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

[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

[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?

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?

[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.

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.

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

[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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.