay Roku for their premium support like Hulu, Netflix, Dishworld, etc - it’d be both a problem for roku and these other businesses if something somehow got in that shouldn’t be there.
This has more to do with whether the channel is “General Audience” or not, and if it has a predominance of a particular language, plus I think there are some provisions in the DISHWorld contract that allow TVOD and SVOD under certain circumstances.
“destruk” wrote:
Well see, we just don’t know - ther terms of their exclusivity deal have never been disclosed - the length of exclusivity hasn’t been disclosed (meaning it’s most likely renewed when the original expires) so it would be indefinite/forever, and Dishwold and Roku actively enforce this exclusivity and ensure the content is legal or at least allowed by Dishworld.
It’s about this weird concept of a 3rd party (DW) “blessing” streaming of specific non-domestic content - not about legal right to it, that’s what i am pointing out. Though i understand how it simplifies RokuCo’s life - by giving first dibs to DW, because of their size they are sure they’d license content right - and RokuCo does not have to learn the intricate details of content licensing abroad. Which differ wildly from country to country - as example do you remember AllofMP3.com case, where a Russian company was selling non-DRM MP3 at $0.10/song in full compliance with Russian law, while paying license fees to their version of RIAA? That was a very sticky situation, bringing questions about legality of trans-border transactions (i.e. if something purchased under other country’s law gets imported here, where different rules apply - and the impracticality of Customs/duty on internet). Ultimately that site was shut down through extra-legal means, where Russian government reps* “influenced” the parent company into shutting down the service after USA government reps** have “hinted” that Russia’s entry into WTO might be jeopardized if that egg-on-RIAAs-face of a website continues to exist. “The Godfather” vibe going on there. Not the kind of troubles Roku wants to be near anyway.
OTOH, the part where because of DW they took down existing international channels is a low part in RokuCo’s existence. Maybe the lowest.
Although Dishworld hasn’t added any languages since they launched on Roku they have this to say – “We intend to continue to expand the languages we offer on Roku and aren’t prepared at this point to provide blanket waivers of our exclusivity.” They have nothing for American Indians content language so I wanted to ask if they would allow a waiver for all American Indian content - but they want to keep their options open, and have developers PAY them to have said content available on roku, and then it gets merged into their expensive package deals as you get bought out. No thanks - we’ll just provide said content on every device EXCEPT roku.
So you are saying it’s a case of dog in the manger, “for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat hay nor does he let the oxen eat”?
[spoiler=dog in the manger, visual:2pr8nrau]
[upload|6UyIzffAcTVLwm1YQ/JpNg==]
[/spoiler:2pr8nrau] I suspect such position won’t bear scrutiny if challenged - though your likely lack the legal muscle to do it. Because DW are sufficiently big to start talking about monopoly in their anti-competitive actions and going against public’s interest. Going to court would bring to light the details of Roku-DW deal and has significant risk of breaking the cozy relationship; it might be ordered they could not be “first among equals” even. They’ll resolve the issue inter partes.
Are you sure that after sufficient dragging of feet RokuCo won’t allow you to publish w/o DW consent? I read something that made me think they would, after giving an ample head-start time to DW.
You would have to think there is some kind of vetting process for channels that pay Roku for their premium support like Hulu, Netflix, Dishworld, etc - it’d be both a problem for roku and these other businesses if something somehow got in that shouldn’t be there. All I’m saying is at least during the initial channel approval process Roku is big enough now (10 million devices) that it might be a good idea to look a little closer at the content rights itself before simply adding it to the channel store to begin with.
Actually the sheer size is the reason why RokuCo cannot do that. Would you say IRS is big enough to audit 100% of all tax returns? And don’t forget one is presumed innocent until proven guilty - not the other way around. See also, YouTube - you publish on good faith, they check on DMCA notice.
(*) we tend to call those “thugs” when events don’t align with US geopolitical interests
(**) we call these “trade representatives” and not thugs since they defend US interests
“RokuJoel” wrote:
I don’t think PayPal takes a cut on payments we send to developers, at least they are not supposed to.
Paypal takes a cut when an individual or small business pays someone, but we have a different kind of account with PayPal that is not supposed to do that.
That’s great! Frankly PayPal website is quite elusive about fees for receiving moneys, unless it is for “friends and family”, when “Sending money to friends and family is free for you and the recipient in the US when you fund the transfer with your bank account”. I have assumed xfers from RokuCo are governed by this https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees
Can someone that regularly receives from Roku confirm paypal does not skim any?
“RokuJoel” wrote:
… Interestingly, DISHWorlds business model pays the channel owner revenue to be on their platform.
Yeah, at first i gasped in disbelief when @destruk said “they want to … have developers PAY them to have said content available on roku” - but then i figured it must be creative writing, in which “PAY them” was misleadingly used for DW asking for profit sharing (% of sales) when carrying content on their network.
Enterr ? Really? Ok, so if somebody pays you $5 to allow you to put your content on Roku - and in order to get that payment they would add your content to their own offerings as they have ‘exclusivity’ , and then they charge people viewing your content $20 to view it, the original provider (you) are losing $15 in revenue. That’s not creative at all, that’s just economics. You could just as easily (and it makes more sense to do so) charge $20 yourself for your content on any other platform besides roku and dishworld wouldn’t get a penny from that. Do I have that wrong?
“RokuJoel” wrote:
I don’t think PayPal takes a cut on payments we send to developers, at least they are not supposed to.
Paypal takes a cut when an individual or small business pays someone, but we have a different kind of account with PayPal that is not supposed to do that.
That’s great! Frankly PayPal website is quite elusive about fees for receiving moneys, unless it is for “friends and family”, when “Sending money to friends and family is free for you and the recipient in the US when you fund the transfer with your bank account”. I have assumed xfers from RokuCo are governed by this https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees
Can someone that regularly receives from Roku confirm paypal does not skim any?
No fees are taken from Roku payments via PayPal.
“RokuJoel” wrote:
… Interestingly, DISHWorlds business model pays the channel owner revenue to be on their platform.
Yeah, at first i gasped in disbelief when @destruk said “they want to … have developers PAY them to have said content available on roku” - but then i figured it must be creative writing, in which “PAY them” was misleadingly used for DW asking for profit sharing (% of sales) when carrying content on their network.
My understanding is that if you become a partner with DISHWorld, broadcasting on their network and in their channel, they pay you to be there, not the other way around. They have to want you though.
“destruk” wrote:
Enterr ? Really? Ok, so if somebody pays you $5 to allow you to put your content on Roku - and in order to get that payment they would add your content to their own offerings as they have ‘exclusivity’ , and then they charge people viewing your content $20 to view it, the original provider (you) are losing $15 in revenue. That’s not creative at all, that’s just economics. You could just as easily (and it makes more sense to do so) charge $20 yourself for your content on any other platform besides roku and dishworld wouldn’t get a penny from that. Do I have that wrong?
I don’t know, man. I don’t understand the $ explanation you just gave. Who pays you $5 to allow you to put your content on Roku etc…
DISHWorld pays content providers to be on their platform, be it Satellite or Roku, as I understand it from my conversions with them. Not sure where you got the five dollar figure.
Here, I’ll break it down even further for you - “(hypothetical, example)” - since I don’t have an agreement with Dishworld I have no printed contract to refer to.
Dishworld is in business to “MAKE money” - not to give all their profits to channel developers.
Therefore, if Dishworld is selling the “Ethiopian Entertainment package” for $29.99/month - they then pay a portion of that money to the provider of the channels and content available within that package.
They would not be in business if they paid $35 to the providers of content of the package and only took $29.99 per month from the customer they are providing to.
Can it be any clearer than that?
So – if they paid the providers $29.99/month per customer to each provider, and they collect $29.99/month per customer using their service, they make no money and can’t cover their own costs because 100% of all money they receive goes right back out again. It’s just not possible.
With that as a fact - no matter if it’s $60, $5, $20, or $40, or any other figure that makes you feel awesome at the moment, 100% is 100% no matter what number you use.
Therefore, if they are paying the providers less than what they are making, what benefit is there to you accepting less money than your content is worth to the world? You are taking a loss for the privilege.
It doesn’t matter what they are paying you, you are still missing out on money that they collect off of your hard work. I see this as a scam - because they have exclusivity they hold developers at ransom to get their cut of money out of the deal which makes it rather pointless to pursue under these terms.
