|
Right this bollocks has happened....
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Freak |
:mad:
Confirmed in my email inbox:
To ******** (me)
Reply to: digitaldj@ppluk.com
PPL has now launched its Digital DJ Licence (previously referred to as the
DJ Dubbing Licence).
The annual licence, which can be bought for £200, allows DJs legally to copy sound recordings onto a computer for use when DJing in clubs, pubs and other venues.
The licence is available to any DJ who wants to keep digital copies of sound recordings to use when DJing in public. The licence allows DJs to copy up to 20,000 tracks as well as a back up database of their digital copies on a separate computer.
Further information about how to apply for the licence is available on PPL's website. DJs can purchase the licence directly from PPL or through a number of agents.
The launch of the licence follows the completion of a very helpful
consultation with DJs and trade bodies. We thank you for your valuable contribution to that process and attach a detailed response.
Should you have any questions that are not answered on the website, please do not hesitate to contact us, either by replying to this email, or on 020 7534 1000.
Kind Regards
******
PPL
70 Years of PPL http://www.ppluk.com
Here is the follow up and response to the consultation document that i posted a month back- they were kind enough to send me this as a n attachment:
Digital DJ Licence The launch of the Digital DJ Licence follows a consultation exercise conducted by PPL to seek the views of the DJ industry on its licensing proposals. As part of this exercise, PPL sent a consultation document to several hundred recipients including DJs, venues, DJ equipment manufacturers, DJ shops, DJ associations and DJ magazines. This document summarises the key issues that came out of the consultation exercise and PPL’s response to them.
- PPL’s response to the consultation
PPL’s aim is to have a simple but effective arrangement for the use of digital copies of sound recordings by DJs.
Copying
A number of respondents asked PPL to reconsider the proposed limit of 10,000 tracks. After considering these requests, PPL has decided to double this limit to 20,000 tracks. Several respondents asked if they could make a back-up database. PPL has decided to allow the licensees to keep one spare copy of each track on a back-up database. PPL was asked whether the licensees would be able to create their own mixes. However, PPL does not have right to license the mixing or adaptation of the sound recordings of its members.
Therefore PPL is unable to accede to this request. DJs remain free to contact the record companies directly for such permissions and, of course, to create mixes whilst performing (provided that these live mixes are not recorded). Similarly, PPL was asked if the licence could cover video mixing. However, PPL does not control any rights in music videos and therefore cannot consider this request any further.
-Reporting
PPL was asked if DJs who only stored a small number of tracks still had to report to PPL. PPL’s aim is to distribute its dubbing licence fee income as fairly as possible between the members whose tracks are dubbed. Therefore PPL wishes to obtain reports from as many licensees as possible. PPL does not anticipate that the reporting will be particularly onerous for the DJs (particularly as DJs will only have to provide reports if they receive a request from PPL to do so). Furthermore, the reports of the tracks stored by such DJs will be of great assistance in estimating what tracks are played as part of specially featured entertainment. Therefore PPL’s decision is that all licensees will have to provide dubbing returns to PPL (subject to receiving a request from PPL).
-Payment
PPL has retained the proposed annual fee of £200. However, this fee will now cover the use of up to 20,000 tracks and the right to keep a back-up copy of each of these tracks. - 1 - 0905
One suggestion from respondents was that the licence fee could be linked to the number of tracks dubbed and/or stored by the licensee. However, PPL has decided that there should be a single flat fee to make the licence easier to administer and in the absence of any evidence as to significant differences between the values of different DJ Databases.
Some respondents suggested that the licence fee could be linked to revenue. However, it is difficult to establish the precise link between the value of the DJ Database and the revenues made by the DJ using that DJ Database.
Furthermore, the licensee would need to make adjustments if actual revenues did not meet projected revenues, or would have to pay an advance, recoupable against royalty payments made in arrears. This approach would create more administration for both the DJ and PPL. Policing a licence with a fee based on the licensee’s revenue also is more costly for PPL.
Respondents also asked whether the licence fee could be paid in instalments rather than in full and in advance. However, the annual licence fee is relatively low and PPL’s administration will be greatly increased if the payment is made by way of instalments.
Therefore for the time being the annual licence fee must be paid in a single instalment.
PPL was asked whether there could be a one-off fee covering all future use. However, it would be difficult to evaluate such a fee, creating a substantial risk that licensees would either pay too much or too little. There will be a surcharge if the fees are not paid on time (or if the licensee copies sound recordings before taking up the licence). However, to allow DJs to become aware of the new licence, PPL has decided that the surcharge will not apply to the first year’s licence fee if the licence is taken up before 1 January 2006.
-Operation of the licence
To make the administration of the licence as straightforward as possible, PPL has decided that the licence should operate on a rolling basis, avoiding the need for DJs to have to make fresh applications for a licence each year.
- 2 - 0905
This is real. This is happening. This is so much bollocks it is unbelievable :eek:
I am lost for words |
|
|
| Tony Morello |
does this only apply to djs residing in the uk?
what about guests, does a temporary license need to be aquired, much like a work visa? |
|
|
| Freak |
licence apparantly for the uk and the entire eu
www.ppluk.com- then go to faqs |
|
|
| A.J. |
That's farked.
Sorry to hear that man. :( |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
thats so very totally fvcked :( sorry to hear guys. lets hope its a resounding failure so it doesnt spread across the rest of the world.
good luck making them look like heads. |
|
|
| Greedy |
| isnt someone gonna blame bush for this? damn u guys are slacking. |
|
|
| Nic |
| it talks about copying music onto a computer for peformance, how about buying songs straight off the internet? |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
You do realise Freak (who started this thread) was the starter and driving force of that thread right?
And yes, this is utter e stupidity. Feel sorry for you English djs out there.................. |
|
|
| Basstard |
i doubt these guys actually have the resources to continually monitor every club in the UK..
its probably more likely there will be random inspections |
|
|
| Nic |
the more i think about this the less it makes sense. Arent they supposed to collect money and distribute it for public peformance of works. This is just a tax on copying music from one medium to another, it has no relevance to money that artists should get for public peformance of their works because there are already fees that have to be payed for that.
Really the only thing this could possibly be for is if djs were pirating music and peforming it live, for a start that is hardly copying off cds or records like what the fee is supposed to be for, and secondly that would imply that djs are pirating music. I would have thought that as a dj the majority of people wouldnt pirate music, i mean djs generally have some respect for the artists and the scene. Additionally if I was charge some sort of piracy tax, i would feel it gave me the right to pirate music, i dont want to pay for it twice! |
|
|
|
|
