The annual licences, costing £200 plus VAT, were introduced by royalty collection agency PPL in September.
DJs who copy tracks onto computers or MP3 players without one are breaking copyright law, the organisation says.
This includes legally-purchased downloads, which are normally licensed only for personal use, as well as copies of tracks from records or CDs.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5648 access attempts in the last 7 days.
“You don’t actually have to DJ using a laptop. You can use vinyl, you can use CD, so we’re saying that if it’s not worth your while spending £200 then don’t do it.”
My god all years these and we could have used vinyl to DJ!!!!! Who’d have thunk it…..
The RIAA is spreading..
Others are learning from the PRO.
As Andrew Jackson said:
A tax incurr’s costs of 60+% to collect the tax.
For all the man power, and paperwork, and regulating it takes to inforce a tax. It really isnt worth it, if you pay it ALL out, without the Government getting any of it.
It was only a matter of time that the RIAA caught up to iPod DJ’s and the many other mp3 based DJ hardware.
Ah, commie time at the DU blog once again..
Let’s repeat! music business bad, rippers good.
In all the bull regarding digital music, we have to remember that music should only be used for things granted by the author (or designee) of the music.
At least the brits are trying new schemes to fair things up.
.
What selfish reasoning. These ‘laws’ are going to drive everyone mad… and start a digital riot against these obsurd copyrights.
Lou, that’s a fair point and I agree about trying new schemes, but it’s quite a hefty amount for DJ’s to shell out every year, unless you make a bit of money at it. Why not charge the venues? It doesn’t make sense to me to charge DJ’s because a: it’s very difficult, surely, to keep track of every DJ and what they use to DJ with and b: DJ’s who just do it to have fun and don’t make too much money (like myself!) will be subsidising the ‘superstar’ DJ’s who should be paying thousands a year in royalties.
It’s a good idea to have a system, but I think it’s aimed at the wrong people.
Steve: Wrong, wrong, wrong. A radio station can not buy one CD, then broadcast it without royalties. It is wrong, and it is illegal. If someone is making money because of the specific music being played, than the artists/publishers deserve part of the proceeds. Fair use by any fair persons definition does not include making money that way.
“And the biggest bull I’ve heard so far is your idea that music can “only” be used according to the wishes of the author or designee. That’s pure RIAA propoganda BS and you know it”
Be a little more careful with your reading. I said “SHOULD” not “COULD”. In a truly fair and just world, I would be able designate how MY intellectual property could be used, copied, paid for, etc.
I still stand by my observation of the “commies” here. They will only comment on things they perceive as wrong (I can’t move my stuff from my ipod to my wma player), without giving suggestions on how bad people can be stopped (stealers) and good people can be rewarded (artists).
Dan, thank you for your comments. I agree that we keep having to try systems till we get one that is fair. In the US, the venue generally pays standard royalties to BMI/ASCAP based upon attendance. I doubt these royalties are divied up perfectly, but it’s something.
In Britain you must pay a license fee per year for each tv so it doesn’t surprise me. I wonder if they will stick an oscillator on the DJ so they can track him down like the TV police?
Steve: You are right: It is not LEGAL for the music industry to pay a radio station to play music. Because it is done, does not mean that it is OK, right or fair (an idea that seems prevelant on DU’s guests).
And as for the other way around, of course radio stations (and restuarants, bars, concert halls, and discos, etc.) are supposed to pay royalties for the music they play. The issue actually recently came up regarding internet radio stations and rebroadcasts of radio over the net. I enjoy your opinions, but if you are not going to do any fact checking, don’t form an opinion.
You are also right: it is not fair to be charged twice for music you purchase. (Of course, you are talking about a perfect digital copy… you can of course make analog copies like you can with vinyl and cassettes).
And I do agree that the media companies went overboard when they fought reasonable fair use (copying) issues. But digital copying IS A PROBLEM, and does affect revenue to the music companies, which does affect revenue to the artists.
I’m a libertarian and wish that all our laws would be represented by proper punishment (and not controls on business). Make as many copies as you like. Give them out, etc. etc. etc. But when ??? (Big Brother/The Lord/Martians) detect that fair use was violated (your friend keeps listening & enjoying their copy, not just “testing” it, without buying it), the proper punishment be served.
What that punishment is, I’m not sure, but it should be the equivalent of shoplifting the same amount of CD’s out of a store. Meaning criminal record, arrest, etc. The fact that its done digitally as opposed to “physically” is irrelevant to me).
I think the topic is losing focus here. DJ’s perform gigs, they are performers, this is very different to a listener at home who wants to have 2 copies of a track in different digital devices etc but doesn’t want to pay twice. One is a domestic issue, the other is live performance issue. It is expected and is fair that radio stations pay royalties for playing artists music, it is also fair that, if you are going to make money by DJing with other peoples music you should pay a fee for the artists. Personally, I don’t get why this should only apply to digital and not be more generalised, this is why the venues should take on the burdon of costs and get some form of PRS/PPL/MCPS DJ performance liscence, which would cost several thousand a year. As I said before, I think it’s a good start trying something out like this but I think it’s gonna be unmanageable and inefficient.
Actually, I think we already have this system in place. Hmmm, maybe I’m losing focus now! My point is, it’s right for DJ’s to pay for performing with other peoples songs in whatever format be it digital or analogue.
Steve, sorry do you professionally DJ every track you get so that would mean you’d have to pay? Do all your mates too? Man, not everyone is a professional DJ so this does not apply as a blanket rule, you’re twisting it a bit here.
“It’s a simple fact that the current music industry needs DJs more than DJs need the current music industry.”
Can you back-up this ‘fact’ because it seems a bit OTT to me. The music industry survives mainly because of royalty payments. DJ’s play a very important role in exposure of new material, I agree. However, DJ’s are not, by any measure, the only marketing tool the music industry has. Live Gigs, Television, Adverts, Movies, iTunes type store, Internet Sites which can recommend things to you based on your taste etc.
The way customers hear new music and how that music is delivered is changing fast and the industry is attempting to adapt.
In so far as I can see, the main target for this law is the club DJ. These guys certainly need a thriving music industry to keep their careers alive because they need new material. Hypothetically speaking, you’re saying that if all the DJ’s went on strike then the music industry would crumble? In that scenario, musicians wouldn’t be able to eat and millions of teenagers would lose the will to live. This would not benefit the DJ, the DJ now has no new material and a bunch of depressed punters. It is a silly argument. Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist world and ‘free music maaaaaaan’ is just ideological BS to me.
I don’t care if you download stuff for your own collection (that’s your moral decision to take) but once you start using it to make money, like paid DJing, you have no excuse not to give the artist their rightful dues.
I have already made my point regarding specifics and feel that in general, the system should not be exclusive to digital.
Steve, when you go to the video shop do you think the rental copy costs the same as a retail copy? Rental copy, even though it is exactly the same thing, costs a lot more, around $100 a copy I think. Why? BECAUSE THEY MAKE A PROFIT OUT OF IT. DJ Minted goes and does a set in a big club, he paid 97cents for the track he downloaded and, let’s say he gets £1000 for the set. HE IS MAKING A PROFIT OUT OF IT, IT IS A BUSINESS TO HIM. Why is a big deal for him to pay for the right to do this? It does not affect the general public, it is a law aimed at a professional making money. Oh and one more thing, do you have some figures to back-up the double dip claim because you seem to be under the assumption that they make enough from liscencing the bars/clubs alone.
Why is it right? Explain how it is right for the music industry to get money from the club, from iTunes, and yet again from the DJ. Why should it get paid three times for one song? How can that be right?!
Three times, that’s what $3? If you’re using the track for commercial gain that sounds extremely cheap to me actually, radio royalties are many many times higher.
What kind of car do you drive? It’s filled with tons of intellectual property, none of which you own. What if you got a letter saying that every person who rides in your car had to pay a fee to the IP owners or the car would be repossessed?! Would you pay? Would it be a step in the right direction?
I could understand this argument better if I was able to download cars, but unfortunately that’s not possible.
Steve –
On your last question – the difference is in the terms of sale. On the car, I BUY it, for whatever use I desire. With creative products, I’m buying a license to listen to it. You don’t buy the song – you buy the license. If Honda sold licenses to use cars, they probably would figure out some way to make more money after the initial sale. I think they call it leasing, and it’s why they can change for over-mileage use.
For everyone one musician that gets signed, there are a million NOT signed who are still making music. And why are there a million unsigned artists for every one? Because they are 99.99% not commercially viable. Even if they are they need distribution, without that they can’t make money. That’s the industry. Without an industry how is it possible for DJ’s to get new materials to work with? The internet? Who’ll pay for the bandwidth? Once it’s downloaded, what’s to stop it being put up on P2P, what will the artist make at the most from his/her creation? Not much.
You make money DJing my songs, then you need to give me a small cut of your income. The money generated goes to PPL, PPL pay artists. They make a healthy income from keeping it in a high interest account but that’s how the company survives.
don’t know what planet you live on, but in reality radio stations get PAID to play music. It’s called payola. Look into it. I get PRS and MCPS statements every few months which include radio, television and other royalties. I’m a musician, I’ve earnt money from radio royalties, that’s proof enough for me that artists get paid through royalties. BBC Radio wouldn’t be able to accept this due to the ethical connotations, I don’t know about other stations but you’re suggesting that the industry basically send them playlists along with a paycheck, which is possible I agree but certainly can’t be legal.
“What does that have to do with anything? Your argument is that because the music industry owns IP it can charge whatever it wants.” No, you misunderstand me. All I’m saying is that the IP of the car cannot be digitally represented in a useful manner for consumers like a medium such as music can. I can’t abuse the IP of a car by downloading one off of limewire can I? I therefore found it hard to contextualise your analogy. I still am to be honest.
Thus, if the music industry, can AFTER the fact start charging DJs a second time for its IP, why can’t Honda do the same thing?
Would it be fair to assume you think that if an advertising firm decided to use an artists music as their backing track, since they had already purchased the IP in the shops they do noit have to give the artist any further money?
I understand your point of view, but I just don’t think there’s enough money being generated from the pubs and clubs alone, and I think the venues are unwilling to fork up any more cash, so where else can it come from? I know this guy who owns a pub, and he sometimes has a pianist come and play. I once asked why he didn’t get a singer to accompany the pianist and he told me that to do that, legally, he had to buy a special liscence for vocals, but that it was a big jump from a music only liscence. Suppose they slap a DJ Liscence on his premises for £600 or he’s not legally allowed to have dj’s? Well he wouldn’t get one is the short answer.
I concede that the music industry is not exactly a wealth of talent these days but come one, you digress. There is some great stuff cutting through and quite a bit of rubbish too. But this IS besides the point SURELY. What do club DJ’s play? It’s mostly commercial, in that it is tied to major labels (be it a subsidury or whatever). A very few independent record labels, the ones who have 100% artist focus, do not worry about the commercial viability of an album, ep or single before release. But to most, music is numbers, it is business, it is souless. I am not trying to defend the industry as a whole here, some parts of it stink, but I do agree with the proposed new law because a pro DJ makes money from music and should give a small part of that back to the ARTISTS. Go check urself at http://www.ppluk.com/
PPL is a music industry organisation
collecting and distributing airplay
and public performance royalties in
the UK on behalf of over 3,000
record companies and 30,000
performers.
http://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_lf.nsf/PDFs/$file/Digital_DJ_Licence_FAQs.pdf
Worth a read….
I think everyone is too greedy. Greed drives the world and it sickens me.
Gentlemen, the world you are describing is one where everyone pays for every listening of a song, every reading of a story or every viewing of a movie. Eventually that concept will extend to other non-IP products. Where does this end?
Here’s the solution: Change the copyright law. Change the copyright law on music to five years maximum. After that, it goes into the public domain. That solves the DJ problem and forces the music industry to get the most from a song in the five years it is out (which is about all they care about anyway). Want to charge per listen? Sure. After five years, anyone can copy it, mix it, or listen to it.