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

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

[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: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: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: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:"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

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: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: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: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.