The new digital DJ licence

[soundtracker]

All of the other forums I visit seem to be in the midst of heated debate following the NADJ seminar on Sunday. Yet here there has been very little mention. Now obviously this effects us all directly, and wondered what everyone was thinking?:)

[mikeee]

At 2.5p per track, it's very reasonable, and if the LWP had not existed / been involved, I think we would be looking at 10p to 20p per track and no recourse. My take on it after seeing the video is that almost everything is in place and they are just dotting the i's and crossing the t's and the last minute tweak.

[rob1963]

At 2.5p per track, it's very reasonable

If that's the case, I'm very impressed, as it will cost me less than £150, which is peanuts.

From what I'd heard, I was expecting it to be much closer to a four figure sum.

I'm also more pleased than ever that I have less than 6,000 tracks!

:D :D :D

[Boogie Boy]

When push comes to shove, I'll be buying the licence, beacuse it will make me legal and I don't like doing anything unlawful. However, I'd be much happier if the MCPS was a government agency, rather than a limited company. Their sole purpose in life is to squeeze as much money as they can, out of whoever they can and in the past they have used very heavy handed tactics to make people conform.

Personally, I don't think the arguments surrounding musicians'/composers'intellectual property rights morally stack up, when inventors of a myriad other useful items, that have helped mankind enormously, in a highly tangible way can only obtain patent rights that may only last 20 years? and in effect have to be bought.

In 2006, MCPS/PRS alliance distributed something over £200 million to their 50,000 members and they'll continue doing so up to 75 years after the member's death (if their tunes still attract copyright payments). Quite frankly, all the MCPS has acheived over the years is to make it incredibly easy for mediocre musicians to make a ****ed good living, because the royalty payments are so high and they have been relatively efficient in collecting them. Hence the somewhat parlous state of the music scene today.
Hundreds of boring bands filling hundreds of niche markets. Instead of uniting people, music is now segregating them into ever smaller music ghettos.

So far as the Digital Dubbing licence is concerned, I do feel that the MCPS is not addressing the single most worrying problem. That of free downloading via the internet and the lack of morals that is driving it. Most DJs, certainly ones who consider themselves professional will be using digital dubs of their own CD library in the most part. They've paid good money to buy CDs (or records) on which full MCPS copyright royalties would have been paid (approx 6.5% of retail price) by the manufacturer at time of initial release. When the copyright laws were origianlly drawn up, the digtal age was never envisaged, nor was the ability of normal everyday people to make any kind of recording of the recorded work. So, the copyright laws are completely and utterly out of date and non sensical in our modern age. Time shifting (video/HD recording) from the TV is commonplace and yet theoretically each and every one of us is guilty of committing a civil offence. Likewise dubbing onto computers/DVD/CD/minidisc/ipod/cassette tape/reel to reel tape of any music that we happen to like or need to use.

So, by all means levy 2.5 p on each track a DJ wishes to use, but at the same time levy something on every household that owns a computer/DVD recorder/CD recorder/iPod/cassette deck/VHS recorder etc etc. Of course they tried to introduce various levies at different times, but MPs, judging average sentiment to be against such levies, backed down on most occasions. By letting the average Joe get away with paying zilch, they've made a rod for their own backs that has manifested itself in almost anyone under the age of 25?30? thinking all music should be free.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

So far as the Digital Dubbing licence is concerned, I do feel that the MCPS is not addressing the single most worrying problem. That of free downloading via the internet and the lack of morals that is driving it.

That has nothing to do with the licence or the debate. Filesharing and piracy is dealt with by the BPI.

The MCPS is talking about a copying licence or format shifting. It is the physical act of copying a piece of music and being charged for it we are debating and this has nothing to do with downloading illegally.

[DJWayne]

So if i understand correctly if you bought all your songs from napster you would have no need for this as its just a dubbing licence?

[mikeee]

Rob, I think you buy the license "In Blocks", so £250.00, will buy you 10,000. Also remember, it includes VAT, so if your VAT registered, you can claim that back.
I'm sure Phil will come along and give an expert breakdown.

DJWayne, As I understand it, you will only need the license if you "COPY" the song to somewhere else or change the format.

[rob1963]

Rob, I think you buy the license "In Blocks", so £250.00, will buy you 10,000. Also remember, it includes VAT, so if your VAT registered, you can claim that back.
I'm sure Phil will come along and give an expert breakdown.

Thanks for that, Mike.

I don't earn enough to be VAT registered, but even £250 is still only about a third of what I was expecting to have to pay!

:)

[Corabar Steve]

So if i understand correctly if you bought all your songs from napster you would have no need for this as its just a dubbing licence?If you keep them in the format they came from Napster in the first place (WMA I think)

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

So if i understand correctly if you bought all your songs from napster you would have no need for this as its just a dubbing licence?

Correct. :)

[Corabar Steve]

But you're buggered if you want them as MP3s

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Rob, I think you buy the license "In Blocks", so £250.00, will buy you 10,000. Also remember, it includes VAT, so if your VAT registered, you can claim that back.
I'm sure Phil will come along and give an expert breakdown.



Or another member of the LWP...

The proposed and not as yet agreed license says this in principle.

In the first year you will pay to copy all of your tracks, so if you have 15000, then you oay the rate for that.

In the second year, you only pay for what you copy, so if you don't copy any, then you don't pay anything.

At the moment the first 'band' is 1-5000, which a lot of people think needs bringing down to say 1-1000 or 2000 and I personally feel that would be a fairer solution and we will be suggesting that at the next MCPS/LWP meeting.

The prices for this license is not set in stone, but has been proposed at anywhere between £250 - £500 depending on how many tracks you wish to copy.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

But you're buggered if you want them as MP3s

If you want to change the format then you need the licence.

[Corabar Steve]

Do PC based systems play WMA files then?

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Do PC based systems play WMA files then?

Yup.

[rob1963]

In the first year you will pay to copy all of your tracks, so if you have 15000, then you oay the rate for that.

In the second year, you only pay for what you copy, so if you don't copy any, then you don't pay anything.

This gets better all the time.

I was expecting to have to pay the same each year as I did in the first year.

:D :D :D

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

This gets better all the time.

I was expecting to have to pay the same each year as I did in the first year.

:D :D :D

You might if they don't change the banding.

[Boogie Boy]

That has nothing to do with the licence or the debate. Filesharing and piracy is dealt with by the BPI.

The MCPS is talking about a copying licence or format shifting. It is the physical act of copying a piece of music and being charged for it we are debating and this has nothing to do with downloading illegally.

However, it does have everything to do with whether or not a DJ of a certain age might view the licence as necessary and if said DJ then makes a copy of that free file, it's absolutely part of the debate. How exactly are the MCPS going to police the new licence? Raid DJs houses to see if they've been telling the truth on their returns?

I shuddered when the MCPS representative said they'll be contacting venues to make sure only licenced DJs would be able to perform in them. Too much like Big Brother for me and as one speaker said, the whole thing is opening up one heck of a can o' worms.

Do you remember the question, "if there were only 5 DJs in the UK would they still be introducing the licence?" By not answering that question I assumed the answer was no. In which case, their moral stance, concerning the need for protection of copyright and the copyright laws as they stand, flies completely out of the window. If it's not necessary for 5 why is it suddenly (they've had years and years to introduce this) absolutely necessary for XXXXX thousand? It's either morally right or it's not. Copyright law is either morally right or it's not. I'm not convinced and never have been, even prior to the digital age.

Where does this go next? Coming down hard on the millions of musicians worldwide who make photocopies of sheet music? Hey! that's been going on since the invention of the photocopier...and yet they turn a blind eye to that (and it is in effect the same act as dubbing under the law). This will be the tip of the iceberg.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

So you don't think we should pay to copy music then?

[DJWayne]

Comes down to the same old thing the music industry are not happy until you have paid for the same song 5 times over

[Vectis]

Do PC based systems play WMA files then?


Yup.

Yup - but in the case of Napster (for example) the DRM will only let them run on the machine they were downloaded to.

Next problem - getting playout software that handles WMAs.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Yup - but in the case of Napster (for example) the DRM will only let them run on the machine they were downloaded to.

Next problem - getting playout software that handles WMAs.

PCDJ does as does Virtual DJ

[rob1963]

I was expecting to have to pay the same each year as I did in the first year.


You might if they don't change the banding.

:sofa:

[Vectis]

PCDJ does as does Virtual DJ

Fair enough. I don't use those.

Doesn't get round the DRM problem though. If you try to play the .wma files on a different computer, tough. Bang goes your backup.

[DJWayne]

I shuddered when the MCPS representative said they'll be contacting venues to make sure only licenced DJs would be able to perform in them. Too much like Big Brother for me and as one speaker said, the whole thing is opening up one heck of a can o' worms.



You are having a laugh in the last 2 years i have only been asked for my PLI certificate once and have never been asked for my PAT test certificate so what chance do yuo think there is of venues checking licences??

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Fair enough. I don't use those.

Doesn't get round the DRM problem though. If you try to play the .wma files on a different computer, tough. Bang goes your backup.

The licence includes back up and if you are copying then the DRM issue will be dealt with I'm sure.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

You are having a laugh in the last 2 years i have only been asked for my PLI certificate once and have never been asked for my PAT test certificate so what chance do yuo think there is of venues checking licences??

PAT and PLI is not a legal requirement though is it?

The PRS and PPL currently go to venues to check that the correct licences have been purchased.

[Vectis]

Yep.

So back to Steve's question - Yes, you can download .wma files and play them out on the same computer without needing a licence.

But to break the DRM and/or change the format to something a bit more useable/portable, you need the licence.

Sounds straightforward enough to me :o


Right-o, time to get weeding and de-duplicating then. I'm almost at 70k tracks :(

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Yep.

So back to Steve's question - Yes, you can download .wma files and play them out on the same computer without needing a licence.

But to break the DRM and/or change the format to something a bit more useable/portable, you need the licence.

Sounds straightforward enough to me :o

If you want to make a copy, you will need the licence.

[DJWayne]

PAT and PLI is not a legal requirement though is it?

The PRS and PPL currently go to venues to check that the correct licences have been purchased.

Neither will this licence be as MCPS / PRS have no teeth to back it up even if you didnt have a licence what powers do they have ??

[CRAZY K]

This gets better all the time.

I was expecting to have to pay the same each year as I did in the first year.

:D :D :D

Why? you dont copy them every year --or do you:D

CRAZY K

[Boogie Boy]

You are having a laugh in the last 2 years i have only been asked for my PLI certificate once and have never been asked for my PAT test certificate so what chance do yuo think there is of venues checking licences??

Neither of these are compulsory by law, are they? They're another big con, but that's for another thread.:) I'm an old timer, can't you tell?

I've only been back dJing for 4 months and I've already been PRS inspected. Just my luck!

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Neither will this licence be as MCPS / PRS have no teeth to back it up even if you didnt have a licence what powers do they have ??

I can't answer that as I don't work for the MCPS.

As the copyright law stands, the licence will be a legal requirement if you wish to format shift or copy music.

[CRAZY K]

Neither of these are compulsory by law, are they? They're another big con, but that's for another thread.:) I'm an old timer, can't you tell?

I've only been back dJing for 4 months and I've already been PRS inspected. Just my luck!

HOW DID THEY GET YOUR DETAILS?

If you were only working for 4 months:eek:

CRAZY K

[Boogie Boy]

Neither will this licence be as MCPS / PRS have no teeth to back it up even if you didnt have a licence what powers do they have ??

For serious offences they have the full backing of the law behind them and if you've ever had to deal with them, you'd know how HEAVY they can get.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Neither of these are compulsory by law, are they? They're another big con, but that's for another thread.:) I'm an old timer, can't you tell?



I thought you said that you worked in clubs, so surely PAT for one wouldn't be applicable to you would it?

PLI and PAT aren''t a big con. They are there for the safety of the customer and anyone who tells you different is talking nonsense.

Let's not get back on that though as it has been debated a million times and this thread isn't going in that direction.

[TonyB]

Probably wouldn't happen but I would like to see any party that turn up at a venue and supply their own music (e.g. Ipod) to be asked if they had copied any music from CD's and if so, be told they have to pay a license fee before they can use it.

£250 min would be nice. Might put them off doing themselves :D

[Boogie Boy]

HOW DID THEY GET YOUR DETAILS?

If you were only working for 4 months:eek:

CRAZY K

'Cos I was playing at a venue that was having its PRS visit. . However, the guy who represented PRS didn't seem overly concerned. Hence, I welcome the MCPS Digital Dub licence on one level.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

However, the guy who represented PRS didn't seem overly concerned.

The PRS generally use sub contractors who are jst paid to collect information from DJs and venues hence the lack of concern.

I've had a couple of visits and tried to engage them in the debate about the licensing situation and the SG6 which was around at the time and the chap told me he was a subbie and knew nothing about the whole issue.

[Boogie Boy]

I thought you said that you worked in clubs, so surely PAT for one wouldn't be applicable to you would it?


Yes, I'm doing mobiles now (after a long break and previously doing discotheque clubs).

[DJWayne]

I've had 2 visits from PRS this year at a venue i do regularly both ending with the same result - i emailed them my playlist the next day.

The people who do the PRS visits havent a clue about DJ's as they are more concerned with live entertainment which is what i was told on both occaisions by different people.

PRS dont have an "army of enforcers" to inspect every venue for DJ's without licences and they well know it. They are just hoping we all bow down and do the right thing by having the licence to line the pockets of the record companies even more than we have already over the years.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Yes, I'm doing mobiles now (after a long break and previously doing discotheque clubs).

Yes, but you were talking about the fact they were a con and you're an old timer, which to me sort of said that you've been paying out for both for years whereas you've only been mobile for 4 months.:)

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

PRS dont have an "army of enforcers" to inspect every venue for DJ's without licences and they well know it.

No-one ever said they did Wayne.

If there were no police on the road does that mean you would not buy road tax or insurance?

[Boogie Boy]

No-one ever said they did Wayne.

If there were no police on the road does that mean you would not buy road tax or insurance?

Many millions of people wouldn't. Of that you can be sure.

[mikeee]

PRS, go around making notes on tracks played so that license money goes to the right people. But as they are in alliance with MCPS, wait for the bang on the door :) :) :) :)

[DJWayne]

No-one ever said they did Wayne.

If there were no police on the road does that mean you would not buy road tax or insurance?

No it doesnt but if you were told you needed to pay an extra tax and insurance just to drive on motorways you would feel short changed.

This is essentially what is happening we have all bought our music in one format - namely CD spending thousands of pounds and are now being told we have to pay again to use them if we copy them to our laptops / HD controllers.

As far as i am concerned for DJ's this should come under "fair use" but at the scent of money the record companies will do everything they can to penalise us - probably one of the best advertising mediums for music they have got.

[rob1963]

Why? you dont copy them every year --or do you:D

CRAZY K

No, Crazy, but when I heard about the digital DJ licence, I just thought you would pay the same amount every year (depending on how many tracks you had changed the format of) just like most other licences.

Luckily, it appears I was wrong!

:D :D :D

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

No it doesnt but if you were told you needed to pay an extra tax and insurance just to drive on motorways you would feel short changed.



As in toll booths?

[Boogie Boy]

Yes, but you were talking about the fact they were a con and you're an old timer, which to me sort of said that you've been paying out for both for years whereas you've only been mobile for 4 months.:)

I was first a mobile DJ in 1969. That surely qualifies me as an old timer.
Certainly didn't feel any need to have PLI then (although it would have been available), nor PAT tested equipment (and the equipment was possibly much less safe than it is today). I know, two wrongs don't make a right and on one level my argument is absolutely unconvincing.

When I had all my gear PAT tested recently, it all passed with flying colours and was all way over the required limits of safety. Now, that could change over the course of time and I could end up with a piece of equipment catching fire or becoming electrically dangerous. The odds of that happening are possibly millions to one.

Both PLI and PAT testing are undoubtedly a con, but a necessary part of modern day living, brought about by a nanny state and over zealous lawyers. Neither are required by law, so why bother, other than to maintain a status quo or through the compulsion of contemporaries to do so. Neither of them makes me a better DJ, per se. They just satisfy the paranoid nature of some people.

Now, question my old timer status!:D :D :D

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

No it doesnt but if you were told you needed to pay an extra tax and insurance just to drive on motorways you would feel short changed.

This is essentially what is happening we have all bought our music in one format - namely CD spending thousands of pounds and are now being told we have to pay again to use them if we copy them to our laptops / HD controllers.

As far as i am concerned for DJ's this should come under "fair use" but at the scent of money the record companies will do everything they can to penalise us - probably one of the best advertising mediums for music they have got.

If there was a fair use policy in this country then all of this would be much easier, agreed.

Ultimately though, if you want to change format or make a copy, then that work is is subject to copyright and royalties are payable. Unfortunately there is no way of getting away from that unless the copyright law is changed.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Both PLI and PAT testing are undoubtedly a con

So if someone is sueing you 'cos some of your equipment eithr fell on them or electrocuted them and you have PLI but not PAT. How do you prove that your equipment was tested for safety and do you think that the PLI would pay out? If on the other hand yo didn't have PLI, you would ten be out of a job and probably a home too.

Is that a con?

[rob1963]

So if someone is sueing you 'cos some of your equipment eithr fell on them or electrocuted them and you have PLI but not PAT. How do you prove that your equipment was tested for safety and do you think that the PLI would pay out? If on the other hand yo didn't have PLI, you would ten be out of a job and probably a home too.

Is that a con?

Just what I was thinking!

My £5 million PLI is £120 a year, which is a small price to pay for the peace of mind given...especially in these times where people are encouraged to make claims against people & try to get as much money as possible for even the simplest of accidents.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Anyway, let's try not to get off topic about this as it's a very important issue and one where we need opinions and ideas.

So, back to the proposed licence please.

[rob1963]

So presumably you'll need to carry around a load of licences...one for each year?

In other words, the original one which allowed you to rip xx number of tracks in the first place, and then one for every year after that (assuming you've ripped more tracks each year).

If that's the case, it's lucky I'm only a few years away from retirement!

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Sorry Wayne, I really need this to stay on topic please - if you wish to start another thread about PLI and PAT or add to another one then please do, but I have deleted your post as I don't want this to drift off.

[DJWayne]

Hmm here's an interesting point what happens to duplicate songs??

if you rip a load of say 70's compilations to your laptop you always end up with multiple copies of some of the songs so do you pay by the number of different tracks you have or simply by the number of files, does anyone know??

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Hmm here's an interesting point what happens to duplicate songs??

if you rip a load of say 70's compilations to your laptop you always end up with multiple copies of some of the songs so do you pay by the number of different tracks you have or simply by the number of files, does anyone know??

You pay by the number of files that have been copied as far as I'm aware. It might be the same track but it is till a copy.

[pagan_flame]

No, Crazy, but when I heard about the digital DJ licence, I just thought you would pay the same amount every year (depending on how many tracks you had changed the format of) just like most other licences.

Luckily, it appears I was wrong!

Now as one of the few people stupid enough to pay out for the Digital DJ licence (PPL), does this mean either that I now have to buy another one as well (14,000 tracks = £350) or that I can stop paying for the PPL one...? :confused:

[CRAZY K]

My problem is the mechanical transfer --from CD to hard drive or mini disc

The bit I have a problem with is the minimum cost per year after that initial transfer and was mentioned and not quantified far as I could tell from the broadcast, but that could be worryingly high.

Next year I will probably transfer very few tracks so ill get hit with the minimum cost--that does not seem fair and I would expect some kind of exemption. If I had car tax I could elect to take the car off the road--and not pay Road tax as Angela pointed out at the debate.

What happens if you have all your gear nicked and you make a business loss for a year-will they give you a refund because you used the copies uncommercially---i.e. you didnt make money out of playing your own legally bought and copied music? No need to ask that one.

I think the attitude is wrong--a Plasterer can buy a trowel and make a fortune from his skill--he doesnt pay royalties to the maker of the trowel or Band Q or the designer because the intellectual rights which I believe is the excuse being used are so ancient nobody can claim them.

Heres one for Robs quiz night:D

So who gets writers royalties when you play The Yellow Rose of Texas--:D

The answer is no one because no one knows who wrote it---go figure that:rolleyes: They wont be registered with PRS or MCPS then!

BUT ITS ALL ON MY HARD DRIVE:D

So the first thing to remember is exclude all tracks where the composer is unknown--

What do MCPS and PRS do with the money collected?
MCPS and PRS pay money collected to their writer, composer and music publisher members. Both organisations are ‘not for profit’ and only deduct a small admin/commission fee to cover operating costs.

So who exactly gets the money you have to pay for those tracks that no one is entitled to receive eh?

Its bull to say music writers will stop if they dont get their fair share--

What else would they do--work in Mc Donalds--yeah right:rolleyes:

There was an idea that we should pay some kind of overall licence to cover
all these situations which I can understand--but the method needs to be justified and fair--yes ill pay a reasonable fee for every track copied --but not an annual charge--its a one off lifetime transfer--we dont do it every year for goodness sake.

Why should we pay again and again?

I must admit I wish I could have been live at the debate and fired off some of these points---maybe its good I wasnt--

CRAZY K

[Boogie Boy]

So if someone is sueing you 'cos some of your equipment eithr fell on them or electrocuted them and you have PLI but not PAT. How do you prove that your equipment was tested for safety and do you think that the PLI would pay out? If on the other hand yo didn't have PLI, you would ten be out of a job and probably a home too.

Is that a con?

When has anyone ever successfully sued a DJ? Do you know of any?

I'm just asking, just like I asked the guy who sold it to me. His answer, "somebody tried to sue a DJ once, but he (the insurer) told them where to stick it" or words to that effect. He was quite candid with me and openly admitted it was money for old rope. Still, I've got my £5M worth, so I can sleep at night. Accidents can happen.:) Accidents!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DJWayne]

You pay by the number of files that have been copied as far as I'm aware. It might be the same track but it is till a copy.

So now to transfer our CD's we have to make sure that we neeed every track from a CD or selectively rip just the ones we dont already have, that just makes even more work of it.

PS our posts crossed over Darren no problem wouldnt have posted if i had seen your post first

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Now as one of the few people stupid enough to pay out for the Digital DJ licence (PPL), does this mean either that I now have to buy another one as well (14,000 tracks = £350) or that I can stop paying for the PPL one...? :confused:

They are currently thinking about how they will recompense people who bought the PPL one or the SG6.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

So now to transfer our CD's we have to make sure that we neeed every track from a CD or selectively rip just the ones we dont already have, that just makes even more work of it.

PS our posts crossed over Darren no problem wouldnt have posted if i had seen your post first

No worries.

It depends what the banding is going to be really and how many duplicates you have. Personally, I went through my drive and got rid of duplicates manually, but I know there is software out there that can do it for you, so that shouldn't really be a massive problem.

[soundtracker]

When has anyone ever successfully sued a DJ? Do you know of any?

I'm just asking, just like I asked the guy who sold it to me. His answer, "somebody tried to sue a DJ once, but he (the insurer) told them where to stick it" or words to that effect. He was quite candid with me and openly admitted it was money for old rope. Still, I've got my £5M worth, so I can sleep at night. Accidents can happen.:) Accidents!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer - Yes
But can we please stay ON TOPIC PLEASE

[rob1963]

Hmm here's an interesting point what happens to duplicate songs??

if you rip a load of say 70's compilations to your laptop you always end up with multiple copies of some of the songs so do you pay by the number of different tracks you have or simply by the number of files, does anyone know??

Why would you keep a load of duplicates when ripping from CDs though?

I recently ripped all my CDs & have lots of compilations, so I ended up with about 500 duplicates...but I just deleted them.

Surely that is one of the advantages of digital DJing?

Why would you want 10 copies of the same track?

:confused:

[soundtracker]

Why would you keep a load of duplicates when ripping from CDs though?

I recently ripped all my CDs & have lots of compilations, so I ended up with about 500 duplicates...but I just deleted them.

Surely that is one of the advantages of digital DJing?

Why would you want 10 copies of the same track?

:confused:
Spot on Rob

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Why would you keep a load of duplicates when ripping from CDs though?

I recently ripped all my CDs & have lots of compilations, so I ended up with about 500 duplicates...but I just deleted them.

Surely that is one of the advantages of digital DJing?

Why would you want 10 copies of the same track?

:confused:

I think Wayne was making the point that it takes a lot longer to go through each CD and select the tracks you need before you rip them.

[rob1963]

I think Wayne was making the point that it takes a lot longer to go through each CD and select the tracks you need before you rip them.

Ahhh...sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick.

[JAMdisco]

I welcome the idea of a licence BUT will it still stop the £50 disco's. I reckon not. Anthing that can make us appear more professional and thus charge a little more is better, but I can't see how this would benefit us (apart from it being a legal requirement).

[DJWayne]

Having a thoughtful day today :)

So lets say you pay for a licence for 15000 songs how do they know which 15000 you have paid for do you have to supply them with a list of your entire collection?

and if they dont have a list what stops you interchanging songs within the number of files you have paid for?

If you buy a licence what are their auditing rights can they turn up at a gig demanding to inspect your files or do they have to arrange to visit you at a predefined time

So many questions :)

[Boogie Boy]

Speaking as someone who bought well over 15,000 records and buys many, many CDs in order to obtain those same tracks in a digital format......I think I've supported the music industry enough.

OK, I realise that by the letter of the law, dubbing/transferring is illegal (excluding fair use..does that actually exist in the UK?). But so is driving over the speed limit (and most of us do that every single day) and a plethora of other things. I can't help thinking DJs (just like motorists by the government)are being treated as cash cows by MCPS, 'cos they know they can and will get away with it.

I'll ask again. Why wouldn't they want to do this if only 5 DJs existed (because the ratio of earnings to expenses would surely be roughly the same; it's not as if there are huge earnings to cost benfits the more there are as it's not one standard price for all circumstances)?

[One Vision]

I dont think any of this is enforceable in a court of law, there is simply way too much yeh but no but if I do it this way I'm ok but if I do it that way its illegal its way too messy.
How can they prove exactly how many tracks you have?
You could have 5 independent hard drives but only have so many on each, so you could actually have 100,000 tracks but only be seen to be using 10,000 as you happened to only take the one hard drive that particular night as it was all that was required for that particular gig.

I have pretty much got 7000 tracks on my hard drive but quite a few of the tracks are actually duplicate throughout the hard drive and sometimes more than just doubled so unless they are willing to sit down and actually count the tracks how can they say how many you have or how many more tracks do you have different from last year.

Any court in the land would not have a clue were to start on this so were would they get their expert knowledge from to be able to enforce it correctly?
No doubt an independent body? So who is going to pay for the independent body in the first place?

If somebody is caught physically copying media whether music, games, DVD or whatever and have all the gear within their property to mass produce for profit then yes thats enforceable as its pretty much black and white but as far as whats being proposed its a bit of a joke to think they can enforce it without actually losing money when they take somebody to court and its kicked out due to too many discrepancies in the actual law trying to be enforced, somebody WILL find a loophole and will then be thrown out of court.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Having a thoughtful day today :)

So lets say you pay for a licence for 15000 songs how do they know which 15000 you have paid for do you have to supply them with a list of your entire collection?

and if they dont have a list what stops you interchanging songs within the number of files you have paid for?

If you buy a licence what are their auditing rights can they turn up at a gig demanding to inspect your files or do they have to arrange to visit you at a predefined time

So many questions :)

To which I don't always have answers, but will put to the MCPS at our next meeting.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Speaking as someone who bought well over 15,000 records and buys many, many CDs in order to obtain those same tracks in a digital format......I think I've supported the music industry enough.



But you've also made money from it, so where's the arguement?

I've done the same. I have 10,000 records sat in a garage which I updated onto CD and then some of them I've even downloaded and bought again to save me looking for the CD with the particular track.

But I make money from playing music, whichever format it is in.

[Boogie Boy]

Another thing.

It was said that DJs who work with original CDs or records wouldn't have to pay for a licence. That means even someone who may have picked up their entire collection from charity shops wouldn't have to pay one extra dime....and yet they wouldn't have contributed one red cent to the music industy's coffers, nor the composers of the tracks.

There's one loop hole straight away, that could be driven through their proposed digtal dub licence with a tank, by a qualified lawyer.

[Dragonfly]

also something was mentioned about international djs and the country that the music was coverted in ??? .... my mum lives in spain , has a computer and i have a spare 3 months :D :D :D

[DJWayne]

Another thing.

It was said that DJs who work with original CDs or records wouldn't have to pay for a licence. That means even someone who may have picked up their entire collection from charity shops wouldn't have to pay one extra dime....and yet they wouldn't have contributed one red cent to the music industy's coffers, nor the composers of the tracks.

There's one loop hole straight away, that could be driven through their proposed digtal dub licence with a tank, by a qualified lawyer.

This is not about a performing licence its about having the right to transfer your music from one format to another.

I am not an expert but i think you would have great difficulty buying MP3's in a charity shop ;)

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Another thing.

It was said that DJs who work with original CDs or records wouldn't have to pay for a licence. That means even someone who may have picked up their entire collection from charity shops wouldn't have to pay one extra dime....and yet they wouldn't have contributed one red cent to the music industy's coffers, nor the composers of the tracks.

There's one loop hole straight away, that could be driven through their proposed digtal dub licence with a tank, by a qualified lawyer.

Why is that a loop hole? They wouldn't be copying anything so would have no need for the licence.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

This is not about a performing licence its about having the right to transfer your music from one format to another.



Correct. :)

[Boogie Boy]

But you've also made money from it, so where's the arguement?


The arguement is quite simple. I may have made money out of playing (many/most) of the records, but so have the composers and the record biz in general. The nature of a DJ is to be forever buying new material, so it's not as if we're wanting something for nothing. Who knows how many people might be tempted to go and buy a certain CD because a DJ played it. As it is, DJs have been instrumental in the sales of records and general rise in the fortunes of the music biz, never more so than dance music. There already exists a quid pro quo between DJs and music companies. However, as we all know, the music biz has always wanted its cake and to eat it too.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Who knows how many people might be tempted to go and buy a certain CD because a DJ played it. As it is, DJs have been instrumental in the sales of records and general rise in the fortunes of the music biz, never more so than dance music.

Perhaps in the clubs and for dance music that may be true, but you don't really believe that someone playing dancing queen on a Saturday at a wedding encourages another person to go and buy it do you?

[Dragonfly]

Perhaps in the clubs and for dance music that may be true, but you don't really believe that someone playing dancing queen on a Saturday at a wedding encourages another person to go and buy it do you?

indeed not but there has been occasions for all of us i'm sure when we have played a track and 2 or 3 people have come up and asked who it was by and what it was called?? presumedly they liked it and may want to get hold of it for themselves??

[Boogie Boy]

Why is that a loop hole? They wouldn't be copying anything so would have no need for the licence.

BUT it brings into question the whole need for a licence.:bang:

DJ A pays full price for CDs and wants to convert these to another format. In doing so he contributes ££££s to the music biz, BUT has to pay extra in the form of a licence to do so.

DJ B buys all his tracks from a charity shop and therefore contributes nothing/zilch/nada to the music biz, BUT because he uses said CDs and doesn't transfer tracks to another medium he can do so without any further payment.

Both DJs make money from playing the tracks. So what is soooo fundamentally wrong with DJ A's actions that he is further penalised by the very people that he helps support?

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this scenario?

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

indeed not but there has been occasions for all of us i'm sure when we have played a track and 2 or 3 people have come up and asked who it was by and what it was called?? presumedly they liked it and may want to get hold of it for themselves??

But a couple of people hardly promotes the music does it and the stuff that we mainly play is stuff that people are already well aware of.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

BUT it brings into question the whole need for a licence.:bang:

DJ A pays full price for CDs and wants to convert these to another format. In doing so he contributes ££££s to the music biz, BUT has to pay extra in the form of a licence to do so.

DJ B buys all his tracks from a charity shop and therefore contributes nothing/zilch/nada to the music biz, BUT because he uses said CDs and doesn't transfer tracks to another medium he can do so without any further payment.

Both DJs make money from playing the tracks. So what is soooo fundamentally wrong with DJ A's actions that he is further penalised by the very people that he helps support?

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this scenario?


Simple. One DJ is making a copy which is subject to royalties and the other one isn't. Why does it make any difference where the CD is bought from? We are talking about a licence to copy tracks.

[Shaun]

The fee seems fair, but I'm holding judgment till they've released the press release with all the facts.

How do they propose to police this, or will it be self-policing?. I've also heard talk that DJs that aren't digital will need an exception certificate. How do they plan to get the information out to the thousands of DJs that don't have or use the internet?.

It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.

[DJWayne]

DJ B buys all his tracks from a charity shop and therefore contributes nothing/zilch/nada to the music biz, BUT because he uses said CDs and doesn't transfer tracks to another medium he can do so without any further payment.




If you buy music second hand someone has already paid the royalties etc on that recording when it was new so the charity shop scenario doesnt hold any water the record company have already had their slice :)

[Tom]

I know some of you may disagree but I have been thinking along the lines of this. I have already asked Darren this and he told me what I was expecting to hear but...Lets say a shop sells a cd and you have the opition to pay a little extra for the cd but this covers for a licence to copy that cd and that one only???

Also at the NADJ show there was people saying that have 20,000 and over trakcs in teir collection. Not I don't know about you lot but I have just over 7000 tracks and about 98% of requests I have got. The other 2% has been really new songs (ie, pre-release) and obscure songs.

TBH if this does get out of hand I think I may go buy some CD players to save all the fuss. I know that it would cost me quite a bit to do so but if this licence takes to long or the "banding" is to much then I may have to change the way I play my music.

[Corabar Steve]

I think Wayne was making the point that it takes a lot longer to go through each CD and select the tracks you need before you rip them.

So rip the entire CD & delete duplicates after. That's what I did when I first converted, & I actually found some recordings were better quality than others of the same song that I had been using because I knew which CD they were on.



Am I the only one who found the MCPS survey / prize draw a bit suspect?

"Well, we know these DJs use MP3s because they said so on the draw form, & the winner is going to need a licence........"

[rob1963]

So rip the entire CD & delete duplicates after. That's what I did when I first converted

I did exactly the same thing, Steve.

Not so much great minds as common sense!

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Am I the only one who found the MCPS survey / prize draw a bit suspect?

"Well, we know these DJs use MP3s because they said so on the draw form, & the winner is going to need a licence........"

Don't get what you mean?

[rob1963]

Don't get what you mean?

Darren,

I think he means that all the competition entries will contain information on who uses digital DJing, which they can then check against their records to see if any of them don't have the appropriate licence, in which case they can take the appropriate action.

If I'm wrong, just ignore me!

:rolleyes:

[Corabar Steve]

Covert way of finding out who they'd need to chase for the licence.

[rob1963]

Covert way of finding out who they'd need to chase for the licence.

As I thought!

:D

[Tom]

I didn't fill mine in anyway so i'm ok for the time being. lol

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Covert way of finding out who they'd need to chase for the licence.

I doubt it very very much.

[Have a disco]

I would need a licence for at least 25000 tunes, I carry various mixes of one tune for different circumstances and Im not willing to forgo half my music to Please the MCPS and PPL

So what fee are they going to charging for that. I am only one DJ after all with just 1 disco so 15,000 aint enuff is the licence going to cover our needs or just there limit to swap from format to format as technology changes

For this reason is why I keep to CD's or CDr's. I dont want to buy 2 licences to cover all of my music. I may carry to gigs or clubs I work at

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I would need a licence for at least 25000 tunes, I carry various mixes of one tune for different circumstances and Im not willing to forgo half my music to Please the MCPS and PPL

So what fee are they going to charging for that. I am only one DJ after all with just 1 disco so 15,000 aint enuff is the licence going to cover our needs or just there limit to swap from format to format as technology changes

For this reason is why I keep to CD's or CDr's. I dont want to buy 2 licences to cover all of my music. I may carry to gigs or clubs I work at

I get the feeling I'm going to be explaining this over and over again....

We are not sure what the exact figures are or the banding, but they have said it will be between £250 and £500. So, in the first year you will have to apy to copy 25000 and then each year you will pay for however many tracks you copy or change format of.

The licence will cover any format to any format once it is agreed with the MCPS and PPL.

CDrs are still copies so will be subject to copyright.

[Candybeatdiscos]

I welcome the idea of a licence BUT will it still stop the £50 disco's. I reckon not. Anthing that can make us appear more professional and thus charge a little more is better, but I can't see how this would benefit us (apart from it being a legal requirement).

To be honest there are many dj's who do not declare tax (that is also a legal requirement) so what chance do we have that they will comply with this law?

Like Shaun states I will wait till the press release comes out and look at the way it will be policed.

[Boogie Boy]

Simple. One DJ is making a copy which is subject to royalties and the other one isn't. Why does it make any difference where the CD is bought from? We are talking about a licence to copy tracks.

Quite true if the world were only black and white, but it ain't. There's a whole mess of greys in between. The Digital Dub licence penalises the 'good' guy and lets the 'bad' guy get off scott free in my example. It's rather like if we were back in the 1930's in a certain country where they did unspeakable things to a certain faction of their society. No one questioned the morals of the 'laws' handed down to them by their government, did they? No one questioned if it should be done.

So, I'm afraid it ain't as black and white as you'd like to make it.

I have the impression this is all just a rubber stamp job and you're one of the guys who helped it through.

BTW: It's arguments like the one I and others have put forward that leads to a pressure group being formed to lobby those concerned. Something that can quite often lead to changes in policy in a democratic society. So, who's side are you on?

[CRAZY K]

I get the feeling I'm going to be explaining this over and over again....

We are not sure what the exact figures are or the banding, but they have said it will be between £250 and £500. So, in the first year you will have to apy to copy 25000 and then each year you will pay for however many tracks you copy or change format of.

The licence will cover any format to any format once it is agreed with the MCPS and PPL.

CDrs are still copies so will be subject to copyright.

Why should I pay a minimum of £250 when I will only be probably transferring 25 tracks next year due to the specialist nature of my business.

Spose I could use CDs--its daft isnt it? :bang: :bang: :bang:

CRAZY K

[Richard Veal]

As i generally play the same songs over and over think i will have the most common songs as digital no more than 1000 and delete the rest and go back to cd. In fact what am i saying i only use about 5-10 mp'3 on any given night anyway as I am almost a completely video show. Will this licence cover transfering dvd into mpeg if they havn't thought that far ahead i may have found a loophole :)
i cant say i agree with the whole issue of this copying licence. IMO i bought the cd / dvd , i'll do what i like with it, thank you. seems very petty that this is all over transfering from one media to another I cant see where its losing them money by doing so, as long as it was purchased legally in the first instance where's the need.

[Mission]

So presumably you'll need to carry around a load of licences...one for each year?

In other words, the original one which allowed you to rip xx number of tracks in the first place, and then one for every year after that (assuming you've ripped more tracks each year).


And hopefully there would be an easy way to get an "I don't need a licence this year because I will be downloading all new tracks and not format shifting in any way" opt out letter from the licensing web site ?

So year one you may pay a higher fee to do most of your tracks, year two the minimum fee because you still want to rip CD's and year three your just going to download because hopefully "All" new releases are available to download. So that year and subsequent years you may never need another licence if you don't buy CD's just to rip.

[CRAZY K]

:D
BUT it brings into question the whole need for a licence.:bang:

DJ A pays full price for CDs and wants to convert these to another format. In doing so he contributes ££££s to the music biz, BUT has to pay extra in the form of a licence to do so.

DJ B buys all his tracks from a charity shop and therefore contributes nothing/zilch/nada to the music biz, BUT because he uses said CDs and doesn't transfer tracks to another medium he can do so without any further payment.

Both DJs make money from playing the tracks. So what is soooo fundamentally wrong with DJ A's actions that he is further penalised by the very people that he helps support?

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this scenario?

I agree with this--if 2 DJs are playing in a Hotel--one upstairs, one downstairs --one with original CDs --one with Digital copies from original CDs
on a HDD--first DJ is paying no more taxes --second one is.

It might be the law or the rules--but dont forget the law is often an ass!

The reality is this--the MCPS was in my opinion set up to police record producing companies who of course do this mechanical transfer process on a MASSIVE INDUSTRIAL scale compared to recorded musical entertainers like us.

Some one at PPL/ PRS included this as an afterthought when digital started to become popular a few years for DJs as an extra Cash Cow.

10 years ago I would guess--no DJ would have incurred this cost and yet they were making money out of using their legally owned CD playing Dancing Queen.

Now playing the same CD track but transferred to digital we suddenly get taxed--the sound coming out the speakers is the same.

The profit made by the DJ is similar allowing for inflation--whats the difference.

Perhaps someone can justify that--dont just say thats the law:rolleyes:

I dont object to paying something-- but I would say this legislation needs changing after some logic has been applied.

Due allowance must be made for the big difference between us and the large
operators making MASSIVE profits.

CRAZY K

[Boogie Boy]

:D

I agree with this--if 2 DJs are playing in a Hotel--one upstairs, one downstairs --one with original CDs --one with Digital copies from original CDs
on a HDD--first DJ is paying no more taxes --second one is.

It might be the law or the rules--but dont forget the law is often an ass!

The reality is this--the MCPS was in my opinion set up to police record producing companies who of course do this mechanical transfer process on a MASSIVE INDUSTRIAL scale compared to recorded musical entertainers like us.

Some one at PPL/ PRS included this as an afterthought when digital started to become popular a few years for DJs as an extra Cash Cow.

10 years ago I would guess--no DJ would have incurred this cost and yet they were making money out of using their legally owned CD playing Dancing Queen.

Now playing the same CD track but transferred to digital we suddenly get taxed--the sound coming out the speakers is the same.

The profit made by the DJ is similar allowing for inflation--whats the difference.

Perhaps someone can justify that--dont just say thats the law:rolleyes:

I dont object to paying something-- but I would say this legislation needs changing after some logic has been applied.

Due allowance must be made for the big difference between us and the large
operators making MASSIVE profits.

CRAZY K

B-I-N-G-O

[Candybeatdiscos]

Sounds about right to me

[robbiedj]

Now, let's get this straight. Darren is trying to help you all but you have all made one fundamental error.

This is a Digital Dubbing Licence NOT a DJ Licence. It will apply to DJs, but also to fitness trainers, aerobics and dance instructors, coach, riverboat companies etc if they use the technology to make a profit from the music.

As for the policing of it, they want to link it to the Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) which is issued and policed by local authorities. (By the way, make sure dustbin lid is shut properly).

And, by the way, MCPS may not work for the unknown composer, but PPL work for the artist(s) on the track.

And, Richard, you have bought a cd, which, if you care to read the small print, you are not allowed to "copy, lend or use for public performance". All you "own" is a piece of plastic and the right to listen to the music yourself. In fact the small print says this right may be revoked by the copyright holder at any time.

What nobody seems to grasp is the fact that we are dealing with copyright laws dating from Disraeli's time, which have never been updated to fit progress. The copying argument has been going on since the first C60 tape was produced, over 40 years ago.

[One Vision]

Now, let's get this straight. Darren is trying to help you all but you have all made one fundamental error.


From what I can see its actually a debate on the future of DJ'ing.

Looking at a completely different angle here, my mate deals with an agent and on all contracts it clearly states that the venue is responsible for all required licencing blah blah blah, so how is this going to work?

[DJWayne]

And, Richard, you have bought a cd, which, if you care to read the small print, you are not allowed to "copy, lend or use for public performance". All you "own" is a piece of plastic and the right to listen to the music yourself. In fact the small print says this right may be revoked by the copyright holder at any time.

What nobody seems to grasp is the fact that we are dealing with copyright laws dating from Disraeli's time, which have never been updated to fit progress. The copying argument has been going on since the first C60 tape was produced, over 40 years ago.

So the venue PPL covers us for CD's or records but not for digital music so we can all use our original CD's without fear of prosecution or having to pay this stealh tax on our music.

The copyright laws are useless and out of date i agree and until they are overhauled MCPS are going to hae a real hard time enforcing this new licence.

If the equipment manufacturers are keeping up with the demands of the modern DJ the law makers and record companies should endeavour to do the same and update the laws to reflect the digital age we all now live in :)

[Richard Veal]

To be honest - i'm not really worried about it, when it comes i will address it, there's nothing i can do about it - it's like everything you have to accept change. If its too steep I will go back to cd for the very few tracks i do play.

Would be a different story, for me, if this is to include all media i.e video for example.

[pagan_flame]

I get the feeling I'm going to be explaining this over and over again....

We are not sure what the exact figures are or the banding, but they have said it will be between £250 and £500. So, in the first year you will have to apy to copy 25000 and then each year you will pay for however many tracks you copy or change format of.

The licence will cover any format to any format once it is agreed with the MCPS and PPL.

So how about if you have 14,000+ tracks already on an HDD - have sold on un-needed CD's once tracks have been ripped, and haven't got receipts to prove that every single MP3 was paid for?

That's me royally stuffed, I expect, despite having the PPL licence since it came out. Haveta keep an eye out for guests with clipboards and have one hand on the laptop lid at all times... :rolleyes:

[sleah]

So how about if you have 14,000+ tracks already on an HDD - have sold on un-needed CD's once tracks have been ripped, and haven't got receipts to prove that every single MP3 was paid for?

That's me royally stuffed, I expect, despite having the PPL licence since it came out. Haveta keep an eye out for guests with clipboards and have one hand on the laptop lid at all times... :rolleyes:

I think the only way you could have got away with not having the originals, is if you bought the SG6 licence.:confused:

If you have ripped a CD to digital, then sold the CD, technically your copy is an illegal pirate copy:eek: unless you hold the SG6.
The PPL DDJ licence made it quite clear that you had to retain the originals.
I considered selling my CD single collection after I made CD-R compilations (pre mp3) years ago, but something stopped me.
Thank goodness I didn't!!

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Quite true if the world were only black and white, but it ain't. There's a whole mess of greys in between. The Digital Dub licence penalises the 'good' guy and lets the 'bad' guy get off scott free in my example. It's rather like if we were back in the 1930's in a certain country where they did unspeakable things to a certain faction of their society. No one questioned the morals of the 'laws' handed down to them by their government, did they? No one questioned if it should be done.

So, I'm afraid it ain't as black and white as you'd like to make it.

I have the impression this is all just a rubber stamp job and you're one of the guys who helped it through.

BTW: It's arguments like the one I and others have put forward that leads to a pressure group being formed to lobby those concerned. Something that can quite often lead to changes in policy in a democratic society. So, who's side are you on?

I am not one of the guys who is helping it through and I object to you even posting that. We have been the pressure group for the last 2 and a half years that led to the MCPS even talking to us as an industry.

I am aanswering questions as honestly as I can and dispelling any myths as well as I can. I'm telling you how it is with the copyright law in this country, like it or not.

A lot of people still don't understand what this issue is about which is why I am trying to answer their questions.

[wayne_uk]

Interesting debate,
lots of interesting questions,
and lots of welcome answers
I will continue to read with interest
well done Darren keep them answers coming

[CRAZY K]

Now, let's get this straight. Darren is trying to help you all but you have all made one fundamental error.

This is a Digital Dubbing Licence NOT a DJ Licence. It will apply to DJs, but also to fitness trainers, aerobics and dance instructors, coach, riverboat companies etc if they use the technology to make a profit from the music.

As for the policing of it, they want to link it to the Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) which is issued and policed by local authorities. (By the way, make sure dustbin lid is shut properly).

And, by the way, MCPS may not work for the unknown composer, but PPL work for the artist(s) on the track.

And, Richard, you have bought a cd, which, if you care to read the small print, you are not allowed to "copy, lend or use for public performance". All you "own" is a piece of plastic and the right to listen to the music yourself. In fact the small print says this right may be revoked by the copyright holder at any time.

What nobody seems to grasp is the fact that we are dealing with copyright laws dating from Disraeli's time, which have never been updated to fit progress. The copying argument has been going on since the first C60 tape was produced, over 40 years ago.

Exactly Robbie--so isnt it now about time everything got updated and the Industry representatives pushing for that to happen?

Why were those guys I saw on the broadcast Sunday from MCPS/PRS/ PPL or whoever including the ex DJ not agreeing that the time has come to enter the 21st century which we now live in.

Ironically I read in the paper today that Coldplay (I dont collect their music) are giving away free downloads and offering free concerts.

The battle against illegal downloads has been lost--I wonder if we are conveniently around to make up some lost revenue?


CRAZY K

[Boogie Boy]

I am not one of the guys who is helping it through and I object to you even posting that. We have been the pressure group for the last 2 and a half years that led to the MCPS even talking to us as an industry.

Good to know. So, will you now let them know of the concerns many of us have and of our more lucid arguments against the proposed licence?

[Have a disco]

I get the feeling I'm going to be explaining this over and over again....

We are not sure what the exact figures are or the banding, but they have said it will be between £250 and £500. So, in the first year you will have to apy to copy 25000 and then each year you will pay for however many tracks you copy or change format of.

The licence will cover any format to any format once it is agreed with the MCPS and PPL.

CDrs are still copies so will be subject to copyright.

Another leagl loop hole opens up then as I am on so many promo labels whom already allow me to transfer there tunes over to CDR for my usage only? which basically slaps in the face of MCPS and PPL as they are promo copies?????

We are promoting there material over and over again wether old or new. PS I do buy original CD's on compilations as well to just cover my rear end. Therefore nulifying the problem in a sense.

But this will not solve the ONGOING problem unless they are going to be able to police it at any proper level. Unless they give the job to the busybody Council Officials whom dont check NOW.

Just what is going to change apart from PPL coming round once in a BLUE MONDAY moon.

In reality DRM has failed amongst many other attempts to regulate MP3 music. And before we know it another new format will be upon us? So it is as usual legislation failing, the DJ WHOM PROMOTES THEIR MUSIC FOR FREE AND GET NOTHING REALLY FOR IT?????? Prehaps it is time promo DJS were paid for doing there job???? Promoting

PS £250 is just too much for the average DJ that only earns £50 a night for helping doing a disco every now and then???

I suggest that £120 a year would be more favourable for getting all DJ's onboard but this must be Data protected to ensure privacy. Rather them passing information left right and centre. Some people only last a year. Maybe not even 3 months. So scaring off potential DJ's into the industry is just not the way

[DazzyD]

Good to know. So, will you now let them know of the concerns many of us have and of our more lucid arguments against the proposed licence?

I think that's what Darren and the DJ Working Party have been doing for quite some time. Those who've seen my posts of a while ago will know that I've been anxiously awaiting this new licence and Darren has given me what info he could when he could.

But I think some of you might expect this next question as it's the one which I've already asked several times in the past.

Darren, will this new licence cover copying karaoke CD+Gs to hard-disc? Can I get this licence to start using my vast MP3+G collection legally? I know nothing is finalised yet but I'm sure you remember my concerns regarding this issue. If this is resolved, I'll happily apply for this licence regardless of the cost (within reason) as it will make my job so much easier.

There were earlier posts about MCPS using "covert" methods to seek out the digital DJs. Wouldn't a much easier method just be to read the posts on this forum and others like it? Anyone can come on here and read the posts and get details about people from the Show Public Profile function. But I'm pretty sure that MCPS/PPL have already thought of this!

[kilmeedyman]

When has anyone ever successfully sued a DJ? Do you know of any?

I'm just asking, just like I asked the guy who sold it to me. His answer, "somebody tried to sue a DJ once, but he (the insurer) told them where to stick it" or words to that effect. He was quite candid with me and openly admitted it was money for old rope. Still, I've got my £5M worth, so I can sleep at night. Accidents can happen.:) Accidents!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahh, interesting question.

Without breaking any confidences etc. I can tell you that two NADJ members have had their PLI successfully claimed on in the same number of years.

[kilmeedyman]

From what I can see its actually a debate on the future of DJ'ing.

Looking at a completely different angle here, my mate deals with an agent and on all contracts it clearly states that the venue is responsible for all required licencing blah blah blah, so how is this going to work?

Well let me tell your friend a bit of bad news. If the DJ plays at the venue adn it is not properly licenced for public performance of the music, the venue adn the DJ are jointly and severally liable for any resulting penalty, the contract is irrelevant.

Proven case law, that one, I'm afraid.

[kilmeedyman]

I think the only way you could have got away with not having the originals, is if you bought the SG6 licence.:confused:

If you have ripped a CD to digital, then sold the CD, technically your copy is an illegal pirate copy:eek: unless you hold the SG6.
The PPL DDJ licence made it quite clear that you had to retain the originals.
I considered selling my CD single collection after I made CD-R compilations (pre mp3) years ago, but something stopped me.
Thank goodness I didn't!!

Yep, spot on answer.

[kilmeedyman]

I think that's what Darren and the DJ Working Party have been doing for quite some time. Those who've seen my posts of a while ago will know that I've been anxiously awaiting this new licence and Darren has given me what info he could when he could.

But I think some of you might expect this next question as it's the one which I've already asked several times in the past.

Darren, will this new licence cover copying karaoke CD+Gs to hard-disc? Can I get this licence to start using my vast MP3+G collection legally? I know nothing is finalised yet but I'm sure you remember my concerns regarding this issue. If this is resolved, I'll happily apply for this licence regardless of the cost (within reason) as it will make my job so much easier.

There were earlier posts about MCPS using "covert" methods to seek out the digital DJs. Wouldn't a much easier method just be to read the posts on this forum and others like it? Anyone can come on here and read the posts and get details about people from the Show Public Profile function. But I'm pretty sure that MCPS/PPL have already thought of this!

Yes the karaoke extension they are proposing to the proposed licence will probably be £25 to £50

[One Vision]

I think its being made way too complicated to be enforceable, if a licence is eventually required that's fare enough but surely it should be a case of if using for public performance a licence is required regardless of were the source of the music has come from.
By buying the licence you are buying the rights to use publicly simple as that, but if caught in the act performing publicly with no current licence then yes you get done, no ifs or buts you get done.
But all this other rubbish about so many tracks etc. etc. yeh but no but is making it unworkable and just angers people.

Whats this karaoke extension rubbish?
I know its all supposed to help working Djs but I think most of the proposals are doing the complete opposite.

[soundtracker]

The new licence is NOT for public performance - it is for changing format

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

People are simply not listening and reading into this what they want to Pete.

[DazzyD]

Yes the karaoke extension they are proposing to the proposed licence will probably be £25 to £50

Why thank you, kind Sir, for that info which has just put a great big smile on my face.

I've currently ripped over 20,000 CD+G tracks (from years of collecting including loads of rare stuff) but have got about 12-14000 unique tracks so I expect to be paying the high end of that figure.

So my next question is will I need to pay for the licence in one go or has other payment methods been discussed (ie. monthly direct debit, quarterly payments, etc)?

I would much rather pay in installments - don't want my 3 kids to go hungry for a few weeks cos I've had to fork a few hundred quid out in one go!


I think its being made way too complicated to be enforceable, if a licence is eventually required that's fare enough but surely it should be a case of if using for public performance a licence is required regardless of were the source of the music has come from.
By buying the licence you are buying the rights to use publicly simple as that, but if caught in the act performing publicly with no current licence then yes you get done, no ifs or buts you get done.
But all this other rubbish about so many tracks etc. etc. yeh but no but is making it unworkable and just angers people.

Whats this karaoke extension rubbish?
I know its all supposed to help working Djs but I think most of the proposals are doing the complete opposite.

I think a lot of people are in the same boat that I was few years ago when all this started. I can assure you that no-one was more concerned with this licence than me.

IT IS NOT a licence for performance or broadcasting or playing music of any kind. Those licences are usually held by the venues that we work in.

IT IS a licence to enable us to LEGALLY make digital copies of copyrighted work - something which we've not been able to do legally due to copyright laws.

The original licence and original amendments didn't allow the copying of CD+Gs to hard-drive so, technically, by using a computer for karaoke was illegal (despite the huge amount of software/hardware designed exactly for this purpose). Now the new proposals include copying karaoke digitally so I'm all for it so long as the price is reasonable.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Thank you for at least one person listening, reading and understanding!

[DazzyD]

But you know yourself, Darren, I was concerned about this a long time ago so I'm not new to it all. I understand the concerns of those who all this is new to as I was in that situation about 2 years ago.

I think if it wasn't for you giving me little snippets of hope from time to time then I would probably have given up on the whole digital karaoke thing.

I'm just a hard-working DJ/KJ looking for a better way to operate who wants to stay on the right side of the line. Hard-drive based karaoke is fantastic in that tracks don't jump, skip or freeze when someone bumps the desk or too much bass comes thumping out of the speakers and upsets the players. It's the perfect solution!

[Corabar Steve]

People are simply not listening and reading into this what they want to Pete.

Precisely why I haven't been commenting since the post about the "prize draw".

I'd be calling every other poster an idiot! It's not exactly a hard concept to grasp after all.

[rob1963]

Thank you for at least one person listening, reading and understanding!

Make that two!

:D

[JAMdisco]

£250 is just too much for the average DJ that only earns £50 a night for helping doing a disco every now and then???

Well perhaps they shouldn't be doing it then? Some of us are trying to run a business. As a business you have to comply with laws and regulations, unfortunate but true. Would you trust a guy to fit a new boiler in your house and not corgi registered as he only does 2 a year?


Some people only last a year. Maybe not even 3 months. So scaring off potential DJ's into the industry is just not the way

I don't see a problem with scaring away 'potential' new DJ's. If they are wanting to set up a disco business then surely a few hundred quid on top of the thousands to set up the business isn't a massive outlay.

I will (reluctantly) pay the fees to enable me to legally transfer my music collection as that's the way I want to do it. It is an option to everyone, but I certainly wouldn't want to go back to CD's after being digital for several months now.

[rob1963]

£250 is just too much for the average DJ that only earns £50 a night for helping doing a disco every now and then???


If they only help with a disco now & again, they can avoid the charge completely by sticking to CDs.

For everyone else, having to pay an extra £4.80 a week for the first year is unlikely to put any DJs out of business.

Most of us have seen our weekly petrol bill go up by more than that in the last few months alone!

[JAMdisco]

:agree:

[Boogie Boy]

If they only help with a disco now & again, they can avoid the charge completely by sticking to CDs.

For everyone else, having to pay an extra £4.80 a week for the first year is unlikely to put any DJs out of business.

Most of us have seen our weekly petrol bill go up by more than that in the last few months alone!

Too true, BUT it doesn't really address the problem. For every DJ who'll get on board and pay the licence fee, there may be 10/50/100 who won't, either through ignorance of the regulations, inability to pay or both.

Currently, we all pay TV licences because (a) we can see the sense in having a broadcaster (the BBC) that isn't restricted by funding (although it is nowadays) or commercial sensibilities and (b) there are stiff fines and (supposedly) easy ways to check if someone has paid it.
Similarly with many other licence schemes run by the Government.

MCPS is a private company. Need I say more?

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I tell you what Boogie Boy, you have so many ideas, why don't you go and deal with the MCPS instead of just spouting stuff on here?

Go and do something proactive.

Go and do something for this industry.

[mikeee]

MCPS and PRS are in an alliance, every place that plays music must have a PRS license, could it be conceivable that if a venue was "caught / found" to allow the use of "illegal" music that their PRS license could be taken away, leaving them in a situation of not being allowed any music what so ever.

We all know that there will always be rogues that will flaut the law, always have been, always will, the best we can do is work together to minimise it.

[Boogie Boy]

I tell you what Boogie Boy, you have so many ideas, why don't you go and deal with the MCPS instead of just spouting stuff on here?

Go and do something proactive.

Go and do something for this industry.

Meaning what exactly? I detect an air of malice in dem dere words.

I've only been back in this industry for a few months.:o There are many much better qualified people to motivate and mobilise (no pun intended) action on this subject. However, do they listen or do they have their own agendas? I really don't know. You have the power to do something, but all you do is tow the line, acting as devil's advocate to both sides of the argument (so far as I can see). Maybe you have more to lose.

I thought posting here (with lotsa industry insiders and big cheeses, or are they all big fronts?) was being somewhat 'proactive'. At least I'm not afraid to let my feelings be known.;) If enough of us do that, it might stir someone with some clout to start re-thinking.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

MCPS and PRS are in an alliance, every place that plays music must have a PRS license, could it be conceivable that if a venue was "caught / found" to allow the use of "illegal" music that their PRS license could be taken away, leaving them in a situation of not being allowed any music what so ever.

We all know that there will always be rogues that will flaut the law, always have been, always will, the best we can do is work together to minimise it.

Work together Mikee?

Come on, you know as well as I do, that DJs think that working together involves spouting off on here at the people who actually get off their backsides to do something and that's it.

[soundtracker]

MCPS and PRS are in an alliance, every place that plays music must have a PRS license, could it be conceivable that if a venue was "caught / found" to allow the use of "illegal" music that their PRS license could be taken away, leaving them in a situation of not being allowed any music what so ever.

We all know that there will always be rogues that will flaut the law, always have been, always will, the best we can do is work together to minimise it.

But isn't this already covered within their P.E.L Mikee?

[mikeee]

Darren, see my comment on your other thread :) :) :)

Peter, Yes it should, but because it's council, they haven't got the inspector to hit every venue. Now as every venue has to have a PRS license, I can see it being controlled a lot better. OK, you are going to get the odd venue, as with DJ that will ignore, and initially a bit of confusion with duty managers, but give it a year or two after it's been introduced, and it will become the norm, and just done on instinct, like riding a bike.

[wensleydale]

So you don't think we should pay to copy music then?

for the purposes of this i dont think you should- not if you own the cd and want to move it into a more convenient format. you are not sharing it- just using it differently- i would rather buy a cd where poss as its a physical item.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Meaning what exactly? I detect an air of malice in dem dere words.

Meaning, go and do something practical instead of being a keyboard warrior.



I've only been back in this industry for a few months.:o There are many much better qualified people to motivate and mobilise (no pun intended) action on this subject. However, do they listen or do they have their own agendas? I really don't know. You have the power to do something, but all you do is tow the line, acting as devil's advocate to both sides of the argument (so far as I can see). Maybe you have more to lose..

Are you suggesting that I have my own agenda other than to push this industry onwards and upwards? And what do you mean maybe I have more to lose? And what are you talking about "towing the line"? I have merely been answering people's questions to the best of my knowledge and ability.

I will give you a chance to explain and take those accusations back before I make a decision to whether you are welcome on this forum.



I thought posting here (with lotsa industry insiders and big cheeses, or are they all big fronts?) was being somewhat 'proactive'. At least I'm not afraid to let my feelings be known.;) If enough of us do that, it might stir someone with some clout to start re-thinking.

Re-thinking? You don't consider the possibility that everything you have said is old news and has been discussed with the relevant people?

Lastly you have been here only a couple of days and you are making comments about whether people are all just big fronts? For a man of 20 years experience in the industry you show little knowledge in dealing with people.

[Corabar Steve]

MCPS is a private company. Need I say more?That is there to inforce a LAW


I tell you what Boogie Boy, you have so many ideas, why don't you go and deal with the MCPS instead of just spouting stuff on here?

Go and do something proactive.

Go and do something for this industry.

I agree. What people fail to take into account is the fact that the LWP is unpaid & do what they do on their own time. The majority of comments I've seen have been very negative about what the LWP have achieved.

Let's face it it's a lot better than what the alternative was.

Why do people who have been DJing for years seem to think just because something they do is how they've always done it, it is the right way to do it? It may well have been the case 40 years ago, but times & technology change, the laws & regualtions do eventually have to change to keep up. Ergo so do the DJs.

[JAMdisco]

I don't mean to blow smoke up your a:Censored:s but I think you lot who run this forum are doing a great job. I wouldn't have even known about 'digital licences' if I wasn't on here.

I think sometimes, the fact that there are people who do discos who don't know about regulations and the law isn't necessarily due to ignorance, possibly they just don't know. I'm not saying this is right as IMO I think ANY business should be looked into before setting one up.

[RnGary]

Apologies if this is covered elsewhere in this thread but with 15 pages it takes some wading through.

I gather that finally some ruling has come out re this - can you point me in the direction of the rules please either on this forum or external? is it effective immediately? Or are we still in the the same position of an unworkable solution that we should not jump into yet?



If it is now effective I would like to be able to tell venues that we know the rules and are applying even if we have not yet got the licence.

Thanks and sorry if it is obvious where to go to find out but previous information on this has been pretty contradictory on external sites.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

The licence hasn't been finalised as yet.

[RnGary]

The licence hasn't been finalised as yet.

Thanks!

[pagan_flame]

I think the only way you could have got away with not having the originals, is if you bought the SG6 licence.:confused:

If you have ripped a CD to digital, then sold the CD, technically your copy is an illegal pirate copy:eek: unless you hold the SG6.
The PPL DDJ licence made it quite clear that you had to retain the originals.
I considered selling my CD single collection after I made CD-R compilations (pre mp3) years ago, but something stopped me.
Thank goodness I didn't!!

Oh yes. I should have paid 10p a track now shouldn't I - that's £1400 a year plus the PPL licence.

I feel better now, I'm sure the fine for playing my 'pirate copies' will be less than the £4200 I have saved on that one.

The whole point of putting them onto laptop was to save carting huge amounts of CD's about. The PPL licence allows me to keep up to 20,000 tracks on a digital DJ system, plus a backup database of said tracks. This I have - so what was the point of keeping all those CD's I have no further use for? I've had a good look through the PPL Digital DJ Licence T & C's (http://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_lf.nsf/PDFs/$file/Digital_DJ_Licence_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf) and cannot find anything that says you have to keep original copies, although I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

So my laptop is illegal then. I may as well just have downloaded the lot illegally for free and not bothered with the licence of any kind (just like the 50 quid merchants DJing pubs with such a laptop system) - and saved myself thousands.

I think it'll be similar to the situation on the roads - the fines for no insurance on your car are significantly less than the costs of being legal.

[Tom]

I have one idea about how to police the Produb Licence. I don't know if this has been covered but here we go.

What about having a national database where every DJ must sign up to. With this, any venue who wish's to book a DJ must visit this onlince database to check that the DJ/company is on the database. On this database it would have all the infomation about the every DJ and what type of buisness they run. Also this would include all the other types who use music to make money (which was said at NADJ Trade show and AGM).

With this what about having other relevent infomation like PLI, PAT, LWP, Produb Licence as well as a little basic info about the company. A bit like a directory in a way.

Just my view on this.

[mikeee]

With this what about having other relevent infomation like PLI, PAT, LWP, Produb Licence as well as a little basic info about the company. A bit like a directory in a way.



MCPS (et al) have no interest in the PAT, PLI side of things, but if the licensing bodies agreed that an "outside" company managed everything (for a fee) then every DJ that is signed up would have a "page" with viewable / downloadable copies of PAT, PLI, PPL, MCPS, GCSE and Ba Hons.

[Tom]

I didn't know that and this was just an idea. I still don't know everything that is going on with PPL/MCPS, only what I have heard at the NADJ show. Thats why I'm am keeping queit and reading everything first.

I just thought it could be some of way to police this.

As I said this just my view, as in idea.

[mikeee]

Ideas are good, keep them coming.

[Boogie Boy]

Ideas are good, keep them coming.

Mike: You appear to be in the know. How exactly are the MCPS going to get everybody on board and police this?
About 20 years ago there was a push from MCPS to wipe out the illegal duplication of copyright material in the Duplication industry. I signed up and tried to do everything 100% legally. I actually had customers who (a) wanted me to break the law and not fill in the necessary paperwork for MCPS (b) went elsewhere to operators who were less strict in the enforcement and (c) didn't see the need to pay royalties (remember, these were musicians, many of whom wrote and published material too). Nett result: I lost a fair bit of business.

If they're expecting it to be self policing, I can see nothing but trouble.

[mikeee]

Not really that in the know, but sitting back and looking at different angles of what is happening you can draw a relatively full picture.

I will say that no matter how hard you try, you can never 100% legal, and the bodies know this, everything in this country is a form of compromise to the benefit of all parties.

Policing, good question, the only answer that I can give is that this time (and for the first time) the PRS - MCPS alliance and PPL are "working" together, so the whole thing will be less disjointed, this is due to the hard work of LWP.

I'll have to come back to this I have a client meeting in 15 minutes

[One Vision]

Thank you for at least one person listening, reading and understanding!

Darren no need to be so patronising mate, people are listening actually, its a case of people having an opinion and just because its not the same as yours doesn't make it less important.

I know its your site and I respect the fact but please don't talk down.

Rant over

[DazzyD]

Like I've said, I understand both sides of the argument cos I know I was very anxious about the whole licencing thing a couple of years back. And I've been an avid observer of the whole situation ever since.

I know some DJs are very worried about it but I have seen progress on the issue - sometimes it's been painfully slow but the muddy waters are steadily becoming clearer.

As has been said, it's up to MCPS/PPL to make the rules but the fact that they are willing to listen to the DJ Licence Working Party is a good start. Add to this, we have members of the LWP on this forum who I trust to take on board our comments to put to MCPS/PPL and it's not a bad position to be in.

Anyone who knows me knows that I love family parties and that I specialise in wedding discos. But I also do a very nice sideline as a karaoke jock and I feel digital karaoke is the future. In the first incarnation of the Digital DJ licence karaoke didn't even get a mention. I expressed my concerns on this forum, and, unfortunately, Darren and Steve took my frustrations personally (which was never my intention) but, after it all settled down, I think they saw where I was coming from and now we have karaoke included in the new licence proposals. Need I say more?!?

I agree that it's still not perfect and that there's still some negotiating to be done but I do feel its a step (actually, more of a giant leap) in the right direction.

I would have loved to have been part of the LWP but other commitments prevented me from even considering it at the time. I've eight years experience as a senior union representative in the postal union and negotiating comes second nature to me. But, I have faith in LWP to bring our opinions to the table and get a better deal for all hard-working DJs/KJs. If I didn't have this faith then I'd give in with the industry and buy an ice-cream van or something!

[Penfold42]

Darren no need to be so patronising mate, people are listening actually, its a case of people having an opinion and just because its not the same as yours doesn't make it less important.

I know its your site and I respect the fact but please don't talk down.

Rant over

I don't think that was a talk down.....:confused: ...i think that was a compliment.....and aim at DazzyD....

[DazzyD]

I don't think that was a talk down.....:confused: ...i think that was a compliment.....and aim at DazzyD....

Hiya Tony

I thought I was in for some stick there when you posted ...and aim at DazzyD... - I was getting ready to duck!

But I think I misunderstood your post. I think you meant that Darrens comment was aimed at me.

Now just because me and Darren share a forename doesn't mean that I'll agree with everything he says. But we had these heated discussions on the forum a while ago and I think it was more to do with frustration than anything else. I accepted that we needed this licence but was really annoyed at the length of time it was taking. Added to the fact that karaoke wasn't mentioned and I was fairly pee'd off. However, after calming down Darren told me that things were looking up as different people were now involved on the MCPS/PPL side of things and they were more realistic should we say. I put my faith in the LWP and have seen improvements of the last few months. This was never gonna be a simple straightforward process but we're getting there. Just watch this space!

[Boogie Boy]

OK. to keep my thoughts going.

Does anyone else know of any companies that can directly rely on a law of the land to generate their income stream? I can't think of another one for the life of me (excepting PRS and PPL).

As I said earlier, I'd be much happier if this whole thing was a government imposed levy (probably on the 'raw' materials; i.e. CDs, mp3 downloads etc), so that all users had to pay something. By doing that, the greatest users (DJs etc) would naturally pay more than a casual home user and you could, to some extent, limit the amount you had to pay by not buying so many tracks in any particular year. The record companies would scream blue murder I'm sure and so it would never be adopted, although Digital Audio CD-Rs did/do have a levy that was successfully introduced.

[DazzyD]

Well, Boogie Boy, you're just not thinking hard enough!

The most obvious answer is NCP who've been drafted in to many councils to "uphold parking regulations". They've taken over from the councils/police to ensure people's parking habits are within the law. In Sunderland they've made a right of mess of things but they've made lots of money both for themselves and for the council coffers.

[Richard Veal]

Hello - its me again.

This Licence will cover transfer of cd into mp3

It will also cover CDG Karaoke into mp3+G

Does anyone know if it covers msic video such as promo only into, say, mpeg?

or is full video content a different company to the ones mentioned .

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Darren no need to be so patronising mate, people are listening actually, its a case of people having an opinion and just because its not the same as yours doesn't make it less important.

I know its your site and I respect the fact but please don't talk down.

Rant over

It's nothing to do with people having an opinion, it's to do with people understanding what it is about and not start going on about something completely different.

I am not talking down to anyone.

[mikeee]

Richard, Video is an entirely different thing and is dealt with by the VPL. And no it's not Visable Panty Line. The Karaoke bit on the proposed license covers Graphics (moving words) not Images (Pop video's etc)

[pagan_flame]

Does anyone else know of any companies that can directly rely on a law of the land to generate their income stream? I can't think of another one for the life of me (excepting PRS and PPL).

Yep. Driving Instructors. It is illegal to give driving lessons for money unless you are a qualified and registered DSA Approved Driving Instructor.

The Police can and do pull over driving school cars to see if the Instructor is qualified and registered, and prosecute if they are not.

Cheers,

P-F (DSA Approved Driving Instructor 271933) :D

[pdarnett]

I'm seeing the same old arguments coming up again, but as Darren explains the time for discussing the hows and whys was a long time ago, and that was the time when most of us should have been involved, so as he says you can't complain about how its going now if you didn't stand up and put your input in over a year ago.

But I seriously think we missed the boat big time on this one, back in 1998 the copyright act was very subtly altered when the music industry was crapping itself about Napster and file sharing and what they removed from act was the right to make a copy. Some people still believe that that bit of the act is still there, its not. back in the 70's and 80's you'd buy your "top of the pops" album from Woolys and you could legally make a tape of it for, say your car as long as you weren't selling them. But the '98 kneejerk reaction to the threat of filesharing was to remove that part of the act.

We could have lobbied for "fair use" at the time and never did and to be fair we've gone too far now to go back to protesting for fair use, especially when a giant proportion of the record companies totally missed the boat embracing the new technology, then started crying about how much revenue iTunes was taking away from them.

I wrote to my MP about it at the time and to be fair he had absolutely no idea what I was going on about, but governments change and there still might a way to get the act changed, but unfortunately I don't think we've a loud enough voice or represent a large enough percentage of the population to make a difference. Start prosecuting EVERYONE that copies an album onto their ipod or PC, be they home user or dj, then people would start kicking off about it, and something might get done!

[Richard Veal]

ok, thanks Mikee, Just thought it might be as the principal of format changing was the same.

Thanks again, I'll drop outta this one now as it doesn't appear to effect me

[mr rusty]

My 2p

From what I can understand so far It won't work as intended. Its way too complicated. Its so easy to move tracks backwards and forwards from PC to hardisk, who is ever going to come and count how many you have at a disco at any particular time. The conscientious will go for the minimum license to satisfy any venue requirement on the basis that it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever actually count how many tracks are available, so the license will, in effect become, the minimum fee. As before, if its too expensive, vast hordes of part timers won't bother. We have been operating as part timers for over a year now and have carried out discos in schools, council venues etc. Whilst we do advertise the fact we have them, so far we have been asked for proof of PAT and PLI exactly zero times. Whilst these are not law, they are arguably far more important to the venue, because they protect actual risk to the venue, than determining whether the DJ has a dubbing license. I just can't see many venues being that interested. A significant fact to its unworkability will be the fact that a CD only DJ won't need a license, therefore the license itself cannot be a prerequisite for a venue accepting a booking. I really can't see a venue coming up and studying the intricacies of a rig to determine whether the sound is being played from the CD or a hard drive, particularly as there are CD players with USB/Hard drive capability.

This is a related debate to DRM, illegal copying etc etc. If you have been following this debate you will know that there are an increasing number of voices out there advocating flat-fee "all you can eat" licensing. i.e. you pay £x/$x per month and you can download as many tracks as you like for personal use. eg http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/14/soribada_korea_legal_p2p/
If the industry is moving this way, where's the sense in a unit based licensing model for DJ's?

[pdarnett]

I think the most frustrating thing fro dj's is there's so many ruling bodies involved in this debate, we know the main one is mcps but as mikee said earlier there are alliances with the others there. I started contacting them all in 2005 about this and each one hadn't a clue about the other, at least they're working closer together now, let hope its for the right reasons.

look at my ramblings from 2005 here: http://prodjuk.suddenlaunch3.com/index.cgi?board=announce&action=display&num=1110158166

just restored the pdfs from 2005 as well (thanks internet wayback machine!)

[JAMdisco]

Well, before we had any idea how much this was going to cost, I did consider having the minimum 'believable' amount of MP3's on my laptop (say 3 - 4,000)and using the external HDD to store the remaining tracks. It would be very hard for any governing body to prove this and it wouldn't be worth their time and effort to prove otherwise. :p

However, due to the relatively inexpensive proposed fee I will no doubt conform to the system. Don't get me wrong, I would rather NOT have to pay but hey-ho that's the way it is.

BTW, usually some level of conformity can prevent investigation, for example, if you pay tax (and I hope you all do :p ) there is less chance of you being audited (especially if it is 'believable') than if you don't declare your earnings and get 'found out'. And I believe the fine can be pretty heavy:eek:

[Corabar Steve]

Does anyone else know of any companies that can directly rely on a law of the land to generate their income stream? I can't think of another one for the life of me (excepting PRS and PPL).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but traffic wardens are run by various private companies now aren't they?

[Boogie Boy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but traffic wardens are run by various private companies now aren't they?

Possibly, I really don't know. The point is, town centre traffic charging was a government induced charge originally. Same goes with any street parking in general. The NCP analogy was closer to what I had posted, but it doesn't raise revenue directly from any law in the same way that MCPS does. Neither does it let some people park for free and others have to pay. NCP was clever enough to realise that people would have to park somewhere and they'd want it conveniently sited.

Even driving instructors aren't quite the same thing. They are, in effect, what DJs would become with a Digital Dub licence, except the money driving instructors make through having a licence goes directly to them/the company they work for. Their licence is a government licence too, not one issued by a private company.

Can you guys see where I'm coming from on this?

[Boogie Boy]

I think the most frustrating thing fro dj's is there's so many ruling bodies involved in this debate, we know the main one is mcps but as mikee said earlier there are alliances with the others there. I started contacting them all in 2005 about this and each one hadn't a clue about the other, at least they're working closer together now, let hope its for the right reasons.

Absolutely correct and they're are all limited interest types of organisations with their own very specific agendas. They deserve all the flack they get.

[One Vision]

It's nothing to do with people having an opinion, it's to do with people understanding what it is about and not start going on about something completely different.

I am not talking down to anyone.

Hya Darren if people arnt understanding the proposals right its purely down to them being way over complicated.
Just being hypothetical here but lets say this came in as a legal requirement as it stands, how many DJs would be working illegal simply as they don't understand fully to what’s the right way or wrong way?

Am not personally knocking the idea of some form of license as its only fare that the artists etc. are rewarded for their efforts as it actually belongs to them after all, its just the way the proposals are they are just too darn complicated and not enforceable.

If its a case of you need a license to convert the material to MP3 then that's fine but the trouble is technology moves so fast these days and who is to say in 5-10 years time MP3 format is old hat with a completely new media format available that's got digital quality and on a different view it mat not be even necessary to convert to MP3 as systems and technology may well be fast enough to cope with the original format and simply transferred to HD in its original CD format.

These DJ media players are still new technology yet but I can see them being just as powerful as a traditional PC in a few short years and the Internet is getting faster and faster so again there may be no need to compress files down for transfer purposes, how fast does a traditional PC load a standard CD track? Pretty much instantly that's the future but rather than via a CD will be via a hard drive but the same format and same loading speeds.

So in effect the principle behind this new license may be out of date and none applicable within 5-10 years so again the only real way of enforcing a license would be what is already in place (an entertainments license).
How can you enforce a license that's based on technology? Or in simple based on changing its media format when eventually changing its format may not even be required? You can’t because technology moves too fast.

[soundtracker]

Hya Darren if people arnt understanding the proposals right its purely down to them being way over complicated.
Just being hypothetical here but lets say this came in as a legal requirement as it stands, how many DJs would be working illegal simply as they don't understand fully to whats the right way or wrong way?

Am not personally knocking the idea of some form of license as its only fare that the artists etc. are rewarded for their efforts as it actually belongs to them after all, its just the way the proposals are they are just too darn complicated and not enforceable.

If its a case of you need a license to convert the material to MP3 then that's fine but the trouble is technology moves so fast these days and who is to say in 5-10 years time MP3 format is old hat with a completely new media format available that's got digital quality and on a different view it mat not be even necessary to convert to MP3 as systems and technology may well be fast enough to cope with the original format and simply transferred to HD in its original CD format.

These DJ media players are still new technology yet but I can see them being just as powerful as a traditional PC in a few short years and the Internet is getting faster and faster so again there may be no need to compress files down for transfer purposes, how fast does a traditional PC load a standard CD track? Pretty much instantly that's the future but rather than via a CD will be via a hard drive but the same format and same loading speeds.

So in effect the principle behind this new license may be out of date and none applicable within 5-10 years so again the only real way of enforcing a licence would be what is already in place (an entertainments licence).
How can you enforce a licence that's based on technology? Or in simple based on changing its media format when eventually changing its format may not even be required? You cant because technology moves too fast.

But you can only deal with the present - you can't say don't have any laws regarding pollution because eventually there may not be any!

[One Vision]

But you can only deal with the present - you can't say don't have any laws regarding pollution because eventually there may not be any!

I didn't actually say that now did I?

[soundtracker]

I didn't actually say that now did I?

Sorry I must have misunderstood:

"So in effect the principle behind this new license may be out of date and none applicable within 5-10 years"

[Corabar Steve]

One of the amendments that the LWP got was that it was for transfer of format or copying to the same format (making your own compilations for example) No specific format has been mentioned & as far as I can see, any format (now or future) would apply

[One Vision]

Sorry I must have misunderstood:

"So in effect the principle behind this new license may be out of date and none applicable within 5-10 years"

With that statement I am not saying a license isn't required, what I was saying is the idea behind the license being proposed based on format changing may not even be an issue as it may not actually be a requirement to even change the format once these system become faster as its original format may be usable.
This technology is already available as with a traditional PC or in fact a CD player so may be available via hard drive players sooner than even 5 years.

At the end of the day the manufacturers of these HD players know that the future is mass storage so will work towards moving the goal posts around such obstacles so to sell their products, with this not being a hard obstacle to go around as the technology is already available.

Even the now redundant Numark HDCD1 had the ability to transfer files directly from a CD to the internal HD so is only a case of upgrading the physical power and memory etc. of the system and incorporating the ability to read CD format on the mass storage players.

[soundtracker]

I didn't say that - I said you can't put off legislation because technology may change - you can only deal with today

[Candybeatdiscos]

So lets say i have 15000 WAV files, and dont hold this new license, someone comes in to check, how can they tell if its illegally format changed or a legal download?

How is this going to be policed, i think this is the main issue, i am sure i agree that if its law many people on here will reluctly pay up, but i aint going to be happy about paying up if the dj in the next pub isn't.

[One Vision]

One of the amendments that the LWP got was that it was for transfer of format or copying to the same format (making your own compilations for example) No specific format has been mentioned & as far as I can see, any format (now or future) would apply

Hya Steve that's even dafter if true, if you have purchased the material and abide by either having your own entertainment license or the venue holding such a license then why would there be a need for another license?
I know as an individual when you buy a CD it only gives you the right to play in privately and in its original format (without permission).
Now there is a slight difference if playing publicly as a DJ or whatever as you have already purchased or the venue has purchased a specific license to enable you to publicly perform with the material.

Now as long as your only creating back ups of your already purchased material and in its original format what is the problem there?
If anything the only thing that needs slight amendments is the part about professional licensed DJs being able to backup their material and used publicly.

None of what I have seen with the proposals will ever beat the fight against illegal downloads but only to sting the ones that fully comply by running their business legally.
Its no different than having to pay huge insurance premiums to the insurance companies to cover the losses they acquire from the bad drivers and the ones that don't comply with the law.

[mr rusty]

Karl-D is right. Basing a license on a technological specification involving format transfer is destined to be full of grey areas.

Take CD players. Many/most have anti-jog. This basically reads ahead from the CD, converts part of the file into a different format, stores it in a buffer and then plays from the buffer. This way, there is a time delay between reading the CD and playing the file, and any errors read from the CD are deleted from the buffer. So how big the buffer? Is it still a CD player if the buffer can store a whole track? a whole CD? What happens if you can preload all the CD's you want into a buffer for the evening, and then the buffer is wiped when you turn off? are you playing from the CD or have you converted to a different format? With the whole thing mixed up with legal downloads not requiring conversion, it is un-policeable

[TonyB]

As Steve says it also applies to "copying". Even if you copy a CD and retain the same format you still need a license. The "copyright" restriction of any musical works prohibits another copy coming into existence irrespective if the format is changed or not.

If you make a copy of a .WAV or .MP3, retain the format and the work is copyright, you still need the license.

There will have to be a degree of trust that people will be honest in what they declare. Much the same as there is a degree of trust when you fill out a tax return. It would not be possible to audit every DJ but there will no doubt be random checks. How the checks will be made haven't been mentioned but could well involve asking a DJ to provide original copies of CD's they have copied and receipts or other evidence of proof of purchase for downloaded tracks.

An audit doesn't have to be carried out at a venue when a DJ is working. It could be done at a time when the DJ is not working.

[One Vision]

As Steve says it also applies to "copying". Even if you copy a CD and retain the same format you still need a license. The "copyright" restriction of any musical works prohibits another copy coming into existence irrespective if the format is changed or not.

If you make a copy of a .WAV or .MP3, retain the format and the work is copyright, you still need the license.

There will have to be a degree of trust that people will be honest in what they declare. Much the same as there is a degree of trust when you fill out a tax return. It would not be possible to audit every DJ but there will no doubt be random checks. How the checks will be made haven't been mentioned but could well involve asking a DJ to provide original copies of CD's they have copied and receipts or other evidence of proof of purchase for downloaded tracks.

An audit doesn't have to be carried out at a venue when a DJ is working. It could be done at a time when the DJ is not working.

Hya Tony absolutely you need a license, but the question is do we need another license?
I dont think so, the current license just needs amending to bring it up to date.

EDIT: If this new license was say £20-£50 a year for professionals to have the privileges of backing up their purchased material and using publicly as an addition to the existing license I dont think anybody would have any complaints, but the fact that this is a completely additional license and not cheap at that is the problem, after all why should the artist be paid again for what you have already paid them by purchasing in the first place, like I already mentioned this is purely a way of the artist getting payment for the individuals that dont comply and download illegally, so the law abiding DJ gets stung.

[soundtracker]

I dont think so, the current license just needs amending to bring it up to date.



Which current licence?

[TonyB]

Which current licence?

Yes I was wondering that too.

[One Vision]

The one you already have to have to use publicly.

[mikeee]

Karl, different License. You appear to be talking "Performance" this is about Duplicating (coping)

[soundtracker]

You're talking about a PPL Licence, this has nothing to do with either PPL or public use of music. This is about dubbing of tracks and MCPS who are a totally different organisation.

Sorry Mikee you were quicker!

[andyw]

If its a case of you need a license to convert the material to MP3 then that's fine but the trouble is technology moves so fast these days and who is to say in 5-10 years time MP3 format is old hat with a completely new media format available that's got digital quality and on a different view it mat not be even necessary to convert to MP3 as systems and technology may well be fast enough to cope with the original format and simply transferred to HD in its original CD format.




as i understand it the license covers that now,if you do not change the formatt or make a copy you dont need a license,so now you can buy legal downloads and play them without a license.so that gives you the option of buying all your tracks again and not get a license,using your old tracks in their original format and not get a license or buy the license and be able to legally convert/copy your old tracks


Hya Tony absolutely you need a license, but the
EDIT: If this new license was say £20-£50 a year for professionals to have the privileges of backing up their purchased material and using publicly as an addition to the existing license I dont think anybody would have any complaints, but the fact that this is a completely additional license and not cheap at that is the problem, after all why should the artist be paid again for what you have already paid them by purchasing in the first place, like I already mentioned this is purely a way of the artist getting payment for the individuals that dont comply and download illegally, so the law abiding DJ gets stung.

i bet if they made the license£1 for 10 years someone would still complain

out of curiosty i know it is not finalised yet but will there be any silly small print(like in the old license as i understood it)saying you need the owners/artist permission before converting/copying you music

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

i bet if they made the license£1 for 10 years someone would still complain

Ain't that the truth.


out of curiosty i know it is not finalised yet but will there be any silly small print(like in the old license as i understood it)saying you need the owners/artist permission before converting/copying you music

I am pretty sure you won't need permission as you did with the SG6.

[mikeee]

My understanding is that, that is all part of the new agreement. Record Companies don't want truck loads of paperwork, the same as you don't.

[andyw]

Ain't that the truth.



I am pretty sure you won't need permission as you did with the SG6.
thanks because it wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on if it did
one more quick one
if the first year is £250 for 20 000 tracks and i only convert 15 000 next year i would still need a top up to convert more tracks even if my total stayed below 20 000( in other words it is a yearly license and if i dont use the quota i paid for thats my tough luck i know)

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

thanks because it wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on if it did
one more quick one
if the first year is £250 for 20 000 tracks and i only convert 15 000 next year i would still need a top up to convert more tracks even if my total stayed below 20 000( in other words it is a yearly license and if i dont use the quota i paid for thats my tough luck i know)

The idea is that you pay for what you rip(or already have ripped) in the first year and then only pay for what you rip or copy in the next year and so on.

It's the bands that are under scrutiny at the moment - most people seem to think there should be a lower band than say 1-5000 which has been suggested as the lowest band at the moment.

A band of 1-1000 would probably suit more people.

[andyw]

i can see the point in people wanting a lower band,once you convert/copy your entire coleection,then you only have to worry about new tracks that you add to your collection the next year which is going tobe a lot lower.

[TonyB]

It's the bands that are under scrutiny at the moment

Should that not say " the LWP are still negotiating to get the best terms possible for DJ's" ?

:thumbs_up: thank you to the LWP for all the work they are doing.

[andyw]

:thumbs_up: thank you to the LWP for all the work they are doing.

they are mad aint they, trying to do the best they can for everyone and all they will get in return is stick,stick and then a bit more stick,no matter what they come up with someone will have a pop.open discussion is good it will give them the feedback they require but some of the comments i have read on a couple of forums is unbelievable and unneccesary imo

[Corabar Steve]

Indeed.

[soundtracker]

its easy to snipe, a lot harder to actually do something! Walk the walk, not talk the talk kind of thing!

[rob1963]

A lot of posts seem to be rather premature, as the final details & cost of the licence have yet to be decided as far as I know.

Having nothing to do with the LWP, I will wait until the licence is sorted, pay my money & get on with my life.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

A lot of posts seem to be rather premature, as the final details & cost of the licence have yet to be decided as far as I know.



Correct.

[Have a disco]

To be honest Im fed up of waiting but Hey ho nowt I can do about it.

I hope they also go to PLAZA this year and ask the DJ's that turn up there the same things they did at NADJ event as to gain a wider outlook in regards to pricing as well and the flexibility of the amount you may transfer to other formats

as well as clarify the Promo DJs problems of loopholing them

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

As far as I'm concerned there have been quite a few unwarranted and unneeded remarks about what we are trying to achieve. Remarks such as people think that we, the LWP are going to gain from this, or gain personal kudos, then there are remarks that we are just being spin doctors and not answering questions. As I have posted this on several forums, this may of course not be true of every forum.

Here's the thing. If no-one had othered to do anything then this licence would have been thrust upon us, so that is why I got involved on a personal level with the LWP as all everyone seemed to be doing is talking about it.

We are not batting for the MCPS, we are trying to communicate and negotiate between them and the DJ/disco industry. As previously posted, we did meet with them and ask for certain things to be in the licence which are in there now. Ability to transfer to any medium, more tracks in the database, a joint licence with PPL, karaoke uplift etc.

I think the MCPS want this to be a fair licence and want to 'tweak' it so that it suits everyone, which is why they came to the NADJ show and are in constant contact with the LWP and also they read the forums to follow what people are thinking. As far as I'm concerned the licence does need a few changes and I'm sure that they will take what you say into consideration when finalising it and no, I don't know when that is going to be.

If the licence was £10 a year, there would still be animosity amongst certain people. I understand people don't want to pay for something that has not been charged for before - that's human nature.

The reason I stopped answering questions was because it suddenly felt like you were treating me like I was one of the enemy and not there to try and get the best deal. Phil has taken his details off other forums for that very reason, as some of the emails and PMs were getting personal and we shouldn't have to put up with that.

To that end, I need to speak to Peter Litchfield today as he wanted me to make a point about a question which he didn't get to answer at the seminar, but what I would rather do, is have the MCPS answer your concerns and pointers and that way it won't get personal towards the LWP.

If you would like to ask a question or have a point, then please send it to [email protected] and we will forward them onto the MCPS.

I don't know what the MCPS will finally bring out - I am not privy to that information, but what I do know is that we will negotiate our hardest to get a realistic licence that suits as many of us as possible.

[theoloyla]

Blimey! Have just read all that lot. I still play CD's but occasionally download the odd track and transfer to CDR to play. It is a very small but necessary part of my library. Of course I dont like having to pay a licence fee for that but I suppose I will do so and there will be many scabby cowboys who will not. People have said it isnt fair. Well lets face life isnt fair full stop.
Well done to the members of the LWP (from NADJ and SEDA) who have done their best

[One Vision]

Hya again fellas just going back to a couple of my past comments and some getting confused, yes I know the PPL is a performance licence but what I was trying to say is why should we have to pay what is being suggested with the LWP license?
And yes I know that its all ifs and buts at the moment as nothing is set in stone yet.

As another point here all this transferring or copying issues that's causing such problems is in place which we all agree as its stated on all CDs copyright info but also says (without permission) so on that not if I was to contact all the appropriate people and was granted permission so simply transfer the tracks to a hard drive how would I stand then?
Yes I know thats never gonna happen as there are too many to contact.
Whether its the PPL or the copyrights that need to be emended I dont know but do we really need another license put in place especially at such a high suggested price purely to have the privilege of transferring files.

Am not claiming to have all the answers as I dont but just have concerns to whats being proposed and in fact if the new licence would be enforceable or even 100% legal itself.

[wensleydale]

the risk here is that its not flexible enough for people who dont dj full time to do it.
i work as a dj part time and therefore fixed fees and costs are not good.

we'll wait and see but there is a risk of pushing people who try to do things by the book out of the industry leaving even more cowboys.

[mikeee]

What has full or part time got to do with it, thats your choice not there's. Regardless, as a professionally minded DJ, the license should not worry you, nor should the cost.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Hya again fellas just going back to a couple of my past comments and some getting confused, yes I know the PPL is a performance licence but what I was trying to say is why should we have to pay what is being suggested with the LWP license?
And yes I know that its all ifs and buts at the moment as nothing is set in stone yet.

As another point here all this transferring or copying issues that's causing such problems is in place which we all agree as its stated on all CDs copyright info but also says (without permission) so on that not if I was to contact all the appropriate people and was granted permission so simply transfer the tracks to a hard drive how would I stand then?
Yes I know thats never gonna happen as there are too many to contact.
Whether its the PPL or the copyrights that need to be emended I dont know but do we really need another license put in place especially at such a high suggested price purely to have the privilege of transferring files.

Am not claiming to have all the answers as I dont but just have concerns to whats being proposed and in fact if the new licence would be enforceable or even 100% legal itself.


Firstly, it is not an LWP licence. It's an MCPS/PPL joint licence.

The LWP was set up by 4 working DJs who didn't want another useless licence thrust upon us and were prepared to get off our bums and do something about it. We met with them and asked for certain things that the original PPL licence didn't have, which have been included.

We are trying to get the best deal we can for the industry and it is certainly the first time that bodies like this have taken advice and met with anyoen from our industry, which is always a good starting point.

The bottom line is if you want to make a copy of something to which someone else holds the copyright, you need to pay to do so. That is the law and at the moment is set in stone.

The price isn't that high if you look at it per track copied and you aren't transferring files, you are coping them. Ultimately, if you don't want to pay for the licence then stick with original CDs or downloads and you won't have to buy one.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

the risk here is that its not flexible enough for people who dont dj full time to do it.
i work as a dj part time and therefore fixed fees and costs are not good.


What do you want them to say?

Oh they only DJ part time, let's make it cheaper for them? I mean, they've only got a full time income as well as any extra money from DJing....

[andyw]

the risk here is that its not flexible enough for people who dont dj full time to do it.
i work as a dj part time and therefore fixed fees and costs are not good.

we'll wait and see but there is a risk of pushing people who try to do things by the book out of the industry leaving even more cowboys.

if you are part time you still have the option of keeping your media in the original format and not buying a license,the prices are not that bad and nowhere near what we all feared when the idea was first muted,at the end of the day we are running a business and the price will be passed on to our clients ,if i have heard/read right the first year will be about £250 for most people and then £50 a year after ,yes there will be some who don't bother but they will always be around.

[One Vision]

Firstly, it is not an LWP licence. It's an MCPS/PPL joint licence.

The LWP was set up by 4 working DJs who didn't want another useless licence thrust upon us and were prepared to get off our bums and do something about it. We met with them and asked for certain things that the original PPL licence didn't have, which have been included.

We are trying to get the best deal we can for the industry and it is certainly the first time that bodies like this have taken advice and met with anyoen from our industry, which is always a good starting point.

The bottom line is if you want to make a copy of something to which someone else holds the copyright, you need to pay to do so. That is the law and at the moment is set in stone.

The price isn't that high if you look at it per track copied and you aren't transferring files, you are coping them. Ultimately, if you don't want to pay for the licence then stick with original CDs or downloads and you won't have to buy one.

I guess we will see what the outcome of all this is as I still think its unworkable but that's purely my opinion of course

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I guess we will see what the outcome of all this is as I still think its unworkable but that's purely my opinion of course

Which you are entitled to. :)

[rob1963]

I guess we will see what the outcome of all this is as I still think its unworkable but that's purely my opinion of course

I agree, but time will tell.

[sleah]

The new licence is NOT for public performance - it is for changing format

Part of the confusion arose by the PPL bringing out a licence, which by their very name, implies it is to do with puplic performance, but clearly states that you may copy (rip) tracks from CD/record to digital, which is in itself nothing to do with public performance.:confused:

Personally, i feel Mastermix really showed their backsides when they teamed up with the PPL to make a complete hash of the Digital DJ licence, you'd have though Mastermix would have known better!!! :bang:




I feel better now, I'm sure the fine for playing my 'pirate copies' will be less than the £4200 I have saved on that one.


Don't you believe it mate!:eek:

I'd be careful what you say on a public forum:zip:
If you were 'done' although ignorance is no defence in law, I suspect if you were totally honest and upfront, especially with the current confusion over the DDJ licence, then the court may well go easy and the fine may reflect what the SG6 licence would have been, as that is the only legal way you could currently have ripped tracks and not still own the originals.
However, have a "why should I?" or "well I've already paid" type attitude and you'll find a large book heading your way:eek: ...the answer being "because it's the law, and you must abide by it".

Please don't think I'm 'having a go' or anything, it's all quite confusing at the moment. I'm just trying to help you and other readers not to fall foul of the law.
Like you, I've come bloomin close, but thanks to forums such as this, I think I am as clear as it's possible to be on the laws and licenses as they stand at the moment.

My head hurts:(

[DazzyD]

What has full or part time got to do with it, thats your choice not there's. Regardless, as a professionally minded DJ, the license should not worry you, nor should the cost.

As someone I hold in high regard due to your helpful nature, Mikee, I'm a little surprised that you're saying that people shouldn't be worried by the cost. I think price is a major factor and even at around £250 it would be quite a sum for a small operator to find in lump sum.

I asked before about ways to pay and if you could pay in installments by direct debit for example. I apologise if someone has posted an answer to this as I must have missed it but I think it is a valid question and payments terms are an important issue on this subject.

Anyway, from my point of view, I've gotten the main amendment that I wanted. When the first proposals were made, it made it possible to copy audio but not graphics so karaoke was a no-no. Now karaoke is on the agenda, I'm a lot happier.

Finally, someone said the LWP had done a good job. As the whole process is far from over, shouldn't that have been "are doing a good job - keep it up!" ;)

[andyw]

I guess we will see what the outcome of all this is as I still think its unworkable but that's purely my opinion of course

i think you are right in the fact it is not going to be easy to police but from what i've read it is going to give those that want it the chance to be totally legit at a reasonable cost which is a good thing and what a lot of us want.yes some people will ignore it and get away with it but some people will always try and get one over society to save a few quid.
my main misgivings is the fact that the price is low now but how long before they start to put the price up because they will have a monopoly on it

[Corabar Steve]

the risk here is that its not flexible enough for people who dont dj full time to do it.
i work as a dj part time and therefore fixed fees and costs are not good.

we'll wait and see but there is a risk of pushing people who try to do things by the book out of the industry leaving even more cowboys.

How many cowboys are full time then Rich?

[wensleydale]

How many cowboys are full time then Rich?

i dont know steve but i think you have missed the point.

they will remain whilst others will stop meaning that they become a higher proportion of the industry.

[Corabar Steve]

Did you miss the bit about the venues having a list of licence holders & those with exemptions?

[wensleydale]

Did you miss the bit about the venues having a list of licence holders & those with exemptions?

but i cant see that happening either as many venues pay the dj directly- they are happy that there are "cheaper options" available.

surely if there were a database of such things it would be more important to do pli first?

[Corabar Steve]

When having PLI isn't law?

[DJWayne]

Maybe not what was intended but surely if you are a professional operator who adheres to the law and is prepared to buy the correct licences this wont bother you. I am waiting to see exactly what the new licence proposes and would love to see a system where venues have to use licenced DJ's as part of their PPL.

I am sure the people who have invested in the licence would soon be reporting the cowboys without licences and the venues that use them so the system would effectively be self policing and theoretically could lead to an increase in business for the DJ who is preapared to lay out for the licence.

What would be interesting to know is what the proposed penalties would be for DJ's not in possesion of a valid licence and for any venue using unlicensed DJ's

I don't see the full time / part time agrument at all either you are a DJ or you are not :)

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Maybe not what was intended but surely if you are a professional operator who adheres to the law and is prepared to buy the correct licences this wont bother you. I am waiting to see exactly what the new licence proposes and would love to see a system where venues have to use licenced DJ's as part of their PPL.

I am sure the people who have invested in the licence would soon be reporting the cowboys without licences and the venues that use them so the system would effectively be self policing and theoretically could lead to an increase in business for the DJ who is preapared to lay out for the licence.




This is what the MCPS are hoping.

[mikeee]

As someone I hold in high regard due to your helpful nature, Mikee, I'm a little surprised that you're saying that people shouldn't be worried by the cost. I think price is a major factor and even at around £250 it would be quite a sum for a small operator to find in lump sum.


Thank you for your kind words. The reasoning behind my comment is the fact that in real terms £250.00 is still a small price, even in one hit. My concern is method of payment, I still know DJ's without credit cards, without computers and one that refuses to have a bank account, just uses a basic building society share account, pay in cheques and cash, draws cash at the end of the month to pay bills. I personally think that because of admin costs, it will be one payment or possible two (every six months) at a pinch.

[mr rusty]

I am sure the people who have invested in the licence would soon be reporting the cowboys without licences and the venues that use them

This is cloud cookoo land.

Nobody will report DJ's because a) nobody will necessarily know whether a DJ is licensed or exempt and b) to risk reporting someone in error would be to risk litigation for damages if the report was actually false, the DJ lost business as a result, and the reporter was identified.

Nobody will report venues, because why :Censored: off a venue where you might want to work?

Sorry, but despite all the good intent, I make a prediction that in 5 years time nothing will really have changed; the new license will probably exist and the take up will be pathetic in relation to the number of DJs out there. IMHO the *only* thing that will work would be an inexpensive global "license to practice" which stands a chance of being paid.

EDIT sorry, didn't realise even asterisked words weren't allowed /EDIT

[DJWayne]

This is cloud cookoo land.

Nobody will report DJ's because a) nobody will necessarily know whether a DJ is licensed or exempt and b) to risk reporting someone in error would be to risk litigation for damages if the report was actually false, the DJ lost business as a result, and the reporter was identified.

Nobody will report venues, because why :Censored: off a venue where you might want to work?



Depending on how easy it was to verify whether people were licensed or not I don't see why anyone would stand back and watch potential business slipping through their fingers by letting unlicensed DJ's just carry on regardless.

I am sure a system could be put in place that allows for quick verification , i am sure somewhere I have seen an online idea kicked about and a means for an anonymous report of unlicensed working a "whistle blowers" service if you like. No harm would be done to anybody's business if a report was made in error as the facts would have to be checked before any further action was taken.

This is all speculation at the moment as nobody knows exactly what this new licence will entail but my view is it will become self policing and the legitimate operators out there who invest in the licence will ensure it does.

[andyw]

i don't think anyone will report anyone ,those who are arguing now that they wont buy it because it will be impossible to police or the cowboys wont get it so why should i.i ask you why dont you just download your songs illegally like them.all this license is doing is making it legal for you to copy and or change the format of your current songs,you do not have to buy the license just buy cd's and use them or only use tracks you have downloaded legally(but dont make a copy of them)

[theoloyla]

We are trying to get the best deal we can for the industry and it is certainly the first time that bodies like this have taken advice and met with anyone from our industry, which is always a good starting point.


As you know I support and commend you but on a point of order The Disc Jockeys Federation Of Great Britain held extensive talks and negotiations with PRS and PPL in the late 70's (and acheived positive results).

[mr rusty]

arguing now that they wont buy it because it will be impossible to police

The two things are not mutually exclusive - we will buy it because we like to be legal, but it *will* be impossible to police - the reason............


downloaded legally

There is no logical necessity for this license - royalties are paid on legal copies, and venues pay a performance license so the artists/copyright owners get additional revenues. Why should there be a format conversion license at all? I believe many people are looking at this as a means of identifying a legit operation, rather than believing that a conversion license is sensible- hence why I believe a "license to practice" is a better option.

I stand by my prediction that in 5 years, little will have changed (except probably that the greater proportion of music purchased will be on downloads rather than CD's, making the license obsolete before it gets legs). If, as in one of my earlier posts and as many people are predicting, "all you can eat" downloads arrive for a monthly fee, the whole structure would have to change again.

The issue of music copyright is moving faster than the licensing authorities can keep up. DRM is to all intents dead and the major labels are realising that the whole business model *must* change - the present one is unworkable.

Q. Have a look at this site - radiotracker - and tell me if music downloaded this way is legal or illegal. Basically it records radio broadcasts. It says they are legal private copies. Trick is it searches every internet radio station and records when your chosen track gets played.

click here (http://radiotracker.com/en/free_mp3_music_downloads/index.html)

[wayne_uk]

Here is a Hypothetical question, maybe someone knows the answer,
Let's say you have ripped your CD collection to hard drive media for your shows, leaving all your original CD's at home.
Now the question
While you are out gigging your house is broken into, or you have a fire at home, your original CD's are stolen/destroyed.
where would you stand legally,
would you have to stop working untill you replaced every track you had on your hard drive, or would a crime number/insurance claim. for said CD's be sufficient to keep the tracks you have on your hard drive,
I'm not sure on this one, but it could happen as more and more DJ's go digital

[mr rusty]

more and more DJ's go digital

More to the point - have a look at the radiotracker link in my last post. I haven't tested this, but it seems to seek out tracks and burn them by copying internet radio broadcasts. Now since copying broadcasts for personal use is legal (I think) does this make MP3's acquired in this way legal?

[Have a disco]

Afraid every radio station in the country is already flouting this law ????? most are already using MP3 digital systems copied straight from original disc that they use I reiterate used to own???? Most have long since sold them off????

[sleah]

Q. Have a look at this site - radiotracker - and tell me if music downloaded this way is legal or illegal. Basically it records radio broadcasts. It says they are legal private copies. Trick is it searches every internet radio station and records when your chosen track gets played.

click here (http://radiotracker.com/en/free_mp3_music_downloads/index.html)

I'm 100% certain that this is illegal in the UK, and possibly many other countries.
please don't fall in to the trap that just because something on the internet appears to be legal, that it is. The advertising laws on t'internet are different to other forms of media, and you can claim just about any tripe you want to, true or not! (unless it's libelous of course!)


More to the point - have a look at the radiotracker link in my last post. I haven't tested this, but it seems to seek out tracks and burn them by copying internet radio broadcasts. Now since copying broadcasts for personal use is legal (I think) does this make MP3's acquired in this way legal?

Copying broadcasts for personal use (timeshifting) is not actually legal, however the powers that be turn a blind eye, when it IS only for personal use or educational use.


Afraid every radio station in the country is already flouting this law ????? most are already using MP3 digital systems copied straight from original disc that they use I reiterate used to own???? Most have long since sold them off????

Such radio stations have licenses that allow them to do this, I think the SG6 was designed for just this application.

[Corabar Steve]

The last few posts apart from Simon's have been nonsensical.

May I suggest that some of you actually read up on UK copyright law before you start spouting this gibberish.

The licence is needed because by UK law IT IS ILLEGAL TO MAKE ANY COPIES OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL there have recently been loopholes added such as the amnesty for domestic use but that's about it

[wayne_uk]

Steve,
I'm not sure if you have put me in the nonsensical bracket (although most people would)
But my question could be a problem with the new copy licence, it is always a possibility, how could you prove to them that your copied tracks were all legal.
the question still stands

[Corabar Steve]

I would assume you would still have the CDs & / or iTunes / Napster receipts?

[andyw]

Steve,
I'm not sure if you have put me in the nonsensical bracket (although most people would)
But my question could be a problem with the new copy licence, it is always a possibility, how could you prove to them that your copied tracks were all legal.
the question still stands

i dont think steve meant you wayne,that is a reasonable question (imo and one that would need addressing when the situation arises hopefully it never will)i don't know the answer but would hope common sense would prevail.i think when we talk about a license a lot of scaremongering and irrevlevant facts always gets brought up by those who oppose it just like in politics i suppose

just seen your reply steve,but what if like us you bought a job lot of cd's secound hand down a car boot sale(no receipts).if they come and check us now we have all the original cd's with no recipts,if we convert them and buy the license go to a party leaving the cd's home and we get burgled all we would have is the converted files.hopefully common sense would prevail until we have chance to replace the original cd's

[Corabar Steve]

i dont think steve meant you wayne,

Indeed.


It was aimed at the why do we need a licence brigade mainly.

We need a licence because copying copyrighted material without one is against the law.

There are still people out there who don't know that whan you but a CD, all that you own is the palstic & tha packaging (not tha actual music) & that has been said time & time again.


In answer to Wayne's question, I think you'd be up the creek so to speak.


These licence threads (on various forums) are just going round in circles, people asking (largely) the same questions that have been answered time & time again.

Maybe the time to make further comment is when there is a draft copy available, & then we can voice what ammendments we'd like to see. Maybe then people will get involved in a realistic manner. God knows few enough actually bothered when the consultation process started, as opposed to all those who are spitting their dummies out now.

[mr rusty]

I am sure I am the one targeted with the nonsensical moniker. I've Just been playing devils advocate to try and make people realise this is never going to be black and white.

Forget CD's for a minute, and concentrate on downloads. "All you can eat" arrangements *are*coming. You will pay a fixed fee/month and you will have the ability to download either unlimited or fixed amounts of tracks. You may not then have receipts for individual tracks.

Its not just me - here's a quote from Feargal Sharkey who is involved in trying to restructure the whole business model of downloads/copying

"Yes. We're wrestling with that because there's no traditional business models, no data. We're working through a lot of blind assumptions. Would people like an all-you-can-eat download service? I suspect they probably would. In which case, is £10 enough? Or £25 too much? Or £12.50? These are the things we're trying to figure out right now."

My one and only real point is that it is most likely that an operator will end up with a hard disk part loaded with copied digital tracks and part loaded with tracks legally downloaded. To devise a license based on quantifying how many tracks have been copied cannot be policed, and will not therefore work as intended.

You can argue whether the radiotracker thing produces legal downloads (personally I doubt it) but the fact is that a) this has been around a while b) it is based in the EU c) it says it is legal to produce copies of tracks recorded from the internet radio for personal use, i.e. the track's status is the same as one downloaded from iTunes. My point was to demonstrate that there are issues outside the DJ/Disco world that muddy the waters considerably.

This is an interesting subject and *nobody* knows how it is going to end up. The digital DJ license is just a tiny part of a mega issue. I'll shut up now.

[DJWayne]

Forget CD's for a minute, and concentrate on downloads. "All you can eat" arrangements *are*coming. You will pay a fixed fee/month and you will have the ability to download either unlimited or fixed amounts of tracks. You may not then have receipts for individual tracks.

Its not just me - here's a quote from Feargal Sharkey who is involved in trying to restructure the whole business model of downloads/copying

"Yes. We're wrestling with that because there's no traditional business models, no data. We're working through a lot of blind assumptions. Would people like an all-you-can-eat download service? I suspect they probably would. In which case, is £10 enough? Or £25 too much? Or £12.50? These are the things we're trying to figure out right now."




Erm Don't napster do an "all you can eat" service already??

[sleah]

The last few posts apart from Simon's have been nonsensical.


Cheers Steve. That's £20 I owe you now;) :D

Shouldn't we all stop :bang: ing on about the licence and let the LWP concentrate on making sure it's fair all round???
They've done a bloomin' good job so far. It's not their fault it's taken so long, that's down to red-tape:mad:

What we should be getting worked up about and making a big fuss about is getting the copyright laws changed so we don't need the licence in the first place.

Currently we have no option.
The law clearly states we cannot make any form of copy, the DDJ licence is designed to 'exempt' you from that.
It is exactly the same as the fact the law states you cannot play copyright music in public. The PPL/PRS licences are designed to give 'exemption' from that.

So please stop battering the LWP and those who are trying to create this licence, they are actually trying to help everyone here be legal.

It is the original copyright laws everyone should be having a big problem with!!!

[Corabar Steve]

You can argue whether the radiotracker thing produces legal downloads (personally I doubt it) but the fact is that a) this has been around a while b) it is based in the EU c) it says it is legal to produce copies of tracks recorded from the internet radio for personal use, i.e. the track's status is the same as one downloaded from iTunes. My point was to demonstrate that there are issues outside the DJ/Disco world that muddy the waters considerably.

Not at all, when you say EU, I assume it's not based in the UK?

Other countries in the EU have different copyright laws to the UK. Purely from a layman's POV I would say that it is in fact illegal in the UK.

[sleah]

Not at all, when you say EU, I assume it's not based in the UK?

Other countries in the EU have different copyright laws to the UK. Purely from a layman's POV I would say that it is in fact illegal in the UK.

Once again thank you Steve (this is going to get expensive).:D

At the risk of being flamed, are we the only one's who actually read the whole thread???

:sofa:

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

As you know I support and commend you but on a point of order The Disc Jockeys Federation Of Great Britain held extensive talks and negotiations with PRS and PPL in the late 70's (and acheived positive results).

What was achieved Theo and what were you negotiating?


Afraid every radio station in the country is already flouting this law ????? most are already using MP3 digital systems copied straight from original disc that they use I reiterate used to own???? Most have long since sold them off????

Different licence.




Such radio stations have licenses that allow them to do this, I think the SG6 was designed for just this application.

I don't think it's the SG6 but they do have a licence of some sort.

[Corabar Steve]

Erm Don't napster do an "all you can eat" service already??
Not as such no. Once you cancel your payment any tracks that you haven't paid the 79p "right to burn" fee for are lost to you

Cheers Steve. That's £20 I owe you now;) :D

Shouldn't we all stop :bang: ing on about the licence and let the LWP concentrate on making sure it's fair all round???
They've done a bloomin' good job so far. It's not their fault it's taken so long, that's down to red-tape:mad:

What we should be getting worked up about and making a big fuss about is getting the copyright laws changed so we don't need the licence in the first place.

Currently we have no option.
The law clearly states we cannot make any form of copy, the DDJ licence is designed to 'exempt' you from that.
It is exactly the same as the fact the law states you cannot play copyright music in public. The PPL/PRS licences are designed to give 'exemption' from that.

So please stop battering the LWP and those who are trying to create this licence, they are actually trying to help everyone here be legal.

It is the original copyright laws everyone should be having a big problem with!!!

Hear hear! :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

At the risk of being flamed, are we the only one's who actually read the whole thread???



This is why I start to get slightly miffed with people when they don't read all the information.

[Corabar Steve]

& hence some of my comments.

[Creature]

shame im considering dumping comverting to digital and going back to 100% cds. I cant see wht i should have to pay twice (or more for tracks) . that way i dont need the digital licence (in theroy). Shame as i was just getting use dto the cortex

[Tom]

shame im considering dumping comverting to digital and going back to 100% cds. I cant see wht i should have to pay twice (or more for tracks) . that way i dont need the digital licence (in theroy). Shame as i was just getting use dto the cortex

I feel the same way as you. I understand that you should pay a licence to have your music in a different format from when you bought it but for me I don't want to pay this fee. I don't mind taking cd's as this makes my jub a little harder. Using the Denon is so easy I spend most of the time looking for songs that I havent played for a while. Digital makes a DJ's life a lot easier but in my case, it makes it a lot more boring. I like a challenge.

I'm going to sit back and see what happens with this licence and make my mind up at the end.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

shame im considering dumping comverting to digital and going back to 100% cds. I cant see wht i should have to pay twice (or more for tracks) . that way i dont need the digital licence (in theroy). Shame as i was just getting use dto the cortex

You aren't paying for the same track twice. If you are making a copy, then you need to pay for it. That is the copyright law which is outdated and ridiculous in places, but it is a law and until someone changes it, there's no argument.