TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Digital DJs Unaware of Copyright Law
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Digital DJs Unaware of Copyright Law
"The BBC reports that if you're a DJ, playing your digital copies of files off a laptop or mp3 player is illegal. The UK royalty collection agency, PPL, demands that such DJs pay �200 for a license in order to do so. From the article, 'Many DJs are still unwittingly breaking the law by playing unlicensed digital copies of tracks months after a new permit scheme began, the BBC has found. This includes legally-purchased downloads, which are normally licensed only for personal use, as well as copies of tracks from records or CDs.'"
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/13/1814219
The summary is a little unclear, its a public performance that makes it illegal, not just playing songs on your laptop.
Discuss...
and I assume that 200 pounds will go directly to the artists? 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by RapidFire and I assume that 200 pounds will go directly to the artists? |
Give em a break. Try gettin citizens off limewire and shit before puttin anythin on djs
What if the digital dj is playing music that isnt being pushed by the major labels, like ameteur music that is freely shared on the internet from pages of the artists which explicitly say "you can play this in public performance"
I find many Digital DJ's are digital because their music is from esoteric sources that freely allow this kinda stuff, rather than being itunes downloads of major label music licensed only for personal listening.
djs in sweden aren't even allowed to copy their original cd, and play that out. they must bring the originals. i wonder what will happen to the big name djs visiting sweden 
RIAA can suck a very large cock... prefrerably not mine
im glad we dont have any laws like that in the US, not that i know of yet anyway but if there was such a law, I would have to register and get a business license and right that fee off on my taxes as cost.
What ppl dont understand is that radio stations have to pay copyright costs as well. Im not familiar with it but i believe they pay something like .02 cents everytime they play a song. So technically, this fee is fair and legal because what would stop any of us to start our own radio station playing tunes for free?
You can argue that without DJs, producers wont get recognition blah blah blah. . . .but the radio business has been goin on for a long time and theyve been payin these copyright fees since day one.
The DJ in the article is right, that is a HUGE fee. I think having a fee is fair, but needs to be more affordable because there isnt a lot of money in djing.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by RapidFire and I assume that 200 pounds will go directly to the artists? |
This is very unlikely to be enforced in any meaningful way.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by iammesol RIAA can suck a very large cock... prefrerably not mine |
this is getting way out of hand
people only buy good music
maybe if most artists would stop pulling stuff out of their asses and actually put some thought to their music, we wouldn't have these related problems.
i buy good music in hopes to seperate good artists from horrible artists, financially.
Yeah this isnt the RIAA. I dont even think the U.S. has a royalty collection agency like this. I'll bet the BPI are approving of this 
Move to Canada, where downloading music is practically legal, along with a lot of other stuff 
Obviously the money goes to the bigger labels under the pretext of 'royalty' . We needn't worry too much. The labels represented under the PPL are probably wank labels signing top-40 trash. I doubt that the bigger dance music labels are represented by the PPL.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Munchy Move to Canada, where downloading music is practically legal, along with a lot of other stuff |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Greedy sucks to be a canadian producer. Are there any canadian producers worth mentioning? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Greedy sucks to be a canadian producer. Are there any canadian producers worth mentioning? |
Re: Digital DJs Unaware of Copyright Law
| quote: |
| Originally posted by charon "The BBC reports that if you're a DJ, playing your digital copies of files off a laptop or mp3 player is illegal. The UK royalty collection agency, PPL, demands that such DJs pay �200 for a license in order to do so. From the article, 'Many DJs are still unwittingly breaking the law by playing unlicensed digital copies of tracks months after a new permit scheme began, the BBC has found. This includes legally-purchased downloads, which are normally licensed only for personal use, as well as copies of tracks from records or CDs.'" http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/13/1814219 The summary is a little unclear, its a public performance that makes it illegal, not just playing songs on your laptop. Discuss... |
So basically, just play it to yourself with really big speakers and stuff. If somebody happens to hear, it's not your fault.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Munchy Move to Canada, where downloading music is practically legal, along with a lot of other stuff |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Cinos So basically, just play it to yourself with really big speakers and stuff. If somebody happens to hear, it's not your fault. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by lacksesepsotygh djs in sweden aren't even allowed to copy their original cd, and play that out. they must bring the originals. i wonder what will happen to the big name djs visiting sweden |
bah that's just a bureacratic law noone's gonna follow. Did you all know it's techincally illegal to watch DVD movies in groups greater than like 10 or something like that without paying royalties to the film industry? No, of course not because no one cares and it is impossible to enforce.
The U.S. does have these laws. There can be many different rights in a musical work that require licenses, in this case it appears to be a performance license. If you don't own the performance rights to a song (artists can sell theses rights), you have to buy a license from the owner of the copyright. Paul McCartney has to pay license fees to do concerts in the U.S. because Michael Jackson owns the performance rights to the Beatles catalog.
Virtually every artist who has ever released a tune on a major label in America is a member of either BMI or ASCAP, which collect performance royalties (the same ones that radio stations pay). I don't know about British law, but under American law I don't think a DJ would be require to pay these royalties if he played only his own songs and he had not sold the performance copyrights to those songs.
BMI and ASCAP have employees who go to bars and other places where songs by their artists may be performed, so it actually is enforced. As I mentioned earlier, virtually every artist belongs to one or the other. They're pretty fair about it--they're give three or four warnings before they take legal action. However, dance music is still pretty underground in America in comparison to, well, just about every other kind of music so a lot of these tunes aren't registered with either BMI or ASCAP. Accordingly, a search on both those sites turned up nothing for Tiesto, Paul van Dyk or Markus Schulz so you could play their songs in American clubs with impunity.
FYI, a "public performance," which would be one that requires these royalties to be paid, is considered to be a group of people outside of the normal a person's normal group of family and friends.
Nerdbomber, over and out.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.