Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Patents

Digital DJs Unaware of Copyright Law 266

Posted by Zonk from the less-talk-more-music-slashdot-radio dept.
CookieJago74 writes "The BBC reports that if you're a DJ, playing your digital copies of files off a laptop or mp3 player is illegal. The UK royalty collection agency, PPL, demands that such DJs pay £200 for a license in order to do so. From the article, 'Many DJs are still unwittingly breaking the law by playing unlicensed digital copies of tracks months after a new permit scheme began, the BBC has found. This includes legally-purchased downloads, which are normally licensed only for personal use, as well as copies of tracks from records or CDs.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital DJs Unaware of Copyright Law More

Digital DJs Unaware of Copyright Law

Comments Filter:

  • Article summary is a little misleading (Score:5, Informative)

    by conJunk ( 779958 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:34PM (#14466019)
    I think the article summary is a touch misleading. My reading was that the public performance of songs whose copyright the DJ doesn't hold is what's illegal, and the £200 is for a licsence that remedies the situation. Nobody is telling anybody they can't play music on their laptops, and I'm sure the submitter didn't intend this, but I think it's important to point out that this only relates to public performance. Additionally, DJs do not need to pay the liscence if they are playing from CD or vinyl.
    • "Additionally, DJs do not need to pay the liscence if they are playing from CD or vinyl."

      That's because there is a surcharge on blank media to cover this, should they be playing from a copied CD.
      • I'm confused. Is this also built into the price of an artist's CD off the shelf?

        What's the differenct between a digital copy of a song on a hard drive and a digital copy of a song on a CD?

        This sounds like another extortion charge by record lables. They know it's convenient and that's how everyone wants to use it, so they're going to charge you to do it that way.
      • No, it's not. There is no surcharge added to media to cover public performance.

        That would be incredibly stupid, even by the standards that allow adding surcharges to media to cover copying unlicensed music to that media.

      • "Additionally, DJs do not need to pay the liscence if they are playing from CD or vinyl."

        That's because there is a surcharge on blank media to cover this, should they be playing from a copied CD.

        I don't think the UK has a media surcharge. I think the author's point is that they should be playing from an original CD or vinyl. However, I would question if this is sufficient, since I did not think copyright law allowed public performance without an extra license.

      • Actually- incorrect.

        When a DJ buys a CD or record, they actually buy a special "public performace-licensed" version which costs more than the standard consumer version. This is similar to the touch tunes-type jukeboxes which (usually) have stickers or periodic displays that say "the music you are listening to is licensed." One of the bars I go to all the time actually pays for a public performance license so that the bartenders can bring in music if they want.

        In short- just like buying a DVD does not giv
        • Is that the case in the UK? I thought in the UK, venues where public performances take place, pay a licence to cover the playing of music. The actual CDs played are no different from the ones played at home. I.e. it is the venue that is licenced and not the DJ or the music. This is why the whole thing is a little daft.
        • When a DJ buys a CD or record, they actually buy a special "public performace-licensed" version which costs more than the standard consumer version.
          They do? I know lots of DJ's in my town. They buy the same CD's and records as everyone else. Then of course make their own burned CD's of selected tracks, or put it all on their laptops.
          Or are you talking about only like wedding/social function DJ's? There is no regulation in the US for what kind of media or what music a DJ uses in clubs, shows, and etc.
          Wel
          • I once heard a radio program describing how representatives of ASCAP [ascap.com] and BMI [bmi.com] would go to restaurants and write down the songs
            that were played on the PA system. If they did not have a license for public performance for those songs, they would be contacted
            by ASCAP or BMI.

            You can contact those two organizations and pay for a license for public performance of songs who's music rights are owned by their member artists.

            To quote their web site: "And with one license fee, ASCAP saves you the time, expense, and bur

            • Re:Article summary is a little misleading (Score:5, Insightful)

              by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @04:25PM (#14467074)
              According to the BMI web site:

              "It does not matter how the song is performed. Be it a live band, radio, CD or tape, the music user must have the permission of the song's owner to perform it in their place of business."

              That one..."radio"...blows my mind.

              I would think that the act of broadcasting the song from a 50 kilowatt transmitter is already a public performance, and requiring a any sort of additional license is double-dipping. "We want you to pay us for the right to transmit the music, and we want you to pay us for the right to receive it."

              Does this seem like charging a toll at both ends of a tollbridge?
    • Well, I believe even if you play the CD for a "public performance" you are supposed to pay royalties.

      Check out this [howstuffworks.com], and this [ascap.com].

    • Re:Article summary is a little misleading (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:46PM (#14466137) Homepage
      Well, according to the article, it does not sound like a "performance license" (which ANY DJ vinyl, CD, or a restaurant with a jukebox) must pay.

      This appears to be, from the article, a specific license tax on just those who utilize digital delivery systems.
    • Additionally, DJs do not need to pay the liscence if they are playing from CD or vinyl.

      I'd be interested to see the actual wording of the regulations here. After all, a CD is a digital version of the music. How do they decide when you need to pay and when you don't? OK, so you've got an MP3 or Ogg Vorbis copy on disk[1], and the article implies you need to pay the fee. But what about if you've got a FLAC version? What's the difference between playing the CD, and playing exactly the same bits from a hard d

      • >[1] It's worth noting that the very fact you've done that means you've broken the law in the UK, for copyrighted works anyway. There is no right to make copies in any format in the UK, even for personal use. Mix tapes, MP# collections, etc. are all illegal here. Sigh.

        Isn't that like having a law that makes it illegal to pick your nose in private? It's a completely unenforceable law. Might as well make it illegal to dance naked in your bedroom with the drapes closed.

        Gotta love silly lawmakers.

        -Z

    • Additionally, DJs do not need to pay the liscence if they are playing from CD or vinyl.

      And that's exactly what makes this such a questionable license. What does it matter how the DJ plays the music? The point is that music is being played in a club (or wherever). It makes sense that royalties should be paid for that, no matter what medium the music is stored on. It does not make sense to crack down only on mp3s.

      To me, this doesn't sound like a reasonable license, but like "cracking down on mp3s where

    • Additionally, DJs do not need to pay the liscence if they are playing from CD or vinyl.

      What if they are playing a digital track off a CD that is inserted in a computer?

    • Granted, TFA is about the UK, but I'm sure the arrangement is similar to the United States where there is no need for the individual DJ to possess anything more than the recording--because the _venue_ generally possesses one that covers all performances in that space. In absence of the venue license, you had better believe the DJ is legally required to have more than just the CD/Vinyl/whatever...which is why it states that in so many words on the CD itself.

    • The situation in the UK (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @09:26PM (#14469162)

      I help run a large dancing club in the UK that regularly deals with PPL and such. Sorry, but the parent post is completely wrong on several counts.

      Even to play the original media at public classes and special events requires a licence here if you don't hold the copyright. We submit a form to PPL each year, basically describing the number of hours of music we'll be playing that year, the venues we'll be using, and what the tracks we'll be playing are. (These are necessarily approximations, and FWIW this has never caused us a problem, not that that means much these days.) We then get told how much we have to pay for the rights to play the music as requested. This is not a flat rate, so I have no idea where the figures quoted by others in this discussion have come from.

      This is a wholly separate issue to format-shifting, which is illegal by default under UK copyright law. Just because you've bought an MP3 player or your laptop has media playing software doesn't actually give you the right to put any of your CD collection on it, and copying a CD onto tape to play in your old car cassette deck is against the rules. No, I'm not kidding. I haven't read the latest PPL guidelines that apply here yet, but I'm guessing (as in, check it yourself before you rely on it!) that this licence actually covers the format-shifting required to get the material onto the other system. It may or may not cover the same things as the regular PPL licence as well, but I'm guessing not if it's a flat rate or everyone would be doing it (our PPL "contribution" is well over £200 per year).

      If you're in the UK and think that charging for a CD, charging for the right to use it in public performances, and charging a significant amount to play the music you've already paid for to an audience you've already paid for, then you might like to consider contributing to the Gowers review [hm-treasury.gov.uk] of UK IP law when it starts consulting in Febuary 2006.

  • Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:35PM (#14466029) Journal
    I had assumed this article is talking about the disc jockey that plays music at dances kind of DJ. Because most real DJ's [djshadow.com] have to pay [juno.co.uk] for their tracks that they mix live or they create the samples themselves.

    I don't understand why they would have to pay royalties if they're mixing from mp3s when they had to pay for it.

    Here's an example. Let's pretend I'm DJ Dangermouse [illegal-art.org] and I bought some Beatles vinyl that I like to mix into my songs. Now, it shouldn't be a problem for me (Jay-Z) to get up there and mix these songs together. But if I put them in an album and make serious dough off of it, I'm in for a ride in the court system.

    I've always been under the impression that it would be fine to perform this live and play it for an audience but once you try to sell it as a record, you're going to face some serious liabilities. I've been in bands that have covered Coldplay, Radiohead, The Beatles, Beck, The Pixies, etc. and we've never got in trouble for playing them live at crowded bars. In fact, when you start out, it's advised to include about 50% originals and 50% covers so that the music is accessible to anyone who might be there just for a drink.

    There's a lot of studying to be done [princeton.edu] if you want to fully understand how sampling works with musical copyrights but up until this point, the only litigation I have seen is often brought up in instances of recordings [ivanhoffman.com].

    Here's [vanderbilt.edu] a straight forward article containing:
    Flat fees range from $100 to over $10,000, while royalties to recording owners range between half a cent and three cents for every copy of the track sold. Musical composition licenses typically give "the copyright holder a percentage ownership in the new work's musical composition copyright," as well as an advance of a few thousand dollars on the expected publishing income.
    In the old days, artists used to smile and feel appreciated when they heard their music being played live. It was a sign of admiration. They only sought legal action if the song was recorded and money was made.

    If you're a DJ who plays songs for weddings and events, then you probably should have to have a license to do so. But if you're a musician who just spins tracks together, it seems kind of ridiculous. I guess the license isn't that big of a charge if you're selling out venues.
    • "A Musician who just spins tracks together". That's a musician? Wow. So, they "sample" parts of songs, and mix them all together. Seems like we need to reclassify them as a "mixer" rather than a musician. I think putting these people in with musicians is belittling to musicians. Seriously.

      So, if you apply the idea of a patent in the business world to the music world, you can see where the problems are. A musical idea is something that a person can claim to own. So, if a "mixer" comes in and samples more tha
      • I think putting these people in with musicians is belittling to musicians. Seriously.

        Agreed. This is the same as calling someone in a cover band a songwriter or composer (no offense to the GP, every band covers someone else at some point).
      • "A Musician who just spins tracks together". That's a musician? Wow. So, they "sample" parts of songs, and mix them all together. Seems like we need to reclassify them as a "mixer" rather than a musician. I think putting these people in with musicians is belittling to musicians. Seriously.

        So do you also think that collage is not a form of art, merely because it involves a visual artist taking elements of other works and combining them into something else? What about work like Lichtenstein's paintings of com
        • "So do you also think that collage is not a form of art, merely because it involves a visual artist taking elements of other works and combining them into something else?"

          is point is people who do thjis aren't musicians. and they aren't
          I think it's hard and requires talent, but they are not Musician. In fact, most of the ones I have met don't like being called musicians either.

        • "So do you also think that collage is not a form of art, merely because it involves a visual artist taking elements of other works and combining them into something else? What about work like Lichtenstein's paintings of comic book panels, or Warhol's paintings of ordinary objects (e.g. cans of soup)?"

          I wasn't debating art or not. I find offense in calling someone a musician who simply takes the works of others and splices them together. Call them something else, but not a musician.

          "This is remarkably wrong

        • So do you also think that collage is not a form of art, merely because it involves a visual artist taking elements of other works and combining them into something else?

          False analogy. I do not know the full intent of the grandparent poster; but he did not claim that D.J.s are not artists, just that they are not musicians. Musicians are subsets of the set "Artists." So are painters. And a collage artist is a graphic artist. But he is not a painter, because he takes other media and rearranges it. Likew

      • Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist? (Score:5, Funny)

        by tsm_sf ( 545316 ) * on Friday January 13, 2006 @03:05PM (#14466312) Journal
        "A Musician who just spins tracks together". That's a musician? Wow. So, they "sample" parts of songs, and mix them all together. Seems like we need to reclassify them as a "mixer" rather than a musician. I think putting these people in with musicians is belittling to musicians. Seriously.

        And don't get me started on that hair. You call that a haircut? Back in my day we'd have kicked his scrawny ass across town just for laughs. And those clothes, don't tell me their mothers let them out of the house like that. Where I came from we'd have something i dont know what were we talking about?

        Hell no, for me it's strictly Glenn Miller playing The Way Things Used To Be.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Ah, but Bach is not around to complain about it. His works are PUBLIC DOMAIN. As are the majority of pre 20th century people....
          • Yes, but people were "borrowing" music from Bach even when he was still alive - back then, sheet music was closely guarded to stop the unauthorized spread of a composer's music. Of course, musical geniuses like Mozart could listen to a piece being performed and then write down all the sheet music, anyway...

            What I mean to say here is that this problem is not even remotely new. Composers and songwriters have been stealing music from their peers since the dawn of "recorded" music (that's recorded as in "writte
      • Thank goodness you're around to tell us when something is art or not.

        I used to think I was impressed by Grandmaster Flash, DJ Shadow, DJ Qbert and the like. I used to think that the fact that there is a system of musical notation being developed for turntablism was pretty awesome. I used to think that someone who thinks of a way to combine dozens of sources into one cohesive song had actually accomplished something creatively and musically worthwhile.

    • I've always been under the impression that it would be fine to perform this live and play it for an audience but once you try to sell it as a record

      Did you sell tickets to this event? If so then you just charged someone to hear that music.
      • Actually if you are selling food, or even just getting a good feeling about a whole bunch of people hanging out and paying attention to you, you have just received something of value, and are expected compensate those who helped you create this atmosphere. Fortunately most bars/venues already have a license to play most music (BMI/ASCAP), if they don't an ASCAP/BMI lawyer will be contacting them with a date and time that an uncompensated BMI/ASCAP song was played in their establishment.

    • I've been in bands that have covered Coldplay, Radiohead, The Beatles, Beck, The Pixies, etc. and we've never got in trouble for playing them live at crowded bars. In fact, when you start out, it's advised to include about 50% originals and 50% covers so that the music is accessible to anyone who might be there just for a drink.

      I think that the bar owner has to pay a fee to a licensing agency like BMI if they play music in the bar, which I believe is inclusive of your band playing cover songs. I'm not

    • "I don't understand why they would have to pay royalties if they're mixing from mp3s when they had to pay for it. "

      The same reason radio broadcasters have to pay fees for playing a song on the air. When they purchase the music, they purchase it for themselves. Apparently the industry thinks (and have twisted the laws in support) that if you play the music for someone else, you need to pay them for that too. No free rides!

      Unfortunately...I really think they chose the wrong group of people to go after. I

    • [QUOTE]I've always been under the impression that it would be fine to perform this live and play it for an audience but once you try to sell it as a record, you're going to face some serious liabilities. I've been in bands that have covered Coldplay, Radiohead, The Beatles, Beck, The Pixies, etc. and we've never got in trouble for playing them live at crowded bars. In fact, when you start out, it's advised to include about 50% originals and 50% covers so that the music is accessible to anyone who might be t

  • Bizarre? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eric Smith ( 4379 ) * on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:36PM (#14466037) Homepage Journal
    So a DJ can play a CD, but if she plays the same track ripped to an MP3, she has to pay an extra 200 pounds for a license? Where's the sense in that? The US compulsory license scheme actually seems sane by comparison.

    • I don't think so (Score:5, Informative)

      by p3d0 ( 42270 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:39PM (#14466065)
      If you buy a CD through the normal channels, you have no right to do public performances. So the situation is the same for CDs and MP3s here.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • But this is in the UK where they have a nice surcharge on blank media to cover the performance rights of whoever you rip off by using a CD.

      • Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Interesting)

        by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:52PM (#14466203) Homepage
        This isn't regarding public performance, as a CD/vinyl DJ would be equally obligated. This is solely an additional fee leveraged against digital music. Just as online radio stations have to pay "recording fees" but broadcast stations do not.

        There is no fairness, it is merely a way to "hurt" the digital music market and grab more money. Nothing more...
      • If you buy a CD through the normal channels, you have no right to do public performances. So the situation is the same for CDs and MP3s here.

        Not quite. The situation here is that the DJ has bought the CD and has the licence to broadcast it. However, if they copy that CD to the hard disk, they have to pay an extra 200 quid to play it from there. The music is the same, the DJ has broadcast rights, but they have to pay extra to carry their collection around in a more portable format?

        DJ plays CD, fine. DJ pla

      • GParent: So a DJ can play a CD, but if she plays the same track ripped to an MP3, she has to pay an extra 200 pounds for a license?

        Parent: If you buy a CD through the normal channels, you have no right to do public performances. So the situation is the same for CDs and MP3s here.

        TFA: He said the £200 charge was "reasonable", adding: "You don't actually have to DJ using a laptop. You can use vinyl, you can use CD, so we're saying that if it's not worth your while spending £200 then don't
    • Use Final Scratch or Rane's Serrato (which let you manipulate digital music using two turntables and vinyl records). Bring a small bag of records so it looks good. Keep the computer hidden and when the cops come, you're like, "Sorry, mate, all my fooking tracks are on vinyl. I never touch the digital stuff, guv'ner!"
  • Here in the USA the restrictions are probably even tighter. A lot of DJs run mixes out of iTunes or an iPod, sometimes even doing it as a favor at a family member's low-rent wedding (not me, I swear!). There are even boxes for doing mix-downs between two iPods. I guess we can expect a crackdown here any day now.

    • Re:I'm sure it's even more restricted in the USA (Score:5, Informative)

      by jdunlevy ( 187745 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:41PM (#14466095) Homepage
      In the US, the venue (bar, banquet hall, whatever) usually (is supposed to) have an ASCAP (or BMI) license to play recorded music. I would think this would cover whatever would be getting played off a laptop or ipod.
      • If you run a retail establishment you either need to have licensed the music used for public broadcast, or be able to sell the music that you play. Most "Small Business for Dummies" books tell you to keep a copy of the CD behind the counter to avoid any hassle.
    • it already is against the law here. Your CD does not allow for public performance.

      Yes yes, you can be anal about 'public' but I think you know what they mean.

      Also, if you open a bar that allows someone to play live mi=usic, you have to pay a fee in case someone plays a preexisting work.

  • Out of touch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:38PM (#14466048) Journal
    This just goes to further prove that copyright law is not only out of touch with what the public expects, it's out of touch with what music professionals expect.
    • This just goes to further prove that copyright law is not only out of touch with what the public expects, it's out of touch with what music professionals expect.

      If you're a "DJ" and your equipment consists of an iPod, I'm guessing you're not exactly a professional.

      • Unless you're mixing tracks together, there's nothing you can't do with some software that the average music-spewing DJ can do, to wit, beat matching and crossfading. Might as well do it on the computer, and have the old technology for backup.

  • "Unwittingly"? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pantero Blanco ( 792776 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:38PM (#14466057)
    I find it hard to believe a professional DJ wouldn't know about this already. They probably know the law and either 1. disagree with it or 2. don't care.

    • Re:"Unwittingly"? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:54PM (#14466210) Homepage Journal
      Matters on how you define professional. I used to work in the DC Goth scene. Great crowd. Some awesome DJs. The night club I worked at had 2 standard DJs and a rotating slot for visitors. Those DJ's spun almost every night of the week and still had to keep day jobs to get by. When you walk into Kinko's and see one of your favorite DJ's behind the counter you realise the guy is doing it for the love of DJing, not the money.

      -Rick
    • DJing isn't a big industry. For most "professional DJs", the DJ gig is not their primary source of income - the overwhelming majority have day jobs to pay the bills. Someone becomes a DJ because they want to, and they either teach themself, or have another DJ teach them how. There aren't exactly DJ schools out there. So, how are the professional DJs supposed to know about the law in the first place? Who would have told them?

  • Wisdom on how to deal with this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:40PM (#14466078)

    When dealing with government, or any type of bully - history has shown that it always better to ask forgivness than permission.

    • The problem of this argument is that the government may not forgive. And it is not subjected to (almost) any economical pressure, just political ones. That makes it increadibly hard to see in advance how it will react to your act.

  • Real DJ's only use vinyl! That is why we charge you $6 [djcity.com] instead of a dollar! What do you think this is the digital age? OH wait...
  • alot of underground artists rely on the fact that some dj plays their mp3s.
    • If the artist isn't a client of the royalty collection agency, holds the public performace rights to the music, and allows the DJ to publicly perform the music, it's not illegal.

      For that matter, if a major-label artist who holds the public performance rights but does license through the rights agency gives you permission to perform without paying royalties, that's legal, too. But you probably want to have it in writing in case the rights agency tries to come after you.

  • sure, I'll say it (Score:5, Funny)

    by ChipMonk ( 711367 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:41PM (#14466094) Journal
    The PPL is full of PP. They can go to L.

    Well, maybe not, but the pun was too good to pass up.

  • Fuck it. Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brxndxn ( 461473 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:44PM (#14466115)
    Am I the only one that thinks, "Fuck it. Who cares?" when a bunch of whiny labels, lawyers, music execs whine about how someone isn't 'appreciating' their 'art' in an appropriate legal manner?

    I have completely given up on the idea of trying not to be a music pirate. I mean.. what's in it for me if I listen to every record labels' guidelines for their ideas of 'fair use'? They tell me I'm not even allowed to put my songs on an Ipod.. even though the law says it's my right.

    I don't care any more. I think most people are like me.. Who gives a shit if the music industry as we know it (an oligopoly of a few huge conglomerates) starts to fail because people no longer give a shit about paying for music? They're just a bunch of people with too much money whining about how industry evolution is limiting their control.

    From what I've read... The consumer likes to download music, most artists like you to download their music and spread it around, most artists would enjoy the face time a dj provides, and most artists make the majority of their money with live shows. Who hates music piracy? The labels, lawyers, and other losers.

    So.. fuck them. Just ignore all this shit and it'll blow over. You can't make money forever when all your customers hate you.

    Hey DJs.. just play your damn music and FIGHT it in court if you get 'caught'. Your chances are pretty damn slim.
    • is to not have any music that has anything to do with these associations.
    • No, my first thought upon reading the story was "Fuck it, I'm not doing that shit. Fuck off" etc etc.

    • Re:Fuck it. Who cares? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tim C ( 15259 )
      They tell me I'm not even allowed to put my songs on an Ipod.. even though the law says it's my right.

      That may be the case where you are, but technically here in the UK (which the story is about) I believe that actually is illegal. As I read the relevant statute, we have no right to format shift or even to create a backup of a purchased copyrighted work. Specifically, there is no "fair use" clause; there is something about "reasonable use", but it's rather poorly defined. I don't suppose that anyone's ever

  • A Fitting Song (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trip Ericson ( 864747 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:44PM (#14466120) Homepage
    And there goes the last DJ
    Who plays what he wants to play
    And says what he wants to say
    Hey hey hey

    There goes your freedom of choice
    There goes the last human voice
    There goes the last DJ...

    That's from Tom Petty's "The Last DJ," totally from memory. Hope me remembering the words to the song doesn't break someone's copyright.

  • Cash grab.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by canning ( 228134 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:45PM (#14466128) Homepage
    The laws are getting unrealistic and IMHO most are just a cash grab. How else would you explain having to buy a CD and then having to pay to play that cd as a DJ from a computer?

    In Ontario it's illegal to play music in a public place without a licence, live or otherwise
    Performances of music in public, i.e. offices, stores, etc., require a licence. This licence is necessary whether the music is performed by live or recorded means.
    Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN)

  • ROFLs @ Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zenasprime ( 207132 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @02:47PM (#14466150) Homepage
    "Hey you thief, don't you dare be playing my tracks where lots of young impressionable kids will get to listen to them and then afterwards possibly go out to their local DJ shop and buy my records/CDs! Well unless you give me 200 big ones!"

    Great business move IMO. Cheerios!

  • These guys really want their pound of flesh don't they? After buying the CD and a license for public performance they want more so that you can publicly perform it from a different source. What if you play some as oggs and some as mp3s? Do you have to play twice? Lets just hope that with the easy distribution that the Internet provides more bands will go solo.

  • RIAA: Let's make it increasingly discouraging for people to listen to music that we want them to buy. Government: k -When will the record industry, for one moment in time, turn to look at their past mistakes and learn from them. Reason is what separates us from primates.

  • Not all DJs are playing music by RIAA or PPL artists or the equivalent of that in the UK, and if they are they should just boycot those artists and record companies.

    Many DJs playing electronic music often play their own tracks, or their friends tracks, or some unknown music producer or some local music producer who isn't going to be angry that his tracks are being played in clubs. And what about vinyl? It said only digital but it's just a different medium?

    This includes legally-purchased downloads, which

    • Not all DJs are playing music by RIAA or PPL artists or the equivalent of that in the UK, and if they are they should just boycot those artists and record companies.

      Actually, here in the US anyway, I believe it's ASCAP and/org BMI that licenses the playing of prerecorded music. You are correct that any original work by the DJ, or uncopyrighted/indie work may not require a license. This seems to be an issue with podcasting as well, since they are considered a 'broadcast' type media by ASCAP and BMI. Mo

  • What if? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lord Byron II ( 671689 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @03:02PM (#14466285)
    What if I start a US based radio station and it gets UK listeners? Do I have to pay?

    What if a UK citizen starts a radio station hosted in the US? Does he have to pay?

    This is just another example of how the Internet was not meant to exist in a world with borders.

  • DJ Mix Artist (Score:4, Insightful)

    by olddotter ( 638430 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @03:04PM (#14466305) Homepage
    I assume to be legal these days a Mix Artist needs a Microsoft sized legal team. I mean this is what it would be like for a painter if all the colors were copyrighted by different companies.
    Imagine trying to secure the rights to display a Renoir [ibiblio.org]!!

    Or a musician who uses samples. Would it be legal today for the Art of Noise to produce their music? IANAL
  • All your base are belongs to us.
  • WHAT?!

    THEY WANT 200 POUNDS TO LET A DJ PLAY HIS MP3S?!

    Oh, wait a sec. That sounds absolutely fair. DJ's have a TON of music, and they probably make that back in one night. ASCAP/RIAA, you aughta take a look at these guys for a model.
  • The UK royalty collection agency, PPL, demands that such DJs pay £200 for a license

    Really it's a license to wear your hat backwards.

  • Same deal in Canada (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsteele19 ( 150541 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @03:14PM (#14466387) Homepage
    This has been the case in Canada for some time. If you're a DJ and you're copying CDs or records to your hard drive, you need to get a Computer Hard Drive Licence [www.avla.ca] from AVLA [www.avla.ca].

    Not only that, but songs from certain artists may not be copied, even with the license. Here's the list. [www.avla.ca] Wanna spin some Paula Abdul from your iPod? Sorry, you're SOL.
  • "Dammit! We're not making enough money off these saps! What can we do about it?"

    "Well, sir, the profit margins on downloaded music are very slightly lower than CD or vinyl media. Perhaps we could make the downloads more expensive."

    "No, that wouldn't work. We're locked into a contract with Apple, and those filthy pirates would just stop downloading anyway. Hmmm. Is there a way we can get people to pay more for downloaded music without charging them more?"

    "Hey, I know! We'll tell all the DJs that in order to
  • Greedy music organizations everywhere are pulling this crap. Here is an article about Finland's version of the RIAA charging taxi drivers to leave the radio on [zeropaid.com], in the US, stores are not allowed to play music or the radio, they have to license special music streams. lame.

  • Had to post about this thread... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xserv ( 909355 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @03:33PM (#14466592)
    I DJ'd while in college and have recently (within the last year) started DJing again and I can tell you that I went through the hoops and have tried to do everything as legit as possible. I contacted the major licensing agents (ASCAP, BMI, etc) and asked what I would need to do as a DJ to make sure I'm as compliant as possible and paid the appropriately royalties under license. What was explained to me by all of those agencies was that I didn't need to aquire my own license as the venues that I was playing in would be required to have their own licenses. I specifically asked, "Well, what about small weddings, house parties, etc.?" Their reply was that since those are generally small, private venues that were not open to the "public", I didn't need a license. Basically, the only license I need to get paid to be a DJ, under those guidelines, is a city/county occupational license. That's it. Pay the appropriate taxes and you're done.

    Do I play from my laptop? You bet your ass. When I need to go to the bathroom, or if I'm playing something I mixed myself, or if I get an obscure request to play something that I don't carry in my CD crates... I have digitized my CD collection onto my laptop for a backup. You never know when your CD that you've played 400 times is going to crap out on you -- even if it is the Electric Slide. *chokes self*

    Sounds like a double-licensing scheme to me. Hmm How would they say it overseas, "Blimey! That's bloody awful!"

    Xserv
  • Musical instrument shops here in the UK have to pay a surcharge to the music labels in case someone plays a recognisable tune on an instrument before they buy it which would count as a "public performance". And people say record labels don't deserve to be ripped off.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close