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

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?

[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?

[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"?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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: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?