Digital DJs Unaware of Copyright Law

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.'"

Comments

Article summary is a little misleading

[conJunk]

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.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Red Flayer]

"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.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[ericdano]

Well, I believe even if you play the CD for a "public performance" you are supposed to pay royalties.

Check out this, and this.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[PortHaven]

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.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Hrodvitnir]

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.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[geoffspear]

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.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[whoever57]

"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.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[GWSuperfan]

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 give you the right to screen the movie and charge admission, buying a CD does not give you the right to perform it publicly (especially in an instance where you are making money off it).

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Goth Biker Babe]

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.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Tet]

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 drive? What about if you're playing the CD through your laptop drive and into a mixing desk, rather than from a dedicated CD player? Still need to pay? Where do they draw the line?

[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.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Khashishi]

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?

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Aadomm]

And what if the computer has in fact cached the whole tune even though the CD itself happens still to be in the drive?

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[ZorinLynx]

>[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

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[jasen666]

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.
Well, let me rephrase. There could be legislation on the books about it, but it's damn near impossible to enforce and/or not enforced if it exists.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

"die hippie die"
they telling us

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Interesting typo there. Are you a Mac user, or are you using a US keyboard for some weird reason?

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

With my pedant hat on I have to point out that a PPL is a 'Public Performance License', ie the bit of paper that allows 'public performance'. Lots of cafes and shops in the UK that have piped music have the PRS sticker on their windows - that's the Performing Rights Society, which the body that administers the sca^h^h^h system of royalty collection.

- Music industry refugee... and never going back!

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Mr. No Skills]

Your rephrase is correct. Any performance is supposed to pay royalties, but small clubs, private weddings, and similar things are not worth the enforcement. High schools advertise they are doing a specific musical and need to make sure they purchase scripts and scores from the holder of the copyrights. Local cover bands playing in a dive get away with it unless the local musician's union wants to rat someone out. A wedding band never has to worry unless the daughter of an RIAA big shot is getting hitched.

The musician's union hates DJs. They've reduced the demand for local musicians, and they're using copyrighted material without paying royalties (usually).

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Satan Dumpling]

On my US keyboard, looks like he failed to release the shift key between the MP and the 3

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[KenSeymour]

I once heard a radio program describing how representatives of ASCAP and BMI 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 burden of contacting thousands of copyright owners."

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."

An intersting note is that it is not the DJs problem, it is the club owner's problem. The onus is upon the owner of the venue to have a license
with both of these organizations in case a recorded song in their catalog is played either by a DJ or a musician performing in their venue.

In the same radio program, they talked to business owners who responded by hiring musicians to play their own original music in lieu of paying
ASCAP and BMI.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that the BBC "article" is a badly rehashed press release (probably that someone from Radio 1 thought would fill their midday news bulletin).

http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/content/default .asp?targetitem=3461&searchFlag=1 has details of what the people collecting the licenses think is actually needed when. No mention of a specific digital licence there, although there is here - http://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_lf.nsf/DigitalDJ?open Page .

Odd that they charge 120 quid for DJing from CDs and 200 quid from digital formats. I wonder what an MD would count as?

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Tet]

Interesting typo there. Are you a Mac user, or are you using a US keyboard for some weird reason?

No, I use a US key layout because I prefer it. No other reason. I have a pound sign mapped to a suitable key combination in vi, which is all that I'd really need a UK layout for anyway.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[zcat_NZ]

That was the point; if he's in the UK, he should be using the UK keyboard mapping, and shift-3 should result in the pound (£) symbol

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[TheFlamingoKing]

Wait, what?

If I get this special license when I buy tracks just because I'm a DJ, where is it? What are the terms? Am I agreeing to those terms automatically by purchasing that music?

Lemme let you in on a DJ secret - we play what we get our hands on. Period. I buy acapellas and beats from iTunes and dig for tracks in discount bookstores and flea markets. Where is my license for public performance then?

A DJ that's concerned with the legal status of every little song and sample that they play wouldn't have very many tunes to play. In fact, I own records like "Unknown vs. Gwen Stefani" - Unknown because of the shady nature of an unlicensed sample. Definitely not cleared for public performance, but legitimately purchased from a record store.

In fact, last I heard, sampling anything is illegal in the United States without explicit consent from the copyright holder. Since so many beats used in rap/hip-hop/electronic/industrial are sampled and not cleared, that pretty much makes the records illegal anyway, even if they were sold to you as playable. (BTW, is it illegal to be a cover band? I might just learn to play something...)

But I'm pretty sure you were talking about club DJs and not real DJs... When you go to a club, look around for an ASCAP sticker (usually on the front windows or by one of the bars) - that's a good sign the club payed a licensing agreement -- so you can listen to the same top 50 tunes you hear all day on commercials and radio, and feel good about helping out those poor starving artists.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[brontus3927]

Might as well make it illegal to dance naked in your bedroom with the drapes closed.

Yes, if you're going to dance naked in your bedroom, you are legally required to do so with the drapes open.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[frdmfghtr]

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?

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[aonaran]

... or maybe he wanted to save himself typing "MP2 or MP3" and reduced it to MP#

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[KenSeymour]

I don't think it is double-dipping. The radio station is a business. They paid their fees.

Because of the radio program I heard (probably NPR), I have known for a few years that if you own a restaurant
and play the radio for your patrons, you have to
deal with ASCAP and BMI or risk them taking legal action.

If you listen to the radio in your car, you are not making money off of it. But if you play songs as part of your business,
they want a cut.
The second dip is for the second business.

I think their legal "right" comes ultimately from the songwriter, not the band that was recorded. The ASCAP and BMI
web site have language on them to try to persuade songwriters to sign up with them. A song writer has two other
options:

1) let anyone who plays a recording of their song being played do so for free, or
2) go around the country seeing if they hear "their song" and ask for a license fee.

So the public performance right is one right in the US copyright law given to the songwriters to license or not.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[GWSuperfan]

I meant "in theory" and "if everything is done legally." Obviously, this is next to impossible to enforce. *BUT* if you look at the fine print on your "off the shelf" CDs, they have a bit in there about public performance not being on e of the licensed uses.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[JourneyExpertApe]

This appears to be, from the article, a specific license tax on just those who utilize digital delivery systems.

I wonder what weird wording of the law makes this necessary. After all, CDs are digital. Why should the kind of digital medium matter?

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[tolldog]

I thought it was the venues responsibility to pay the performance fee to the parties that care.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[plover]

In the U.S. anyway, my understanding is that businesses are free to play a radio or TV for their customers, as long as it's from a live broadcast source. The courts determined that the public performance license paid by the radio and TV stations covered the performances in the businesses. But they are specifically not allowed to play CDs, tapes, pre-recorded programs or even to replay recordings made from the on-air broadcasts, unless they have a license.

I have heard that some of these ASCAP and BMI "inspectors" try to lie to small business owners and tell them "you need to buy a license from us for that radio or we'll sue your a$$e$", hoping to frighten the owners into ponying up a few hundred in needless protection money. Some are more honest -- they'll walk into a store, chat up the owner like a customer, ask about the music, and only after they find out it's a CD and not a radio station do they drop the license bomb.

I do not know if the law has ruled yet on satellite radio or cable TV. I also do not know if they've specifically ruled on "internet radio stations" like shoutcast sites; nor do I know if they have ruled on internet "rebroadcasts" of broadcast station signals (if WBBY has a www.wbby.com Real Audio feed, is it legal for the business to play it from their PC or do they need to use an actual FM radio tuner?)

IANAL and this is not legal advice -- it's fricking slashdot.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Fordiman]

"'cos I'm the taxman... yeaah I'm the tax-maannnnn"

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[terrymr]

No ... This would be some kind of mechanical rights license ... licensing you to copy a CD you own in order to play the copy publicly rather than the original. I remember when i had public performance licenses in the UK that it said that I had to play from original media.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[homer_ca]

It's double dipping because the radio station already paid ASCAP and BMI for public performance rights. In addition, the restaurant or other venue is providing an audience for the radio's advertisers. They don't get something for nothing, the listeners have to sit through the advertisements to get their free music.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Art Tatum]

Also, the restaurant or business isn't making money from the playing of the radio station. I could see it if another radio station was rebroadcasting the original signal as their own, with new commercials in between songs.

But the whole Copyright regime is so convoluted now that there's really little point in trying to make sense of it. It's like the tax legislation in that regard, though not as extreme.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Floody]

Wait, what?

If I get this special license when I buy tracks just because I'm a DJ, where is it? What are the terms? Am I agreeing to those terms automatically by purchasing that music?

Lemme let you in on a DJ secret - we play what we get our hands on. Period. I buy acapellas and beats from iTunes and dig for tracks in discount bookstores and flea markets. Where is my license for public performance then?

A DJ that's concerned with the legal status of every little song and sample that they play wouldn't have very many tunes to play. In fact, I own records like "Unknown vs. Gwen Stefani" - Unknown because of the shady nature of an unlicensed sample. Definitely not cleared for public performance, but legitimately purchased from a record store.

I used to be involved with one of the few remaining commercial fm stations in the US that isn't an Infinity or Clear Channel affiliate. They payed the asscap tax like good little boys and girls, but it doesn't cover music that doesn't come off of vinyl or pressed cd. We were warned a few times not to play mp3s, but what can you do? Unless your format is top 40, over the past decade or so the supply of non-mainstream dj promo schwag has significantly shrunk. Bin hunting is fun and all, but its time consuming, and if you have a daily show to do there's just no way you can find fresh tracks without resorting to electronic measures. So, as you can imagine, the rule was silently ignored. The thing that gets me is it's not like the music isn't out there, it's just that the fucking Big Four are hell bent on making any music they don't produce disappear.

In fact, last I heard, sampling anything is illegal in the United States without explicit consent from the copyright holder. Since so many beats used in rap/hip-hop/electronic/industrial are sampled and not cleared, that pretty much makes the records illegal anyway, even if they were sold to you as playable. (BTW, is it illegal to be a cover band? I might just learn to play something...)

Yeah, god forbid an artist does something like oversample Tarantino and have the track end up on the billboards. ;)

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[LocalH]

If you ask me, here is the real problem. Taken from the PPL Digital DJ License FAQ:

At present you can copy store the sound recording in any digital format. However, please note that in the near future PPL will be requiring the storage of sound recordings in digital form to be protected by Digital Rights Management.

In other words, soon, they will be mandating which file formats can legally be used for DJing in the UK.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[damiam]

Of course they're making money from the radio station. Why would they play it if it didn't satisfy their customers?

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Art Tatum]

People don't go to restaurants or stores to listen to music. Take the music out and they'll still go eat or buy products. Take the food or products out and they won't go to listen to the music.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

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

No there isnt, not in the UK. This article is referring to UK law.

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[leenks]

This might explain why for years ASDA (Walmart) had a radio station transmitted on the Astra 1 satellites - presumably it was cheaper (and more convenient) to run a radio station for their stores than to pay the licence fees?

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[leenks]

Since CDs are stored in digital form does this mean we will require DRM for these too (or can DRM be as weak as SCMS on commercial CDs) ?

Re:Article summary is a little misleading

[LocalH]

Since this whole debacle is making a distinction between original CD media and "unauthorized" digital copies, I think it's safe to say that CDs, despite being digital, will not fall under any of these "Digital DJ" restrictions.

Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[eldavojohn]

I had assumed this article is talking about the disc jockey that plays music at dances kind of DJ. Because most real DJ's have to pay 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 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 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.

Here's 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.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[ericdano]

"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 than a certian amount (like 5 seconds I think), they are essentially stepping on the musician's "patent".

I don't know, I think the whole things is a bunch of B.S. But knowing people who actually do music for a living, I think 96% of them are offended by people stealing ideas without credit. After all, they did come up with the idea, and they should get something. Right? If you came up with a new device, and someone saw it (or in the music world, heard it), and then a week later they had the device (or tune or whatever), you'd be upset. Right?

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Valiss]

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.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[muellerr1]

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 a music industry lawyer though.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Lord_Dweomer]

"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 see DJs as the "librarians" of music. They will fight for free use of the music like you wouldn't believe, since a large portion of their profession relies on it. Not to mention the fact that this will just encourage more underground parties where DJs won't give a rats ass about paying any sort of fee for this.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[LetterRip]

[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 there just for a drink.[/QUOTE]

In the US the bar/restraunt/etc. is supposed to pay an annual licensing fee based on seating etc. to ASCAP. Your performace rights are being paid by someone else (and if they are not licensed they can and will likely be sued for it...).

LetterRip

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[BushCheney08]

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).

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[cpt kangarooski]

"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 comic book panels, or Warhol's paintings of ordinary objects (e.g. cans of soup)?

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 than a certian amount (like 5 seconds I think), they are essentially stepping on the musician's "patent".

This is remarkably wrong in many ways. Music is copyrightable, but not patentable, due to a lack of utility. Ideas are unownable against the world, and are not the subject matter of patents, or copyrights, or any other form of legal right. And AFAIK there is no concept of de minimis patent infringement.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[tsm_sf]

"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.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[geekoid]

"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.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[big tex]

"But knowing people who actually do music for a living, I think 96% of them are offended by people stealing ideas without credit"

And nobody's ever used any of Bach's melodies, either.

Deep down, all music is inspired from something else heard.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[ericdano]

"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 in many ways. Music is copyrightable, but not patentable, due to a lack of utility. Ideas are unownable against the world, and are not the subject matter of patents, or copyrights, or any other form of legal right. And AFAIK there is no concept of de minimis patent infringement."

Still one can "own" an idea for a certain amount of time. So you go take a Metallica song, and do a version of it that is 95% the same, and see how long Lars takes to sue you.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[ericdano]

Speaking as someone who is in a cover band, songs I put together I say I arranged. So, I'm the arranger in the band.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

...especially considering that a live mixing performance (rather than, say, wedding-style playback) arguably creates a new, derivative work. Jay-Z and the Beatles, or Public Enemy and Herb Alpert, when combined, are NOT the same thing as the original songs. And people who complain that it is wholly unoriginal tend to be people who don't realize that art, especially music, builds upon itself. Virtually nothing is made fresh out of whole cloth, except in the minds of those who think they're somehow special.

Now, this has been argued many a time, especially back when sampling was all new, and some artists and many lawyers complained that sampling was, in itself, uncreative and stealing. And a ruckus was raised, and then it passed over. Now look at where we are -- when someone asked Dido about Eminem's use of her chorus hook for "Stan", she pointed out that while the original song was supposed to be positive, she liked how he took the same song and turned it into something dark and much different.

Times change, and that which is seen to be bad becomes more or less the norm. I don't want to say it's cyclical, but it's not like this sort of think hasn't been seen before (and then subsequently ignored).

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[BushCheney08]

True, if you are reworking the original orchestration, you are an arranger. In fact, that is part of the definition of arranger.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[drinkypoo]

They're making new music. Granted, they're making it out of old [or just other] music, but it's still music. I think that makes them musicians. Why is a sampling keyboard an instrument, but a turntable not?

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[ericdano]

Ah, but Bach is not around to complain about it. His works are PUBLIC DOMAIN. As are the majority of pre 20th century people....

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Gulthek]

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.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[commodoresloat]

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.

So you wouldn't call Elvis Presley a musician? What about blues legend Robert Johnson? What about artists who use keyboards and samplers instead of turntables to "splice"? At what point do you decide one is just "splicing" vs. "creating" when the artist is working with the medium of ideas used by other artists? Why is the preference for using one tool, say the guitar, to "splice" sounds together less "musical" than the preference for another (say the turntable)?

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[ericdano]

Elvis played an instrument. And sang. Both of which meet the definition of a musician.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[operagost]

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. Likewise, D.J.s may be artists but they are not musicians.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[ericdano]

You have to be kidding. A system of notation for turntables? My God.....

Look, call them something else. An "arranger", a "mixer".

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Rude Turnip]

"So you wouldn't call Elvis Presley a musician?"

Of course not. Elvis was a singer.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[soupdevil]

But this is above and beyond a venue license. This is an additional digital file license that is paid by the DJ, not by the venue.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Anitra]

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 "written down").

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[commodoresloat]

Exactly my point. If Elvis' instrument was a turntable, that makes him less of a musician? At what point may a new instrument be considered an instrument in order to satisfy your definition of "musician"?

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Haeleth]

And why are you artificially excluding turntables from your definition of "instrument"? If nothing else, then scratching is a perfectly valid form of percussion.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, you and your so-called "point" are tedious.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[brontus3927]

By that logic, we shouldn't call software engineers, engineer's, it's belittling to engineers who deal with large peices of hardware. We should just call them programmers, because that's all they really do.

Unless you believe that mixing is something that can be done by any schmuck without any training, or that mixing has nothing to do with music, you have to agree that mixing requires a specialized form of musical ability, just like playing the guitar requires a specialized form of musical ability.

As far as cover bands are concerned, calling a mixer a musician is no different than calling the guitarist in the cover band a musician. At the very least, a mixer isn't any different then someone who plays a syntehsizer, or are synth players not real musicians either?

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Evil_Timmy]

I would call most club DJs (which this article seems to be about) performers, but not musicians. It's tough to properly express the distinction (seems to largely be a battle of semantics), but I'd separate it by saying that DJs are using something already fully constructed, while musicians are working with far more basic building blocks, in general. Essentially any track a DJ plays can stand on its own as a piece of music, but this already constructed thing is the building block a DJ works with. Musicians are working on the basis of notes, which are then formed into chords, and those chords into an entire song, but at a basic level their tools are atomized. Artistry comes in when more atomized pieces are used, for example, playing over a track with a synthesizer, or creating musical notes via highly skilled scratching. I'm a vinyl/laptop DJ myself, and I've had similar discussions to this one emerge from time to time. Speaking of which, the effect this would have on DJs who use Final Scratch or Serato Scratch Live will be interesting to see should it actually be enforced...how do these rules apply if you're playing club-licensed vinyls with your own digital vinyl rips, and mixing the two together?

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[ericdano]

Turntable is not an instrument. Look it up.

When a turntable is a musical instrument, I'll redefine musician to incorporate people who use them. As a percussion instrument? I think that would be very much stretching it. I'll go ask some professional percussion/drum players and see what they say....

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[BushCheney08]

Reread my post. I never said that someone in a cover band isn't a musician. I said they are not a songwriter or composer. Which they are not. They are merely replaying music that someone else wrote. Also, I would not necessarily call a sound engineer or a mixer a musician. They may be highly trained in the recording arts. That doesn't mean they can sit down and play a piano or guitar. Some can, but that's because they have a love for music and are multidisciplined. Only if they actually have musical talent or training (self-taught counts) would I call them a musician. As for your software engineer comment, that's one that's actually come up several times in other posts on slashdot. I'll leave that for others to fight.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Busy]

"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.

To be honest, it sounds like you're just trying to belittle DJs. This is a tired, petty arguement, and you should be ashamed to have started it. DJs call themselves DJs, if they make the music themselves then they also call themselves producers. It doesn't matter anyways because a musician is:

noun: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially an instumentalist.

A 'mixer' as you call him, is a performer of music. I promise there is performance in it, and there's a big difference between a good DJ and a lousy one. Should we just call a sax player an instrumentalist because that's all he really is? No. I have plenty of respect for more traditional aspects of music. Now have some respect for people that do things differently from you.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[ericdano]

"To be honest, it sounds like you're just trying to belittle DJs. This is a tired, petty arguement, and you should be ashamed to have started it. DJs call themselves DJs, if they make the music themselves then they also call themselves producers. It doesn't matter anyways because a musician is:"

All the people I know who DJ call themselves DJs. No crime. No offense. Many don't know how to play anything, but they don't go around calling themselves musicians. They freely admit they have no musical training.

"noun: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially an instumentalist.
A 'mixer' as you call him, is a performer of music. I promise there is performance in it, and there's a big difference between a good DJ and a lousy one. Should we just call a sax player an instrumentalist because that's all he really is? No. I have plenty of respect for more traditional aspects of music. Now have some respect for people that do things differently from you."

Didn't you read the definition you put up? I'd say putting a person who takes sniplets of other peoples performances and puts them together and plays them for people is a very loose definition of "performer". Some would call them "theives".

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Hatta]

They're making new music. Granted, they're making it out of old [or just other] music, but it's still music. I think that makes them musicians. Why is a sampling keyboard an instrument, but a turntable not?

I'm a great multi-instrumentalist. I can play the turntable, the walkman, the radio, the cd player, and the ipod.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you put a record on a turntable, place the needle on it, and hit "Start", then arguably no, it is not an instrument. But pair of spoons, not an instrument, but what if you use them, bluegrass-style, as percussion, are they not an instrument? (Insert other parts of ye olde jug band here)

When you interact with the turntable, creating new patterns, tones, notes, or sounds, then yes, it is an instrument. In fact, how would you determine that it was less of an instrument than, say, your saxophone, which has an inherently limited range of sounds and notes?

Again: Wedding DJ, not a musician playing an instrument.
              DJ Qbert (for example), a musician playing an instrument. ...and to head off what would seem to be an obvious argument from another post of yours, lack of formal musical training != non-musician. Many people without formal musical training teach themselves to play, and then create, music.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[commodoresloat]

I'd agree with that but there's more to it - I DJ clubs; I scratch a little and I've even produced some things but I just don't consider myself a musician. And most DJs in the same boat don't either. But watch a performance artist like DJ Shadow or Kid Koala, you are watching a musician at work. Or just check out a good DJ battle. These are artists using records to get small pieces of sound, and totally creating something new from the pieces, the same way a blues guitarist creates a new song by piecing together old riffs. And for years DJs have been integral parts of hip hop and even rock bands. They are not just playing songs - they are manipulating sound no differently than if they were using a sampling keyboard. It's technological arrogance to say one is an "instrument" and the other is not.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yikes. Forgive the sloppy grammar/formatting in that post. I slipped on the "Submit" rather than "Preview" button the second time.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[commodoresloat]

Your link was to a definition of "turntable," not of "instrument." Is a synthesizer an "instrument"? If it plays samples, it is no different from a turntable, except the interface. The point is not the machine but how you use it. Ask your professional drum players if a garbage pail is an "instrument" - I'm sure they have used one as such, or seen one used as such, before. Just because a turntable was invented for playback does not mean it cannot be used as an instrument; go watch a DJ battle and decide for yourself.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[JourneyExpertApe]

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.

Who's going to get you in trouble? Did you expect the local police to storm in and take you all to jail? Do you think record companies station undercover agents in bars and clubs around the country to catch people performing their music without permission? Just because you didn't get in trouble, that doesn't make it 100% legal. But when the Backstreet Boys cover New Kids on the Block songs at their shows, they have to pay.

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[nothings]

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.

That's because the bar pays the license fees. Although it's long, this essay should be mandatory reading for people who are "under the impression" about this sort of thing.

An excerpt:

ASCAP has field agents on payroll, employed by their 23 field offices, who watch the newspapers and radio (and even hire clipping services) and when a new nightclub starts offering live music, for example, an agent will either show up or write a letter demanding money for the license. Refusals and arguments eventually lead to lawsuits, and the club always loses, often to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in fines plus legal fees per infraction allowed by law. If a nightclub or even a store refuses to buy the license, then ASCAP or BMI will hire spies, often local music teachers or semi-professional musicians, who will make notes and testify in court as expert witnesses that on a certain day at a certain time a certain song was indeed played. Attempts by club owners to post "No ASCAP material to be performed here" signs or to ask that no musicians perform ASCAP material have not worked (Dreamland Ballroom vs. Shapiro, 1929; also Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. vs. Veltin, 1942), and invariably some musician unwittingly performs something in ASCAP's immense catalog. Note that even though the musicians or the employees decide what is played, it is the owner of the establishment where the music is played who gets sued. ASCAP bases this on the claim that "it would be a practical impossibility for ASCAP to locate and license musicians, who are often itinerant."

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

One has the ability to produce an arbitrary melody and accompanying harmony and the other doesn't?

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[UnknownSoldier]

> I think 96% of them are offended by people stealing ideas without credit.

Pulling numbers out a hat (or your ass) doesn't give your argument any (more) credability.

--
There are 2 types of creators / engineers / artists / musicians / programmers, etc...
* Those that want their creation to be enjoyed by others,
* Those that are trying to make a buck off it

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

'm a great multi-instrumentalist. I can play the turntable, the walkman, the radio, the cd player, and the ipod.

wow, i can play the PC too, i'm suprized you can't maybe your digital outputs are DRMed to not work...

Re:Disc Jockey or Mixing Artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Busy, by the way. I'll explain the AC in a second.

All the people I know who DJ call themselves DJs. No crime. No offense.

Some would call them "theives".

You're talking in circles here.

I'd say putting a person who takes sniplets of other peoples performances and puts them together and plays them for people is a very loose definition of "performer".

And you would be wrong. That's like me saying a drummer would be a loose definition of a performer. It's just not true.

performance: noun: a public presentation or exhibition

Some people DJ their OWN music, by the way. (The producers I mentioned). Some people make music specifically for DJs to perform with. I've seen exceptional DJ performances that are way beyond the skill level of lots of instrumentalists. I used to DJ myself, and I used to play traditional instuments too. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges, but it's still performing either way. Something tells me you only have knowledge and experience in your side of the arguement here, you're flying blind. Why do you care so much anyways? If you don't care about DJs, why do you even need to comment?

You pretend to be a music lover, but anyone I've ever met that's been really into music doesn't have the need to insult other people's stuff(especially with name calling, come on now, thieves?), if anything they're interested in the things that make it different.

You're coming across as extremely insulting to people who like or perform sampled and mixed music. Are you doing it on purpose? I believe the word for that is flamebait, so if if that's the case I'm done. That's what the AC is for, I don't even want a notice if you reply.

Bizarre?

[Eric Smith]

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.

Re:Bizarre?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is bizarre - because if that DJ was at a radio station,
the record companies would send booze and hookers over
to encourage him to play their shit.

Re:Bizarre?

[bad-badtz-maru]

In the US a DJ can't play the track legally, period! The fair use clause does not cover commercial use, so DJs are not authorized to play anything off a copy, it must be off the original purchased recording. I don't know how this covers source material originally purchased in mp3 form, however, only how it covers CD audio and vinyl.

Re:Bizarre?

[Eric Smith]

The fair use clause does not cover commercial use,

Citation?

AFAIK, there's no difference in the US beteween a business buying a CD and making a copy of it (perhaps storing the original in a file cabinet for safekeeping), and a consumer doing the same. But I am not a lawyer.

And in the US, if a DJ plays music, he or she pays ASCAP and BMI the license fees for that music. Those fees are the same regardless of whether the music is played from a CD, or from an MP3 file. We don't have any additional 200 pound penalty for playing it from a different media type.

I'm sure it's even more restricted in the USA

[Jim in Buffalo]

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

[jdunlevy]

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.

Re:I'm sure it's even more restricted in the USA

[geekoid]

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.

Re:I'm sure it's even more restricted in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

I've owned a Tavern for over 20 years now and those scum-sucking bastards have been trying to get me to buy a license in order to "legally" play the radio in my joint.

As I tell them ever year when they show up at my doorstep with a "bill", threatening to take me to court: "Blow Me"

The songs are sent out over the radio for free. If they don't want me using the radio, then they had better come here with a bigger gun than the one I have, or stop broadcasting their songs over the free airwaves.

Or they can blow me.

In any case, nothing has happened in 20 years. The license thing is a bloody joke.

Re:I'm sure it's even more restricted in the USA

[bad-badtz-maru]

As I mentioned in another thread here, it depends on where the material is sourced. If it was ripped from CDs, that material is considered an unauthorized duplication when played in a commercial environment, because the fair use clause does not apply to commercial applications. The music must be played on its original media. And before someone asks, no, I don't know how this applies to material originally purchased in MP3 form. I suspect then the music could be played on a computer but not off a burned CD.

Re:I'm sure it's even more restricted in the USA

[jeblucas]

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.

Re:I'm sure it's even more restricted in the USA

[Registered Coward v2]

I've owned a Tavern for over 20 years now and those scum-sucking bastards have been trying to get me to buy a license in order to "legally" play the radio in my joint.

As I tell them ever year when they show up at my doorstep with a "bill", threatening to take me to court: "Blow Me"

The songs are sent out over the radio for free. If they don't want me using the radio, then they had better come here with a bigger gun than the one I have, or stop broadcasting their songs over the free airwaves.

Or they can blow me.

In any case, nothing has happened in 20 years. The license thing is a bloody joke.

US law provides for certain exemptions to licensing:

the Music Licensing Act [Copyright Term Extension and Music Licensing Act 17 USC 110] draws the line between private and public in terms of the type of public establishment, the size, and the stereo equipment used. Restaurants and bars under 3,750 square feet or retail establishments under 2,000 square feet are exempt from paying fees for playing radio or TV broadcasts for their customers. Public places of any size that play radio or TV broadcasts are exempt from paying fees if they use no more than six external speakers (not more than four speakers in each room) for playing music. Public places that play CDs or hire live musicians (that play cover songs or copy songs) are still subject to being licensed for fees.

From http://publishing.wsu.edu/copyright/music_copyrigh t/

Re:I'm sure it's even more restricted in the USA

[hkgroove]

If it is restricted at all, I haven't heard of it.

I feel retarded. I read TFA three times and still can't wrap my head around it. I get the old business / royalties aspect of it, but it seems they're trying to target Club / EDM DJs for playing music in clubs with music that was intented to be played in a club or bar. Maybe it's a bit different with EDM - most producers are in it to make music for DJs to play in a club (or rave) in hopes of appeasing the masses.

Contacting each individual artist to ask to play their track? If I produced a track that someone liked enough to buy it - with intention of playing it in the club, do you really think I'm going to say no? Am I going to ask for a cut of their DJ fee (which is probably $50-$100)? No, and I can't think of any artist that would - well maybe Tiesto, but he's a fuckup anyway.

I've heard about the UK doing this before with DJs having to keep track of what records they played - even before the advent of the CDJs and laptop technologies like Traktor, Final Scratch and Abelton. I'd like to know what portion of that £200 goes to the artist (or the label). Probably zilch. I would have liked TFA to also interview the artists that produce these tracks for their views.

I DJ myself in clubs and bars and granted yes, I'm playing other people's music - but again, music made with the intention of being played in a club by every DJ that wants and is able to. I stay far away from Top40 and other tripe that's usually found on MTV so the chances of me being targeted in the U.S. by say the RIAA is very slim. I'm not buying vinyl much anymore (which has gotten expensive between rising costs and exchange rates) and have gone almost completely digital over the last year. I buy single CDs for tracks when I'm able to, but mostly have been buying tracks online through sites like Beatport or EDM Digital. I then DJ out with a pair of Pioneer CDJ 1000s.

Do artists want payed for their work? Of course they do and that's usually taken care of with the label. Most artist contracts with labels I've seen make no mention of royalties of any sorts. The only exceptions I can think of might be if a track was picked up for a compliation (like the Global Underground or Renaissance series). The old style was a set fee for a set amount of vinyl being pressed. Now, potentially, the earning potential per track is unlimited.

Granted some labels are shady and have screwed artists and producers in the past (and sadly, will happen in the future). But with the advent of the digital download sites, the artists are more in control. You can start your own independent label and release the tracks yourself. Beatport pays you quarterly for the tracks you released - what the exact percentage is, I'm not certain. Aside from the time and setting up the company / label, uploading, shipping, whatever, there's hardly any overhead outside of your own time. You no longer have to spend hundreds or thousands on test pressings and then the release, you're no longer limited by quantity. Want someone to buy your track, send them an email or IM with a link to the site or sound sample.

Re:I'm sure it's even more restricted in the USA

[pete6677]

I don't see why a business should ever have to purchase a license to use a publicly available radio or TV broadcast, considering the station already paid for a public broadcast license. Who cares how many speakers and TVs they have? It's no different than each patron of the establishment having a personal radio or TV with them, which would be perfectly legal. Yet another example of music and movie industry double-dipping.

Re:I'm sure it's even more restricted in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

And most states make sure if the bar has a jukebox or an entertainment license that they have the BMI and ASCAP licenses as well. Any bar with a television usually has an entertainment license.

Out of touch

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Out of touch

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Re:Out of touch

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Out of touch

[Mr. Underbridge]

But like comparing an organ with a keyboard, it usually sounds, well, amateurish.

Re:Out of touch

[PeterBrett]

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

If you're a "DJ" and your equipment consists of a high-end laptop with multiple sound cards, a MIDI mixing controller, a copy of Ableton Live, and several gigabytes of high-quality digital tracks you recorded from your vinyl collection, I'm guessing you might be.

Like Sasha, for instance.

Vinyl is expensive enough already -- I don't have the cash to go out and by very expensive promo release records and then have to pay an extra fee on top of that, for the few gigs I do.

Re:Out of touch

[PeterBrett]

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.

With Ableton Live I can do one hell of a lot more with some software than the average music-spewing DJ can do. It's one hell of a nice piece of gear, and lots of big-name professional DJs are using it instead of vinyl these days.

Re:Out of touch

[Itchy Rich]

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.

Friends of mine within the music industry often find it difficult to understand my boycott of major labels. Perhaps policies like this will help them see what a cynical beast the industry appears to be from the outside.

I am a D.J., I am what I play

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a D.J., I am what I play
Can't turn around no, can't turn around, no, oh, ooh I don't have a license
I am a D.J., I am what I play
Can't turn around no, can't turn around, no, oh no because I don't have a license

"Unwittingly"?

[Pantero Blanco]

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"?

[RingDev]

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

Re:"Unwittingly"?

[Freeptop]

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?

Re:"Unwittingly"?

[Halthar]

Though I have never been into the DC Goth scene, I do know I have run into many really good DJs in the DC area who spin Breakbeat and Drum and Bass at various places as well as working normal jobs. These folks are regular DJs at various clubs in the area as well. If I am not mistaken, most of the folks working at 12" Dance Records off of Dupont Circle actually have regular DJ spots at local clubs (I haven't been in there in a few years, so I could be wrong).

Re:"Unwittingly"?

[hkgroove]

Which type of professional DJ? A radio jockey, a wedding DJ or an EDM DJ (Sasha, Digweed, Tenaglia).

The last primarily plays music produced by artists whose intent was that it be played in the club. The buy sheets for record stores and "press releases" for digital sites continually say who the track is being played by in hopes of getting DJs to buy the track and play it out. Buying digitally, I have not yet seen a disclaimer saying I need to pay royalties or any fees for a public performance.

From beatport.com:

WCan I DJ with files purchased from Beatport?
This can only be answered on a territorial basis. In the United States and UK, the Answer is YES, buying a track from Beatport is just like buying a record from the record store. The same legal implications are in effect. However, certain Territories have different restrictions regarding the legality of playing Digital Music files. We suggest you visit the website of your local publishing / mechanicals service to get a more detailed answer. We also recommend that you keep a copy of your order receipts with your music to prove that you have purchased your music legally. Beatport has taken the time to create agreements with all labels involved with our site and provide you with digital, legal alternatives to the music you may have purchased on record previously.

Re:"Unwittingly"?

[Politburo]

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.

Why is that? Do you think he makes enough at Kinko's to be financially stable? In DC?

Re:"Unwittingly"?

[RingDev]

I believe he was an assistant manager. He had a decent apartment, a new (albeit cheap) car. All of his DJ profits went into his gear (he had his own PA system), music, and travel. Nice guy. I should look that old bunch up some time.

-Rick

I don't think so

[p3d0]

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.

Re:I don't think so

[MoonBuggy]

Maybe so, but the article seems to me to imply that the £200 'digital license' is above and beyond any other kind of licensing: "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 do it."

Sounds to me very much like you can play from CDs without this charge but as soon as you rip them you've got to pay. To be honest I'm a more than a little disappointed that the BBC didn't make an effort to point out that side of the argument.

Re:I don't think so

[Surt]

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

[PortHaven]

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...

Re:I don't think so

[IIH]

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 plays same CD via their computer, thanks very much, that's 200 quid - for what? Looks like a blatent rip off to me.

Re:I don't think so

[merreborn]

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 do it."

TFA seems to indicate that a DJ could play a CD, but to play that same CD after ripping it to his laptop, would cost him and extra £200. That seems to side with GP. My knowledge of US copyright falls on parent's side -- thought this is UK.

My question: Does this mean that, in the UK, you can *legally* play all the music you can download, from any source, for only £200? That's not that much more than napster, if you break it down monthly.

Re:I don't think so

[incabulos]

So what authority does any private group have to wake up one morning and decide to go steal hundreds of pounds from thousands of people? Isnt that basically criminal?

Lets say DJs make up a license that says record companies must pay them thousands of pounds per year, a 'digital music production and transfer license' or some such nonsense. Are they able to enforce this too?

This seems to be regular criminal extortion.

Re:I don't think so

[adrianmonk]

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.

The pedant in me feels obliged to point out that Compact Discs contain digital music as well. Probably the actual distinction has to do with whether the original media is being read at the time that the music is being played, or maybe whether the music being played at any point existed as a permanent copy (rather than transitory copies made in the process of playing it, which even CD players must do since they have a small amount of buffering).

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Britain have ASCAP, BMI or the like to ensure that artists are compensated for public performances? On this side of the pond, club owners pay their ASCAP and BMI fees and DJs can play whatever they want, regardless of whether they purchased the music legally.

War on Music

[Anonymous Coward]

When did the world declare war on music? Did I miss the memo on that? Since when did our modern supposed freedom loving governments decide to crack down on music? This sounds more like something you'd expect of a feudal system lashing out at the 'rabble in the streets'. Music is freedom and freedom is to die for.

Re:War on Music

[FLEB]

Whine, whine, whine, war, war, war, oppression, oppression, oppression.

It's an old and simple concept, really. It's just the government backing up the idea of "If you didn't make it, then either go make something for yourself, or get permission from the thusly-skilled people who did."

I'll grant that the law does need some updating, with the advent of sampling and the use of insignificant snippets to make further creative-in-their-own-right compositions, and I suppose cumpolsory licensing schemes such as this are a step toward reform. It's actually a good thing -- instead of having to hunt for both the artist's terms and permission *and* a royalty to pay them off, you have the option of paying the various government-mandated rates, and the right is yours, without even needing to contact or consult the rightsholder. If that seems too steep for you, there's always the legwork route of just asking the artists or labels in question about better terms.

Although there is more music around today that people can't use, this is a result of the fact that there is just more music around today, less than a matter of more restriction on using music. A poster above mentioned that "artists used to be happy to hear their work played". I'd say a similar number of artists today would have much the same viewpoint as "back then". It's just that those aren't the major-label-superstars that seem to make up "all music" if you don't go looking. Granted, you might not find many that would support wholesale copying or Napsterization, but I personally have written and gotten permission from one band for Podcast interstitial play, and I know of one or two labels that allow that too. I don't doubt there are more out there, if you talk to the right people.

Sounds a bit odd

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds a bit off.

I obviously not well versed in UK copyright law, but in the US, club owners pay licensing fees for DJ to be able to do "public performance" without infringing rights.

Re:Sounds a bit odd

[Anonymous Coward]

Same in the UK. This is an additional charge placed upon DJs who want to make their jobs easier by using computers.

Wisdom on how to deal with this

[argoff]

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

Re:Wisdom on how to deal with this

[marcosdumay]

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.

Re:Wisdom on how to deal with this

[Art Tatum]

Not to mention that if the trick does work, it will only work once.

Real DJ's

[DebianDog]

Real DJ's only use vinyl! That is why we charge you $6 instead of a dollar! What do you think this is the digital age? OH wait...

Re:Real DJ's

[joshsisk]

A DJ 12" generally has more than one track, though (or, more likely, more than one version of a track) so comparing it to an iTunes single song download is a bit misleading.

Re:Real DJ's

[Halthar]

Nah, I know a great many DJs who use MP3s, though I do still like vinyl. I primarily pick up tunes from Beatport when I want a digital copy. Though it costs a premium, they also offer WAV downloads now, apparently (320Kbps w/o DRM works fine for me). Slightly more expensive than iTunes because it's a speciality item of sorts, and not all of the labels are onboard yet, but they still have a fairly nice collection. If you haven't you might want to check them out.

The only thing I can say negatively about Beatport is the use of Flash.

On the plus side for Beatport, you can buy tracks on CD, as MP3s, or as MP4s, or supposedly as of a recent update can purchase and download the same WAV files which would be placed on the CDs (I haven't tried this). In addition they also provide all tracks in any format with no DRM. Throw on a rather strong listing of record labels, as well as low prices for what you are getting, and it's a great deal in my opinion.

fsckin bs

[scenestar]

alot of underground artists rely on the fact that some dj plays their mp3s.

Re:fsckin bs

[geoffspear]

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

[ChipMonk]

The PPL is full of PP. They can go to L.

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

All your £200 are belong to us

[Anonymous Coward]

All your license fees are belong to us.
- Industry lawyers

Fuck it. Who cares?

[brxndxn]

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.

Re:Fuck it. Who cares?

[hkb]

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?

[Busy]

I couldn't agree with you more. I support downloading 100% , and especially listening to non-major label stuff. Nobody will ever make me feel guilty for this position, and I'll laugh in their face if they try to.

Re:Fuck it. Who cares?

[Tim C]

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 going to be sued over it (let alone successfully sued), but there it is.

If there are any lawyers reading this who know UK law and who can settle this one way or the other, I'd be grateful. Either way, it isn't going to stop me ripping everything to my IRiver, but it would be nice not to be breaking the law...

Hey DJs.. just play your damn music and FIGHT it in court if you get 'caught'.

No offence, but that's easy to say when it's not you that'll be up in court.

Re:Fuck it. Who cares?

[roman_mir]

I think most people are like me.. - count me out. I am not your 'most people', but I don't infringe on copyrighted materials.

Re:Fuck it. Who cares?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As I read the relevant statute, we have no right to format shift or even to create a backup of a purchased copyrighted work

FWIW, that's our understanding at the dancing club.

IIRC, making back-ups of software is legal in the UK, but that's a separate provision elsewhere in law, and doesn't cover backing up music CDs and such. Yes, that's daft, given that music CDs get scratched to unplayability PDQ when you play them for several hours six evenings a week, while most software CDs probably leave the box about twice in their lifetime, but there you go.

A Fitting Song

[Trip Ericson]

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.

Re:A Fitting Song

[BushCheney08]

Oh, good one. Now you're gonna get slashdot shut down...

Re:A Fitting Song

[drinkypoo]

Seems to me like that song's about corporate radio (E.G. clearchannel) and not about this kind of thing... That day has already come and gone for most people - since in most places the only thing to listen to on the airwaves is put out by conglomerates.

Re:A Fitting Song

[Trip Ericson]

I know what it's about, but that part of the song is still fitting.

Re:A Fitting Song

[Cally]

And there goes the last DJ Who plays what he wants to play And says what he wants to say Hey hey hey

That would be John Peel, then. Sadly missed :(

Re:A Fitting Song

[LordEq]

That would be John Peel, then. Sadly missed :(

Not exactly. While Peel sounds like an interesting fellow, the Tom Petty song is about Jim Ladd.

Re:A Fitting Song

[Cally]

Well, I didn't really think the Petty song was about Peelie, I just read the lyric & naturally thought of him. Still, this Ladd chap sounds like an interesting fellow, too.

Cash grab..

[canning]

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)

Re:Cash grab..

[Stelminator]

Does this include a band playing only their own originals?

I really hope it doesn't.

Re:Cash grab..

[Anonymous Coward]

In Ontario it's illegal to play music in a public place without a licence, live or otherwise

It's exactly the same in the UK. Every pub, club cinema & theater needs something called a PRS licence to cover the music they play. So I really don't see why you need yet another licence just because the music is sourced from a digital format. This is just bullshit.

Re:Cash grab..

[canning]

It does, any ambient music. It includes a band playing one of their original songs live.

ROFLs @ Idiots

[zenasprime]

"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!

Pound of flesh

[squoozer]

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.

Whatever floats your sinking boat

[somethingprolific]

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.

Re:Whatever floats your sinking boat

[murderlegendre]

Reason is what separates us from primates.

Also, the ability to weasel out of various obligations is what separates us from other animals in general.

Except of course, the weasel

US Copyright law ripe for challenge?

[davidwr]

Yes I know parent is about UK law, so sue me....

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
- from US Constitution article I section 8

If issuing or enforcing of a particular copyright or patent IMPEDES the progress of science and useful arts, does that mean that the federal government's right to issue or enforce that particular patent doesn't qualify under this paragraph?

I guess the rights-holder could claim the feds have the rights to issue patents and copyrights under the interstate-commerce clause, but it would still be fun to see this in court.

Re:US Copyright law ripe for challenge?

[QRDeNameland]

If issuing or enforcing of a particular copyright or patent IMPEDES the progress of science and useful arts, does that mean that the federal government's right to issue or enforce that particular patent doesn't qualify under this paragraph?

Well, considering that the courts have held that extending copyrights ex post facto does not violate the "limited times" clause (i.e., Mickey Mouse can stay copyrighted as long as Disney can successsfully lobby Congress to extend copyright terms), I'd say the chance of seeing any beneficial ruling on this to be about nil.

This shouldn't apply to all DJs

[mindaktiviti]

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 are normally licensed only for personal use, as well as copies of tracks from records or CDs.

You know...vinyl also is licensed for personal use, why should it be different? I think the artists part of the PPL should rectify this situation because often times the way they get popular is by DJs playing their tracks in clubs. So I see that this already has a lot of problems.

Re:This shouldn't apply to all DJs

[robertjw]

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. Most of the podcasters I listen to have talked about purchasing an ASCAP and BMI licenses to enable them to 'broadcast' the work of commercial artists. Many indie bands are more than happy for a podcast or a DJ to play their music since it results in more exposure for their music.

Of course, this only applies in the US and the article is from the UK. I'm guessing it's completely different over there.

What the heck are the Slashdotters talking about??

[jokewallpaper]

A friend just IM'ed me and said that their is a thread on Slashdot about "BJ's". Small typo....damn, you guys are only talking about "DJ's"!!!

Private vs. Public

[Anonymous Coward]

In a club/venue - Private

Street performing - Public

Being a DJ I have played publicly, but most of the time its at a private venue.

Hmmm...

[Lord Norton]

No wonder Boz relocated.

What if?

[Lord Byron II]

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.

Re:What if?

[Hatta]

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

Your point might be conveyed more forcefully if you said that the other way around: Borders were not meant to exist in a world with the Internet.

Dj SchmeJ

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a job

DJ Mix Artist

[olddotter]

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!!

Or a musician who uses samples. Would it be legal today for the Art of Noise to produce their music? IANAL

Re:DJ Mix Artist

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be legal today for the Art of Noise to produce their music?

I sure hope not.

IANAL

What you do back there is your own business.

Re:DJ Mix Artist

[courtarro]

That analogy is a bit flawed. The reverse of your Renoir analogy would be to have people copyrighting individual musical notes, and we know that's not the case. A more appropriate analogy to DJ mixing would be those who create visual collages of existing works and photographs, which is not so far-fetched as your copywritten colors.

The best way not to be a music pirate...

[Benanov]

is to not have any music that has anything to do with these associations.

I don't see the big deal.

[AxemRed]

AFAIK, DJs already need a license to publicly play CDs. I don't see why it should be any different for MP3s.

When I initially read the headline, I was thinking that this fee, to play digital music off a laptop, is charged on top of the normal licensing fees, which would cover the public playing of music in general. After reading the article, it doesn't seem like that's the case. Since all they seem to be doing is applying an existing fee to a new medium, I don't see the problem with it.

Re:I don't see the big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, the venues have a license to play copyright works NOT the djs. To charge DJs 200 pounds just because they use a computer rather than CDs or Vinyl is insane, and i cant see why it wouldnt be covered under the license the venue has to pay to play copyright works anyway. I should think it would cover the music regardless of the format the music is in.

Do you get anything of value at this event?

[MushMouth]

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.

PPL is basically saying.....

[8127972]

All your base are belongs to us.

What, what?!

[Vegeta99]

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.

Re:What, what?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the DJs are doing a form of advertising and the RIAA wants money for this advertising privilage? Fuck them. It's the DJs playing music that exposes people to artists and bands.

clarification

[nekoniku]

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.

So wait...

[fury88]

If you burned these files to CD, is it THEN legally ok to play them? I mean if you buy them, why the hell would it make a difference if they were in digital format or not when you played them. I mean CD's ARE in fact digital though... hahah what a joke.

Same deal in Canada

[rsteele19]

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 from AVLA.

Not only that, but songs from certain artists may not be copied, even with the license. Here's the list. Wanna spin some Paula Abdul from your iPod? Sorry, you're SOL.

Re:Same deal in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

odd. NIN is on the list?! no industrial .mp3s for canada i guess. =(

but wait! on the IANAL,ButIWantToPostHypotheticalsThatDoNotMatter tip: it does say at the top of the page that it covers only "Sound Recordings by the artists below on labels owned by the associated record companies are not to be copied". So doesn't that mean I can use remixes of the listed songs on any other label?

Is TAFKAP listed b/c works produced during his symbol stage are protected, or anything before or after that when he was/is Prince? If I found a Fischerspooner track that really made me want to mix it in Tractor into the original Purple Rain, could I?

And does "sound recordings by the artists" exclude sound recordings of the artist made by someone else (or sampled)? as in, does it have to be the full sound recording as the artist intended it, or can i chop out loops to remix live?

I'd really like to see how the UK law works too. If it's just extending the performance license to cover digital tracks that might not be otherwise copyrighted, it might leave room to use any tracks that the DJ can't own the copyrights to (like illegally downloaded mashups of Metallica tracks they didn't purchase individually). Awell. </random_speculation>

  -- dut

Re:Same deal in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Sucks to be them. Too bad MPEG-3 doesn't exist, (it's MPEG-1 Layer 3, which is a totally different beast).

marketing shit

[Anonymous Coward]

when it will be over?

Boardroom Discussion

[AeroIllini]

"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 use downloaded music in their spinning, they have to pay us extra money! That'll bring the profit margin up for sure!"

"Brilliant! Get on that. Now, let's talk about this pricing scheme you've come up with where we charge by the ear..."

It's a very unreasonable license

[mcvos]

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 wherever we can".

Gold plated shark tank bar?

[enantiodromia]

Lars and Britney might not have to starve to death after all.

Wrong (was Re:I don't think so)

[Goth Biker Babe]

No we don't. I buy blank media at a few cents each. $15 will buy a stack of fifty named brand printable CDs.

Not just DJs

[Anubis333]

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, in the US, stores are not allowed to play music or the radio, they have to license special music streams. lame.

Re:Not just DJs

[Meest]

Where is this LAW that is in the US? As I am a small Pro-Audio Company... I play whatever the hell i want to on my speakers. I have to be able to play different forms of music on the speakers if the customer requests it...

Also whats to say its an indepentant CD that has been release? Bought directly from the band? no lable involved? whats to stop me from playing it? Or what if its my own personal Songs that I've written and recorded. Are they going to tell me i have to have a lisence to play my own damn songs??

Screw that.

Re:Not just DJs

[geekoid]

Basically the charge you the liscense because there is a risk you will play something under there copyright protection.
seriously, no shit.

So they send you this demand. if you don't pay, they sue you. Not too many small business can afford to defend themselves.

I would love to see someone take this all the way up to the supreme court, but that's expensive.

Racketeers

[sycodon]

I wonder how much of this actually ends up in the pockets of the musicians.

My bet is that the vast majority of it lines the pockets of the gangsters called RIAA or its equivalent.

Great way to get rid of noisy neighbors

[zlogic]

So if your neighbor is listening to some crappy music at insane volume levels, he's making a public performance of the song and must be sued.
The best way to deal with that situation is to call RIAA, not yor local police. Guess copyright infringment will result in a larger fine than making loud noises.

Re:Great way to get rid of noisy neighbors

[Oz0ne]

... that's brilliant, and crazy enough to actually work.

I'll let you know!

Re:Great way to get rid of noisy neighbors

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny way of exploiting it, but you've hit on the core issue. The laws and business model are essentially outdated, so we can sit here and laugh at all kind of contrived situations like this. That's an issue I see with streaming of copyrighted material: Because the clients can be anonymous, the provider has no way of knowing if he's legal or not. I would think that's a bit too vague to have any legal strength.

Take this contrived situation for example: I have three listeners to my mp3 stream. Two are in my house, so I'd consider that private viewing. Let's say one of my private listeners IMs his buddy, who happens to be at a party at someone else's house. He plugs his PC into their PA and plays the stream for the crowd. Suddenly I'm a law-breaker.

How about another one: One of my private listeners dumps my mp3 stream to a file and puts it on his iPod. The next night he brings it to a party and plugs the iPod into the PA so the whole crowd can hear it. I'm both breaking the law and completely unresponsible for doing so.

Ridiculous nonsense.

buh-bye

[Anonymous Coward]

Record labels can all go to /dev/null

Simple solution

[commodoresloat]

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!"

Obilgatory Smiths counterpoint...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Burn down the disco
Hang the blessed dj
Because the music that they constantly play
It says nothing to me about my life
Hang the blessed dj
Because the music they constantly play

Hang the dj, hang the dj, hang the dj
Hang the dj..."

Re:Obilgatory Smiths counterpoint...

[jalagl]

This is what I thought as soon as I saw the other song lyrics. I was going to hit reply, and somebody had already added them...

Hang the dj, hang the dj, hang the dj...

Were you successful?

[commodoresloat]

Did they blow you?

Been this way for decades...here's how it works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Before people go off half-cocked (I know, too late), public performance is the reason ASCAP and BMI (in the states) exist. You play registered music in public, the artist gets a royalty. It's as simple as that. (BTW, it has NADA to do with copyright - you can copyright a song without registering it with a rights organization.)

Radio stations, nightclubs, independent DJs, and even mom-and-pop stores with a stereo pay a flat license fee which is distributed to the songwriters.

Record companies - and even the performing artists, if they didn't write the song - get no cut, unless the writer explicitly signs over a cut of their songwriting, or the artist takes an arrangement credit. ASCAP in particular is a non-profit, run by songwriters.

It doesn't matter if the song is on CD, MP3, LP or 8-track tapes, if it's registered and you're playing it in public, you're supposed to pay. Only way around it is to play nothing but unregistered songs (such as "pod-safe" music).

Had to post about this thread...

[Xserv]

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

...also a touch misleading...

[C10H14N2]

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.

Re:RIAA is a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

You are kidding right? I mean, yeah, RIAA is a scam, but musicians make no money making music?

perhaps if your music was good you could make a living off of it, but you can't sell crap, or even give it away.

So if someone wanted to play a sony cd live....

[delahappy]

they could buy a cd ($20.00) pay the (200.00) fee to play that cd live after they rip it. Take their computer to a repairshop because that sony cd's drm f'd it up (300?) and make a small amount of money from the djing gig (100 - 200?). Sounds like you are better begging for change on the street... you'll probably come out better.

A much more moronic concept than this is

[deaddrunk]

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.

This burns my ass

[kilodelta]

The reason this burns my ass is because from 1985 to 1987 I was a DJ at a college radio station.

I used to haul my collection with me and the audience was a few thousand folks. Never paid for more than the record.

And what about all the promotional copies of records that radio stations get.

That's why I feel the industry should be supplying promo copy to those DJ's in public venues, as well as laying off the damned licensing bullshit.

Re:RIAA is a scam

[Mancat]

Maybe nobody downloads your crappy tracks of drumbeats superimposed over random clips of people talking because they SUCK.

Re:RIAA is a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

For real, ask any local band members you know, just honestly, how much money they are for real making at it. IF they give you an honest for real answer, it won't even be enough to pay for the equipment they use.

As any DJ you know, how much for real he has ever made at it, or is making per year, per week.

When you get right down to it, making music at best is a hobby you do for yourself.

Its like the poetry business. There is no such thing. Period. You can not make a living as a poet. You can not write poetry and sell it. A lot of hopeful high school teenagers might believe so, but it just does not exist. There is no "poetry business". Yes, there are plenty of poetry "books", like there are stores full of music "cds", but its smoke and mirrors. When you get down to it the person that wrote the book or made the CD made very, very, very little money at it all. More than likely spent more money of their own into it just to make it, so they could become known or see there stuff 'out there'.

Its a labor of love. Or fantasy. Or a foolish investment of your time. Take your pick.

I accept there is no money to be made at it, and then go from there. Then it becomes a point, to make music that you yourself enjoy and do it because it makes you happy, to channel something out of the great ether and be a conduit for creativity, and bring something into existance that never existed before. In such a way, you find your true nature, to become a creator and thusly part of the motive force that is the universe and creation...

That's because

[C10H14N2]

The college had the appropriate licenses--and the labels DO send out heaps of promo copies to the DJs just for asking ESPECIALLY to college radio stations.

Just because _you_ didn't personally pay for the license doesn't mean it wasn't in place.

Re:That's because

[kilodelta]

Ah but I know for a fact that this college wasn't buying the BMI/ASCAP licenses.

Re:Been this way for decades...here's how it works

[kfg]

. . .it has NADA to do with copyright - you can copyright a song without registering it with a rights organization.

You can, but you have a right to, because you hold a copyright.

No copyright, no performance right, no performance right collection agencies.

You may, of course, choose not to enforce your rights, but your rights are certainly all about, well, your rights.

KFG

Record Pools

[Anonymous Coward]

In the good ol' days(tm), record companies gave DJs promotional records for free.
In exchange, we DJs created "buzz" and made the records popular and well-loved.

Generally, one joined a record pool for this privilege.
Of course, you would get the chaff with the wheat, and if there was a record which became hot which you hadn't gotten, you would run out and buy it yourself (unless you were a "name" DJ like Jellybean or Francois Kervorkian).

The clubs all paid the license fees to ASCAP or BMI (or whomever), and we obliviously plied our craft on the one-and-twos.

Obviously, the poor record companies are so destitute now that they *must* now get every last dime they can...

old school

[Schmeh]

That's EXACLY why I spin from a reel-to-reel; wiggity-whacked.

Re:old school

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep it reel, mah bruddah.

No music business?

[Xeirxes]

I know solo musicians who sell their own work and make over $10,000 per weekend at a fair. Sure there's a music business, but it involves not being lazy, and actively advertising your work. Many musicians do not know how to do this, and therefore, think it is impossible.

New version of "Panic"

[Art_Vandelai]

Burn down the disco
Hang the blessed D.J.
Because the royalties that they do not pay
When they play all the songs off their ipods
Hang the bleseed D.J.
Because the royalties oh, they do not pay

Hang the D.J...

Re:New version of "Panic"

[speakandspell]

And now I know how Joan of Arc felt
As the flames rose to her Roman nose and her iPod started to melt

My music sucks. I'd love to hear yours....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that is a valid point. It very well could be that nobody downloads my music because it SUXORs.

Thank you for your candid and in your face opinion. Maybe everything about me just SUX. Maybe my momma sux. Maybe the country I live in SUX (it does).

My own self, I find in my own opinion about 80% of the music out there SUX. Different music appeals to different people. For example, myself, the whole category of Jazz and Blues and Country just SUX. Period. I won't even listen to it. That is a broad sweeping generalization, but I know that that style of music just does not appeal to me, at all. Everyone has their different tastes.

Since my music SUX, and yours more than likely doesn't, post a link to your website where you've labored on your music that doesn't suck, so we can all listen to it and enjoy the non-suckage.

My guess is if you have anything at all, its just vocals superimosed on a backbeat. In which case, it sucks too.

Here's an idea. . .

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

Here's an idea, if you're a DJ don't play at Square's Conventions in Lameville. . . I seriously doubt like, a raver DJ is going to get busted on this, its not like the drug users are going to rat out that DJ. . .

So this would actually be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quid pro show?

Thank-you I'll be here all week, try the veal

ppl?

[Anonymous Coward]

wow the standards at the bbc are really slipping. they cant even write out "people" anymore...

"The annual licences, costing £200 plus VAT, were introduced by royalty collection agency PPL in September."

"PPL said many DJs wanted to play from laptops or MP3 players instead of records or CDs, despite the fact it was illegal without the permission of the rights owner."

"He said PPL would not take action to enforce the licences in the early stage of the scheme."

i guess to make it more american you could replace ppl with "folks". he said folks would not take action... yeah that sounds better!

Blackmail

[malsdavis]

Arn't there laws againt blackmail?

Re:My music sucks. I'd love to hear yours....

[Mancat]

My music SUX too.

myspace.com/thechordsmakeheadlines

It's a trick! Get an Axe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its another ploy to undermind our rights to listen to free music! Destroy Satilite Radio! Destroy Mass Media!

A working DJ's point of view - somewhat depressing

[zuki]

There are many thorny issues that this PPL ruling touches on. Belonging to PPL myself, I well understand that they are trying to get some revenue for their membership, but this will be yet another nail in the coffin of record labels' total misunderstanding of the music business' new realities.

Basically, it is a total travesty to say that you are able to play a song from CD or CD-R but as soon as it is played from a 'hard-disk' you are levied an additional license fee. For that matter, the person could just re-transfer the tracks from the PC back to an audio CD and not be subjected to the license? This sounds ludicrous and worse than technologically narrow-minded. As a DJ, I get most of the copies of the music directly from the labels, and they do not require me to pay anything to (promote) play their music. They actually BEG ME to play their songs. Even if you did not get the music promotionally from the labels, when you purchased the song you are playing at the club, (or the vinyl, or the CD) you have already paid both the statuatory mechanical royalty and everything else you are required to pay by law once.
Further to this, most clubs, bars and lounges already also pay a yearly flat license fee to the APRS or similar performing rights society for the right to have music played to the public by DJ's and live bands.

Then is the thornier issue of redistribution of the income, why should a club playing tracks by Underground Resistance and Trentemoeller subsidize Christina Aguilera and Coldplay to earn them yet more undeserved income? Surely the clubs and DJ's would feel a bit better if they knew that those license payments went to the people whose tracks they actually played! .....The tough part there is that without a playlist there is no way to account for those song which were played that night, not to mention that half the time, the DJ themselves do not know the real names of the songs they play....

Of course, the reality of this is that the only reason this is taking place is that they are trying to force people who download illegally MP3 files - and others who share them - to pay a little something that will go back to make up for the giant losses sustained by everyone involved in the making, marketing and distributing of music from everyday piracy.

There are different ways of dealing with this: As a DJ who makes large amounts and spends an average $200 a week on new records, I hardly see it making a dent in my budget to stay compliant. But someone who is just breaking into the business will be hurt by this.

(Trance DJ Richard Stallman would probably sacrifice himself to prove the PPL wrong, I am not sure I have time to be the sacrificial lamb to such a Quixotic battle.) Most active DJ's will probably just shrug it off and pay up as yet another annoyance in the cost of doing business when in the UK. Oh, well....

Z.

Re:RIAA is a scam

[vortigern00]

Who modded this flamebait? Hello, the dude is (mostly) right.

There is money to be made in selling music to the unwashed masses. Especially if those masses are pre-brainwashed to believe that the vanilla crap on the radio is good. But anything artistic must be done for art's own sake. Because nobody is gonna buy that.

scheme

[bugi]

I think "scheme" is the operative word here.

Go DJs

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray for the DJs. Information and culture wants to be free. Sharing music will only help artists be familiarizing more people with the music. This permissions scheme will hurt the little band, not help them.

So?

[C10H14N2]

They were violating copyright. The argument seems to be "well, dang, I used to steal from 7/11 all the time and never got caught, but now you're telling me it's illegal!!! WAAAH!!!!"

Yawn.

Digital "copies" nitpick

[jhernand]

Not having time to read the law, how is a "digital copy" defined? Arguably, we're all playing digital copies when we listen to CDs in portable CD players with anti-skip RAM buffers.

A file on your HDD, OK, maybe obvious. How about optical media? Flash memory? A complete 3-second track in a volatile RAM buffer? What if you read the data into RAM (from the CD) BEFORE the performance, never to be stored permanently on your HDD? Loophole or not?

Re:Been this way for decades...here's how it works

[Tony Hoyle]

In some countries when you sign with a label you sign away your rights to perform the track without paying fees too (I believe that Germany is like this, maybe the netherlands).

Technically you still have copyright, but if you gave a copy of your *own song* to someone else the record company could sue you.

Just don't invite any lawyers

[n6kuy]

to your weddings and mitzvahs.

They'll never know...

Re:Been this way for decades...here's how it works

[kfg]

This is quite common, if not by law than by contract with the label.

Go independant.

KFG

Not A Very Fitting Song At All

[zuki]

Tom Petty = allegedly notorious Dance-Music hater?

AFAIK, he has gone on record a number of times expressing nothing but contempt and a profound dislike at large for House, Disco and all the rest.
Of course, it is easy to take his lyrics out of context for the sake of this thread, (as pointed out in another reply to this post, it was all about RADIO DJ's losing their individuality to homogenized corporate radio culture, and certainly not club DJ's) but as someone who has been working in Dance Music for a very long time, I would prefer not to see a hater's comments associated with this thread in any way.

His music may not be my cup of tea, but I wouldn't go on public record stating that what 'people like him do' sucks. It would only demonstrate a very shallow understanding of things around me.

(...and sadly having been around a number of 'aging rock artists' over the years, can verify that a few of them indeed harbor deep bigoted prejudice for something which to this day they still do not understand. See Steve Dahl et all...)

Z.

Let the census begin!

[MS-06FZ]

OK, so that's one against music piracy.

Anyone else?

What a miopic view.

[jotaeleemeese]

I am a trained classical musician.

Most pop music does nothing for me, I find it boring and repetitive.

But I can recognize a musician when I hear one. If you think mixing does not require musical talent you obviously don't know what it means to create sounds using any technique whatsoever.

The musicians you so despectively call mixers are using techniques I can only dream to begin to understand (I can understand Stravinsky, John Cage or even more bizarre musicians that in general follow the western classical tradition). The music they do, although boring and yes, repetitive, sometimes shows some real creativity ant musical talent.

So no worries, we musicians can recognize our own kind, no need of closed minded slashbots to point them out to us.

Re:What a miopic view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what classical instrument? The skin flute?

Look, leave the music discussion to the big boys. Mixers are thugs. Period.

Re:What a miopic view.

[EternityInterface]

I don't appretiate classical music, and then I mean the stuff in films. Because it's like there's only a few "modes" it can be put on, which should all manipulative the public towards the emotion wanted, same in the way as added claps / laughter. But, I happened to be bored enough watching a channel's test picture, which except test sounds also played a classical... something. I figure some composer from 100+ years ago. And I could feel an incredible amount of things from it. But I know the other kind isn't really music. Same with rap. It's so easy to see there. Stuff that sounds good / social critique, or bragging. (You're talking about killing people, "I had sex with your wife", and not in those words, don't you think this creates tension between east and west?) Same with the Matrix, I can't stand it anymore, all that bragging about special effects. Pounded through my brain so many times. Hype hype hype. Yeah sure, for billion dollar budget movie makers it's interesting, but to the general public, if it is so damn good, it should stand for itself. Actually, there is one thing left, the soundtrack, which is, heh, really well mixed.

Oh please shut up.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you can be bothered buy "Different trains" by Steve Reich and educate yourself about what mixing can accomplish.

Your crap definition has a problem.

[jotaeleemeese]

"musician: One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music".

The above does not define music (why an instrumental musician is more musician than a singer, is beyond me).

So using the same piss poor reference you are using, I found the following: "music: The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre".

Allowing for this crap defintion (a group of drums tunned to the same note have no melody or harmony strictly speaking, only rythm and of course a timbre) the important bit is this:

Arranging sounds on time.

That is it.

Mixers do exactly that.

Yeah, they *must* be ignorant!

[SeaFox]

Digital DJs Unaware of Copyright Law

I submit that they are completely aware of the new law. And are simply ignoring it becuase they don't agree with it. A law is only a law if the majority of citizens choose to follow it and those that don't are punished. If it isn't enforced and the people don't agree to it, it does no good to even have it on the books, it doesn't matter how many members of Parliment were bought to get it passed.

This is so untrue it is not funny.

[jotaeleemeese]

Most composers rehash ideas many times, these ideas are longer than most people appreciate.

Vivaldi? Mozart? Beethoven? Wagner? Stravinsky? Shostakovich? The Beattles? You name it.

You may think they deal with smaller musical blocks, but that is because you are not a composer or maybe even a musician.

Trained musicians see bigger blocks as coherent entities, composers even more so. Most musical pieces, even very long ones, will gravitate around 3 or 4 basic idease that are developped at nauseam.

Outstanding example of this is the fugue that in principle uses one musical idea (which can be quite long) for a piece that may last many minutes. Musicians will discover that idea and treat it as a unique musical thought where novices would be struggling to make head from toes embroiled on the details.

look - wuddya expect from the fucking Brit.Gov?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

I mean, this is the same bunch of creepy cheap bastards who charge households a license fee for EVERY TV in their home!

It's ridiculous!

My advice to Brit digiDJ's: Just Go For It. It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask permission. Also: they have to CATCH you first, and then they have to jam a pole up their butt so hard that they think you need to be persecuted.

Stupid fascist fuckers.

If you're some superstar DJ - pay their mizzable tax and shut them up, but if you're just jamming the dancefloor in some flunky club filled with a bunch of lackluster poseurs - fuck 'em.

RS

Who are you to decide that?

[jotaeleemeese]

If you had a modicum of musical education you would know that people like Arnold Schoenberg, John Cage, Xenakis, Karlheinz Stockhaussen, Mario Lavista, Steve Reich and many others (just to name a few) liberated music from the restrictions of using a limited set of artifacts.

This "contorversy" has shown so many times during the history of music that ia a non issue for anybody curious enough to lear about it. The piano, the electronic keyboard, the sax, were all at one time or another derided as bastardizations of real musical instruments. I am sure you would have been there gleefully plotting for the demise of these instruments if you had lived in those days.

If you can combine sounds using any techniques you want, you are a musician.

That does not mean I have to like what you do, in all likelyhood what you do will be crap, but the creative act of arranging sounds in porpouse with a aesthetic porpouse is to make music.

What does training have to do with this?

[jotaeleemeese]

Anybody can be a musician!

That is the heritage of the XXth century, art was opened to everybody.

So the people in primitive tribes that sing and cal all night are not making music because they have got no training?

Is the guy tha picked up a muscial instrument and learned to play it "by ear", is not a musician because he did not receive training?

Oh boy, what a gloom view of the world, where in order to create music you need training.

Close

[geekoid]

All your bass are belongs to us.

The real problem with the Digital DJ license.

[mrobin604]

Within the current copyright regime, I don't really see it as unreasonable with asking DJ's to pay 200 for a licence. However, when you read the conditions of the licence (taken from PPLs site at http://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_lf.nsf/PDFs/$file/Dig ital_DJ_Licence_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf), this is where you find the real unreasonableness of their demands:

3. Dubbing obligations
3.1 The Licensee hereby warrants, represents and undertakes that it shall:
(1) Dub each Track in its entirety provided that the Fade-down Section of any Track may be subject to the use of premature fade and cross-faded or overlapped with the Track following immediately thereafter provided that the period of audible cross fade or overlap does not exceed 2 (two) seconds;
(2) not Dub Tracks in such a way as to accelerate the rate of the Fade-up Section at the commencement of any Track;
(3) Dub Tracks so that all reproductions of Sound Recordings on a DJ Database or Back-up Database will be of sufficient technical standard so that the quality of the original Sound Recording is reasonably preserved for any person listening to the Service;
(4) not mix, remix, Segue, edit, change or otherwise manipulate the sounds of any Sound Recording so that the sounds on the Dubbed copy of the Sound Recording are different from those on the original Sound Recording

This section is a HUGE restriction on DJs. It basically prevents you from doing mash-up style mixing, or even to do an extended transition. It prevents you from dropping samples in from other recordings, from beat juggling, in fact section 4 prevents you from using the EQ to alter the sound of the recording! These techniques are de facto standard with all the DJs I know. It shows a complete lack of understanding or disregard of DJing as an expressive musical form. I can't see DJ Shadow or Richie Hawtin following those guidelines.

The situation in the UK

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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 of UK IP law when it starts consulting in Febuary 2006.

Record Industry vs. Music Industry

[LoudChris]

There is a huge difference between the Record Industry and Music Industry.

The Record Industry is dying. The Music Industry is growing like crazy.

Er...

[This Is Ridiculous]

And this has what to do with patents, exactly?

2 dogs...

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm...let's see...I've got to pay $13.00 each license fee to my county (in Ohio) for my 2 dogs. Don't know what the hell that's for...

The TV licence fee

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I mean, this is the same bunch of creepy cheap bastards who charge households a license fee for EVERY TV in their home!

With which they fund the BBC, a widely respected media organisation about which most foreign citizens can only have wet dreams.

And it only applies if you have A/V equipment capable of actually receiving and displaying broadcast TV. If your TV is detuned and not connected to an aerial because you only use it to watch DVDs and play computer games, you don't have to pay a licence fee.

There are always debates about exactly how the BBC should be funded, particularly given that those who listen to BBC radio and use the BBC web site but don't have a TV don't pay for it. Still, in every survey of the British public I've ever seen, and indeed IME, the overwhelming majority want to keep the BBC even if it means paying the licence fee.

unfrozen caveman law...digital confusion

[mshurpik]

The licences are needed by any DJ who wants to store digital copies of sound recordings to use when playing in public. This includes legally-purchased downloads, which are normally licensed only for personal use, as well as copies of tracks from records or CDs.

According to this, copying anything to your computer invokes the license requirement. I find this pretty bizarre; I have an extensive vinyl collection and nowhere on any of the labels does it say what I can or can't do with my music.

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 do it."

Exactly. Now if you use vinyl tracks recorded to a laptop, that invokes the license requirement. CD's are already a digital sampling of analog music, so wouldn't the "digitization fee" be included with purchase? How do you need a license to digitize something that's already digital?

Re:unfrozen caveman law...digital confusion

[krysolid]

Yes, what is the point of all this stuff if not to get
more and more restrictive with rights ... I mean, I go out and
buy an album, can I play it for friends? What about at a party?
But if we have a party at a bar, or restaurant, no? I cannot
sing it perform it for anything that makes money, nor talk about
it the wrong way in public. Where do critics get off then, and
why shouldn't critics, any critic be able to use excepts from
a work of art to show people what they mean.

I am all for people being compensated for their work, but what
is going on under this aegis in the US and even Europe is an
outrage that complicates and fractures our culture and society.

I know this is a bad SOCIALIST idea and all, but ?

[krysolid]

How much do people pay for their programming and media?
How much of that actually gets to the artists, and how
many of the artists actually get what they are worth, as
opposed to what the shills who pimp them get for shoving
their work in our eyes and ears?

So, what would be wrong with finding a number, a % of what
people pay for media, and levying a tax that would go to
an artist in relation to a voter approved formula, if voters
could understand a formula, depenending on how many times
people access their work, how much critical acclaim it gets,
you know, things like that.

This would prevent starving artists, and mega-super-giga-stars
as well that amass fortunes way past anything sensible inside
the economy most of us live in.

This would also allow artists to leverage off other works
for some period of time too.

It just seems something has to be done about this senseless
scheme of intellectual property backed up by basically what
is the legal mafia. It would be different if there was some
logical consistancy to these copywrite, trademark, patent,
laws, but every year as things get more and more complicated,
and the winners want a bigger and bigger piece of everyone's
pie, it shows that this scheme does not scale, any more than
Windows OS.

Same issue with film programs for conventions

[wwphx]

I did film programming for science fiction conventions in the 80's. Everything was on 16mm film and from distributors where your rental came with a public performance license. They also rented some video with the appropriate license, but the selection (at the time) was somewhat limited and the video projector rentals (again, at that time) were also kind of expensive.

I was the first film programmer in our area to switch over to public performance video and that was pretty much the death of 16mm for most of the film programs. Two things prompted this. I could no longer find enough people who could operate 16mm projectors, a problem which resulted me in spending 10-14 hours a day in the film room and not seeing very much of the convention. And then someone, trying to be helpful, was moving a projector on top of its stand without packing it up. He dropped it and broke one of the arms off. It was just too much.

But I'll guarantee that a vast majority of science fiction/fantasy conventions that you go to are not paying for a public license for their film/video programs, they're taking it out of private libraries or renting them from Blockbuster (where all of the films are licensed for private, not public, performance). It is technically illegal, but it isn't going to stop as the licenses for that many films is pretty expensive.

iPod Rentals

[wwphx]

Once upon a time there was a company that had an iPod rental business (I have no links or references). The iPod was filled with music from indie bands that weren't registered with RIAA or BMI/ASCAP, thus there was no public performance license issue. They rented the iPods to businesses, who would receive a fully stuffed unit every month or 60 days or something. You'd send your previous iPod back, they'd restuff it and send it to someone else.

I read about it on Slashdot quite a while back, so it must be true. ;-) I have no idea if their business succeeded or not, but I thought it was a great idea.

Re:Of course

[Snaller]

Copyright is amoral and who would think that such a greedy scheme could be in place - tsk tsk - and you shan't censor other opinions.