Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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: 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.
My work here is dung.
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.
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
When dealing with government, or any type of bully - history has shown that it always better to ask forgivness than permission.
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.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
"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!
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.
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.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
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
Think Deeply.
is to not have any music that has anything to do with these associations.
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.
This sig is umop apisdn.
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".
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.
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?
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.