Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ARIA Sells a Licence for DJs to Format Shift Music

Posted by samzenpus on from the next-up-a-whistling-tax dept.

lucas writes "The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has set up a new licence to let DJs format shift their music to use at gigs. DJs will need to pay a licence fee to copy music they already own legally from one format to another for ease of use, and as a back-up in case originals get lost or stolen. Criminal penalties for DJs involved in "music piracy" are up to sixty thousand dollars and 5 years imprisonment. There are also on-the-spot fines of over one thousand dollars."

3 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Don't buy into this... by elynnia · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Speaking as an Australian, I encourage DJs to not purchase this license. What the ARIA are doing is legally questionable, and shelling out for this only justifies their actions and legitimizes it in their eyes.

    With the number of DJs here, I would not expect all of them to even know of this rule or for the ARIA to suddenly take all "offenders" to court. Don't feed the hands that bite you!

    -Aly.

  2. Re:No "fair use" in Australia by sahonen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because a DJ is ALREADY paying royalties to ARIA for the right to spin those songs at a gig. ARIA is proposing to make DJs pay an *additional* fee on top of what they're already paying in order to format shift their music for convenience (i.e. playing tunes as MP3s out of a laptop, or creating compilation CDs to reduce the number of CDs that need to be taken to a gig). This is wrong because it makes absolutely no difference to the listeners. They just hear music coming out of the speakers regardless of what format it's in on the DJ's side.

    --
    Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  3. Re:No "fair use" in Australia by evanbd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They should also have to choose between legal and technological protection. If they want to use DRM to enforce policies that aren't based in copyright law (and there's no way for a piece of software to distinguish what's legal fair use), then I see no reason to grant them copyright protection. The purpose of copyright is to promote creation and enrich society. Fair use is a necessary part of that, as is the ability to use the work after the copyright period expires. They should not be allowed to renege on half of the bargain and expect the other half to continue to hold.

    If they want DRM, fine. But pick one. They shouldn't be allowed to lock up our culture and expect legal assistance in doing so.