'Fair Use' proposed for the UK - but not for DJs

[Vectis]

what I think Tony's getting at is that he circumvents Produb by only downloading direct to the playout device. I think his concern now is that if a guest gives him some music, or even a complete play list, he will then be in breach of this clause, and be liable for the cost of a Produb licence, which he has so far managed to avoid.

My understanding would be that if the guest provided the music in a "useable" format - ie no format shifting required in order to use it - then ProDub wouldn't apply.

However if the guest handed over a memory stick full of .m4a's (for example) but the playout requires mp3 and therefore a format shift, then ProDub would govern this. If the guest were to do the conversion beforehand, however...

[Excalibur]

My understanding would be that if the guest provided the music in a "useable" format - ie no format shifting required in order to use it - then ProDub wouldn't apply.

Agreed. But isn't that exactly what we digital DJ's do already? Convert it. As far as I can see, the only way Tony would be clear is if the client had a Produb licence, or had done the same as Tony, ie downloaded straight to playout device.

However, if the client dispensed with Tony's services as a DJ, and merely hired the PA and lights, then none of this applies, as it's a private individual hosting a private party, and exempt from everything.

I'm leaving this for now, as my brain's beginning to hurt.

[Vectis]

As far as I can see, the only way Tony would be clear is if the client had a Produb licence

I don't see how the guest's compliance with the law is any concern of Tony's? If the client hands over an mp3 and Tony has the wherewithal to play an mp3, then job done. If said mp3 was obtained or converted illegally, that's not Tony's problem. However if the client hands over an m4a (for example) and Tony can only play mp3 (for example), that's when it becomes an issue.

It all boils down to WHO does the manipulation (if any) - client = not the DJs concern; DJ = ProDub's concern

(I am, of course, assuming all of the above is in relation to a private party in a correctly-licensed venue).

[Excalibur]

It all boils down to WHO does the manipulation (if any) - client = not the DJs concern; DJ = ProDub's concern

(I am, of course, assuming all of the above is in relation to a private party in a correctly-licensed venue).

I understand the basis of your argument Vectis, no problem. Only thing is, I'm not sure it's correct. Let's take this to extremes, Tony's doing a gig, and he has no music of his own there at all. All he plays are are mp3's ( again taken as an example ) provided for him by punters on USB sticks, phones and ipods. That must contravene something", even though I've got no idea what.



*And if it doesn't, it certainly ought to do. What if everything Tony played was copied, or otherwise pirated? He can't tell, and has no obligation to check ( has he? ). Just cos it isn't his, is he fireproof? This is a veritable minefield.

[TONYTIGER]

Thanks Martin quite clear in my mind now.











www.tonyjamesdisco.co.uk

[Vectis]

That must contravene something", even though I've got no idea what.

Well I guess that, technically, the DJ might be implicated in handling stolen property if a) the music was illegally obtained (by others) and b) he is playing for payment - but I consider this extremely unlikely ... especially seeing as in the vast majority of cases "the music" is actually only a licence to use in any case and therefore not a physical thing which can be bought and sold. Very little music (I'd proffer none in the case of a typical mobile DJ) is actually owned by the people who pay for it.

[mattydj50]

Easy solution. If it isn't mine, I don't play it.