Time to rally the troops ?

[Paul Forsyth 0]

I have been watching the ongoing and frightening advance of this piece of back door legislation, which has been met with little or no resistance.

 

Recent developments have left me more assured that the interest of the DJ that wishes to operate within the law is far from foremost in the minds of the PPL and it's commercial partners in the supply of this license.

 

I myself have begun to believe that the best option personally is to continue to work with cd's and not embrace the new technology that is being promoted and presented as "the new way forward", but how long will it be before the PPL align their sights on me as a target for additional revenue by introducing a cd licence and maybe even a vinyl license for private function performance.

 

What do the manufacturers of digital equipment and suppliers of digital downloads do with their data information (read the smallprint before ticking the I agree box) and will they be forced as TV sellers are to register people who buy equipment.

 

Paraniod - maybe yes, but with good reason there are far too many people here working together with their own vested interests to screw us. Wake up and smell the gravey. I believe that a united stand against this license should be made with all of the associations / forums / union coming together to fight this exploitation.

 

Or is it just me http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/wallbash.gif

 

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/1106.gif

 

debate - please

[Gary 0]

Anyone know Richard Lees hard hat size... http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/bash.gif Needed pre-Novembers SEDA meeting... http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

 

I think, (and this is also something that got mentioned alot at this years PLASA), IF the poorly named Digital DJ (ing) licence was ONLY available with the value-added extras and NOT available for just the raw PPL cost of £200+VAT, then it would be fair to say that the approved distributors were scr....out to get some extra dosh from us. However, the bog-standard license is available for no extra cost from various places.

 

Most people would agree that if the PPL license were not annual - it would be a far better licence. The SG-6 Licence for example is a one off - £500 for enough "rights" to move 5000 tracks, £1000 for 10000 tracks etc,etc. This SG-6 licence would be pefect for most of us - if it simply came with blanket permission from all the MCPS record companies - rather than an SG-6 license holder having to write to all the respective record labels for each track.

 

Given the choice of "Would you like to spend £200, or not?" of course no-ones going to opt for anything - especially when theres no new flashing lights, extra bass or clearer sound to show for, after the spend. But at the end of the day, its like car insurance isnt it - we splash out, and after 12 months of no-one asking to view our particulars wonder why on earth we spent out for it. Mind you, when its broken down to being only £4.52 per week or 64p per day, peoples concerns about the license cant really be the cost. Surely?

 

Your idea Vinnie, of those selling the hardware/software solution having to legally register the names and addresses of those purchasing said items was something that I was talking to one such manufacturer (Not Denon, for a change) about a month or so ago - They do hold the details, and would, if requested submit those details to PPL or similar orgs, if required to do so.

 

There are plenty of DJs who feel the same way you do Vinnie, eg: Stick to CD's;

as was seen in THIS DJs United Poll. also, others have tried taking a non-disco dedicated bit of kit eg: Laptop/PC and found it not up to the job, so are going to abandon that idea, After all - Few of us use domestic/home CD-players in-front of 200+ people after all - its false ecomony. Many people felt that the best way forward was simply relying on the laptop for nothing more than an Excel/Access database to assist them in the speedy search for the original CD's. eg: "Kylie: Cant get you out of my head is one Now 50, disc 1 track 1." in CD case # 4" (maybe with a piccy of the cover to aid discovery even quicker).

 

Although I'd be keen on steering away from the word "resistance" used in the poll question above, I would be very keen for some changes to be made to the PPL digital dj license (not least of which, would be a change to the title of the license). For many DJ's the Digital DJ license is exactly what they need. My primary objection to the license in its current form is that "verbally" PPL arent acknowledging that a "database" can be stored on data CD's - only harddrives - this particular point is something which I intend to badger them about severely if they write back to me and confirm that this is the case.

 

I'm optimistic that the current version of the license definately will change, but no one can be sure as to what extent those changes will be.

Edited October 13, 2005 by Gary

[Paul Forsyth 0]

Whilst I agree with much you say Gary I do not share your faith in this being a real solution for dj's - This is a "shut up" response from the Industry to individuals seeking to work within the law, even without the "add ons" promo download companies do have vested interests, and I reiterate my belief that this will be a precidence setting license that will be applied to cd's and vinyl, lets face it we make a much easier target than real pirates - especially when the very people we spend our hard earned cash with are so willing to give up our details.

 

We are way behind on this one, and need to catch up fast - pressure needs to be brought to bear on our union to fight our corner.

 

This is not a solution, it's the beginning of a major problem and errosion of our rights.

 

This whole license issue is big time scary. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/fear.gif

 

Vinnie

[Gary 0]

I had very similar concerns when news of the provisional licence first broke - however, since CDs have been around for 25 years and vinyl even longer - I draw solice from the fact that if PPL thought that there was a way of charging for those mediums, other than the long-standing PPL/Venue licences, they would have done.

 

I think that its the quantity of copyrighted tracks which could get copied in a couple of clicks and matter of minutes which particularly worries the PPL and probably the music industry. After all, a less than moral DJ with a laptop or PC, and a less than moral DJ wannabe with a blank formatted harddrive and a usb lead, could do the business for the cost of a beer or five, in the time it takes to down the said beers - thats an eye-opener for any organisation concerned about copyrighted music.

 

As I said above, I'm optimistic that the current version of the license definately will change, but no one can be sure as to what extent those changes will be.

 

The license isnt exactly restrictive in terms of tracks covered eg: 20,000, (originally it stated 5000 - half of that goes instantly if you've got the NOW albums) nor does it have the crazy original element of "No backup must be made" anymore - both these terms were unworkable to a professional DJ - but PPL listened and changed.

 

Is there anything other than price and "I've already bought it once - its mine" which DJU members believe could be improved? (apart from scrapping it)

[Paul Forsyth 0]

How does this license do anything for dj's - other than make them "legal" in the eyes of ppl - and how does this EXTRA revenue get spent?

 

These guys are using new circumstance to set precedent which could in the future be applied to cd and vinyl.

 

And it still doesn't cover dj's wanting to use mp3s stored on cd - so where does that leave all the hardwear out there - or have I got something wrong?

 

Vinnie

[Dukesy 0]

Unfortunately, many will put up with the new license because it is intended to become the norm.

 

 

[transeurope 0]

Seriously guys....

 

Is there a statute basis for this law? Can anyone quote a statute either British or European that provides a basis for these people to collect money? I can't think of one. I think the people invovled should be able to show what empowers them to collect this money.

 

As it is not allowed for someone to collect money for an activity which they know is illegal, how can the people concerned collect money to licence an activity which requires you to copy music to a hard drive, or use download services that specifically limit the use of the tracks to personal use?

 

Can anyone actually point to a court decision by a UK judge that involved a DJ being convicted and fined/imprisoned where the sale of duplicated discs was not an issue?

 

As the UK has signed up to the Lisbon Agenda which is supposed to promote the rights of workers providing services to travel and work throughout the EU, how can this licence fit in with stated UK government policy?

 

These are questions that I think need to be answered. If the people involved in this licence system are real professionals rather than just blaggers chancing their arm, they should have the answers at their fingertips.

 

 

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (Vinnie @ Oct 13 2005, 06:42 PM)

How does this license do anything for dj's - other than make them "legal" in the eyes of ppl - and how does this EXTRA revenue get spent?

 

The revenue (I'm assuming) gets fed into the PPL machine which is already in place to split the booty amongst the music companies and their artists etc - thats why part of the licence leaves open the requirement for PPL to ask DJs to do "Playlist returns" (by any other name) "IF" requested to do so by PPL in the future. I would imagine (again an assumption) that the playlists might get used by PPL to adjust (pro-rata) the different splits that each record label gets from the PPL licence funds. eg: If the playlist returns show alot of "EMI" tunes being played, and virtually no "Def Jam" then guess who's wont get quite so much divvy.

 

QUOTE (Vinnie @ Oct 13 2005, 06:42 PM)

These guys are using new circumstance to set precedent which could in the future be applied to cd and vinyl.

 

I still maintain that if "they" were going to do this to other mediums, they;d have done it by now. (and If they're planning on doing it to vinyl, they'd better act quick)

 

QUOTE (Vinnie @ Oct 13 2005, 06:42 PM)

And it still doesn't cover dj's wanting to use mp3s stored on cd - so where does that leave all the hardwear out there - or have I got something wrong?

 

Funnily enough, I was talking to someone about this very aspect earlier this evening - DJ Mag (or was it IDJ) are running a piece on the PPL license in the next (but one?) issue, and at the moment - storing MP3's on CDR(W) isnt (we think) covered by the PPL Digital DJ(ing) licence - In my opinion, it should cover CDR's after all - it says we're allowed to have a "DATABASE" and a "BACKUP" database - who says thjat a database can ONLY be held on a harddrive, and not 150 CDRs? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/533.gif

 

(If it turns out that CDR(W)s ARE covered - I'll buy the PPL licence on the same day that PPL confirm this...). However, there are plenty of legal/legit "household name" sites which allow you to pay .79p a tune and burn those tunes to CD, for use in DJ dedicated MP3 playing equipment eg: Denon DN-D4500, DN-D6000, DN-S3500, DN-S5000, DN-S3000, DN-S1000 etc.

 

The T&C's of the current version of the licence doesnt however offer any help to those DJ's, myself included, who have boxes and boxes of tunes in older formats eg: vinyl and hundreds of CD singles, who want to carry on playing those tunes (promoting the artist) on CDR or CDRWs.

Edited October 13, 2005 by Gary

[Hugmaster 0]

Hi

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read on this forum that the PPL Licence doesn't cover you for every record company, only the ones registered with them?

 

So you might inadvertantly be ripping songs and thinking you're totally legal, and not being.

 

PPL shoudl've already distributed funds to record companies for the original sale of such songs, why do they need to collect it twice?

 

I maintain that I think it's all a big bloody swindle set up to fatten the wallets of the record industry.

 

Am I the only person that feels this way?

 

A better idea to make sure every aspect of DJing is covered is to have some kind of blanket DJing licence, no matter what media you play your music from.

 

it's damn disgusting that because a DJ chooses to use the technology available to them, they're slammed in the bank balance to the tune of £200 a year.

 

Looks like I'll be going back to CD's, a pity for the customer really as I'll be spending less time interacting with them while I hunt around for tracks not played in a while.

 

I hope that venues are more vigelant at checking whether a DJ has a digital licence than they are about PAT and PLI, something that is potentially life threatening taken to its extreme.

 

Darren

[McCardle 1]

how many other countries have implemented this law? is this yet another penalise-the-uk-industry-with-yet-another-financial-penalty surely its about time we all chipped in and got a solicitor who specialises in copyright law to look into the matter further because doesnt it put the uk disc jockey on an unfair footing with regard to fair exchange of trade when compared to deejays in other countries. if this is a worldwide law then it would be fair however in my own opinion i see it as just yet another tax which threatens our industry. Who are the enforcing authorities using to police this scheme?, the landlords? well don't they have enough paperwork to do already what with the disabilities act meaning they have to spend tens of thousands of pounds on building work, not to mention the paperwork which SKY sends them everytime they show a football match http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/rolleyes.gif Yes i am sure that they'll welcome yet another pile of paperwork and change in licensing with open arms, especially as many local councils cant even reach a final conclusion with regard to the licensing laws at the moment!.

 

Eventually the over (paper)worked landlords will say enough is enough with all of this red tape, and see where they can cut their paperwork down, the deejay will probably be the first to get the chop because prior to 2005 all the landlord had to do was make sure he had a one size fits all entertainment licence and book a dj. In the future, he has to be an upaid clerk and supergrass examining the material the dj is using noting whether it is cd or digital, and no doubt fill in more forms in order to ensure that his entertainment licence is not jeopordised. So during 2006 i forsee many pubs taking the wetherspoons approach and cutting the Dj out of the loop altogether. This weekend try asking the landlord of your local pub as to what he or she feels about the idea and then draw your own conclusions. What also annoys me about this, is the fact that this has been levied on us with no consultation whatsoever, i personally was not polled or contacted at any point to have my say or air my views, were you?, so in whose favour exactly is this licence aimed?, and anybody who thinks that this will only have an impact on digitial djs and will not spread to other mediums once the ££s roll in, probably also believe that the moon is made of cheese.

Edited October 14, 2005 by McCardle

[Gary 0]

Its quite likely that PPL doesnt cover every single record label, however PPL distributes public performance royalties in the UK on behalf of over 3,000

record companies and 30,000 performers - thats gotta be an extemely high representation.

 

There have been calls before for an overall "DJ licence" which gives special rights to DJs that the general public wouldnt have - BUT the problem there is making sure that only bona fide DJ's enrol/subscribe to the DJ licence - not just "bloke off the street" who wants to be able to dub, copy, rip tunes for others, and other reasons. Disco Mix Club used to have a strict policy of "DJs Only" and some of the music and mix packages that they offered were only possible as they'd convinced the industry that what they did was ONLY available to DJ's. All hell broke loose however when a mere humble, non-DJ secretary at Motown records managed to sign up and obtain "DJ only" tracks. Motown then refused DMC permission to use any Motown tunes in mixes for years and years after that, although the two are the very best of friends now...

 

This highlights the problems of: How to check that someone claiming to be a DJ, when applying for some future DJ license really is a DJ? After all, who's a DJ? anyone whos got a receipt from a recognised DJ shop? anyone who sends in a tax return with "Disc jockey" in the occupation box, someone who spends £££ per year with a DJ association? The last option has certainly got alot of benefits going for it, but obviously has costs associated with it, just like the current offering.

 

So far, in this thread at least, the primary gripe is "I cant afford it", or infact, more accurately, "I dont want to afford it". - I dont blame anyone for that, and as mentioned above, given the option of "Pay or not to pay" for something I'd not had to buy before, I'd be first in the "Not pay" queue.

 

If the digitial DJ(ing) licence is to be "corrected", overturned, abolished, replaced with something which covers more accurately, the needs of more DJs, then we need to be succinct and perfectly clear as to what specific thing(s) need to be addressed by PPL.

 

Which tact is going to serve us best in the face of PPL?

 

"I dont like it, its not right, its not what I wanted"

 

or...

 

"The specific parameter, limitation, or restriction in the license which we feel needs to be changed is...A....which currently states...B....and we feel this would be fairer to more DJ's if it was changed to ...C..."

 

Is it the Digital DJ(ing) licence which we need to get amended? and if so, in what specific way. Or...would our efforts be better defined trying to get the MCPS's SG-6 license refined so that a blanket payment upfront REPLACES the need to write to each record company to obtain their permission.

 

[Dukesy 0]

I don't think it's a question of affordability really! LOL!

It's about rights.

 

Ok, let's put all the cards on the table.

 

The companies that championed the niche market and watched the ££ signs role before their eyes have got to deliver this licence - we are the 'client'.

 

If they don't, and the 'product' turns out to be crap, then their services and products, Eg, namely the monthly issues of DJ USE ONLY focused material will most probably start to hit more than sale turbulence.

 

It would not surprise me if there was a UNITED product boycott of not only the subscribed monthly issues of Discs, but also the stock of Discs in the authorised disco shops.

 

And why not?

 

We can get difficult clients and have to deal with them, so why can't the boot be on the other foot?

 

Given the 'push' that this 'license' has been given to become the accepted norm, I foresee the potential implications to the 'authorised agents on the make' as a very, very big gamble amongst many, many players.

 

 

Rally the troops and 'up the stakes' ?

Depends on whose got balls and wants to play serious.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2005 by discodirect

[Gary 0]

Dan, I think you're onto something there.

 

There were about 50 DJU members who voted on that poll about the Digital DJ license - and to be honest - 50 individuals contacting PPL and saying "Oi!" isnt going to make much of an impression (although, there are ways of making it make an impression...)

 

However...50 voices contacting Mastermix with specific suggestions...and then Mastermix bring up those specific suggestions at their next scheduled meeting with PPL and their peer distributors - now that, I think, would be the right shoulders against the right wheel, pushing in the right direction. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/thumbup.gif

 

 

[Paul Forsyth 0]

QUOTE (Gary @ Oct 14 2005, 09:57 AM)

So far, in this thread at least, the primary gripe is "I cant afford it", or infact, more accurately, "I dont want to afford it". - I dont blame anyone for that, and as mentioned above, given the option of "Pay or not to pay" for something I'd not had to buy before, I'd be first in the "Not pay" queue. Which tact is going to serve us best in the face of PPL?

I must be reading a different thread http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/wacko.gif

 

 

This is not about cost, it's about being shafted for nothing, it's about being penalised for being honest, it's about freedom of infrmation, it's about being an unpaid informant (even the old bill pay their grasses), it's about stealth law making, it's about setting ourselves up as a cash cow to be milked by PPL.

 

So far this "license" (which really ought to be called tax)has been likened to insurance - I don't think so we know what we are buying with insurance.

 

 

We really should be looking to get England brought into line with other countries that do not penalise the DJ for using equipment and technology that is activly being pushed as the way forward.

 

How to stop "MR CROOK" from posing as a dj is not our problem!!!!

 

We need to focus on our needs and interests and not those of PPL, Equipment manufactures, promo providers those guys really can look after themselves - which is what they're doing with this license - double bubble anyone?

 

Vinnie

[Dukesy 0]

Why do we need to consult Mastermix, did they consult us at the start?

 

Before I go any further, it's all very well watering down issues and agreeing to disagree on subjects but I can not believe that the nicely, nicely approach will serve any of our interests.

 

This license is supposed to serve interests.

 

It does.

 

Vested.

 

It's about time we did wake up and smell the gravy. If that means adopting simple measures to put a point across then fight fire with fire.

 

No Association or Union or collective group was consulted about the broad issues of this introduced license, and we supposedly live in a democracy so do we forfeit this democratic right of representation or consultation on areas which may have a dramatic or long term implication on our businesses just because we choose to become a DJ?.

 

When challenged in court - what do you think the Judge will say....it's the norm, overruled. Nobody wishes to be test case material but just because it has never been challenged doesn't make it right or ethical. CD Companies do not run or control our businesses - we do, and we should fight these attempts to police the industry in exchange for several pieces of silver, right here on the ground floor.

 

How long do we have to bounce around the meadow like sheep, herded by the authorities shepherd with its ££ signed eyes dog yapping.

Perhaps it's time to bring the dog to heel and remove the sheep's clothing.

 

DJs can unite and make a defiant stand by, if necessary, boycotting DJ USE ONLY products along with the support of the Associations and perhaps other online forums.......DJs have the opportunity to yield the big stick.

 

Lets also consider that in 3 years time, a european court proves that the licence is illegal, flawed, unworkable or has been implemented without government consultation or paper.

Can the issuers afford to refund hundreds of DJ's three years worth of back subscriptions in one go?, or would they disappear owing a lot of Angry Dj's a lot of money?.

 

How will that make the industry look in the public eye?

[McCardle 1]

interesting thread and some interesting replies. i think perhaps that what i was trying to say is that in my own opinion i believe that this licence has perhaps been introduced by several cd producers who are perhaps so P****d off with piracy of their products that they have implemented this sledghammer to crack a nut routine but who can blame them, however i have contacted a certain person on this forum several months ago with a list of places where pirated material is openly available, but i guess that those companies whose products are involved are not interested because months on i see that these places are still online advertising all manner of DJ and Karaoke material for sale. This perhaps adds some substance to the point which was mentioned above that it is far easier to monitor and perhaps penalise honest, above board djs than it is to go after those who are currently advertising pirated material online elsewhere.

[brianmole 0]

I like the idea of comissioning a music industry aware solicitor to tell us the truth - maybe it's time NADJ, SEDA, MU ought to join forces to do this.

 

Everyone seems to have a vested interest, no one is interested in the DJ's requirements.

[Dukesy 0]

I've added a few extra points to the original post

 

Whether they like it or not, Mastermix have put themselves into the topic frame.

The license is a farce with only Mastermix and PPL making from it.

 

Every other country (in the world?) has the privilege to do legally what Mastermix and PPL have given us the blessing to do in the UK......sorry, being charged for.

Under what legal instrument are they operating under for the basis of the license?

How is the fee charged broken down.....transparency?

 

 

Separating my DJ hat from my hat as owner of Discodirect and figure-head of the DJ@ssociates Association, I find the whole subject of this license abhorrent.

Already, the poll indication in this thread speaks for itself.

 

Suggestion

Why don't the DJ associations poll their own members what they think of the license and ask simple questions:

 

1) Do you think the license covers all aspects of digital media?

2) Does the license offer value for money?

3) Would you like a say in what the license should offer?

 

Once the poll results are in - forward to Mastermix.

 

Maybe if Mastermix reps are meeting with SEDA in November, it would be prudent to print and present this thread and poll results at the meeting? I'd hate to think they would miss the opportunity of answering all the concerns and raised issues???

 

SEDA would have an opportunity to present membership feedback in a polite way.

So would the NADJ, who, I hope would also pop along to SEDA with similar feedback if they too agreed that Mastermix (and PPL) need to listen to the long standing Association body's DJs have joined to represent them , or should the DJ Associations not get involved?

 

By far, this would be the quickest way to generate feedback and present such findings for all concerned in a simple, professional way.

 

What would Mastermix consider if the result findings literally opposed the new license (from the Associations members) and the UKs leading DJ forum (considered) on a collective front, whose findings were then presented to the M.U.?

 

Is this the way forward for mobile DJs to accept under no consultation?

Why are they pushing a regulation via the backdoor (as Vinnie suggested) on subjects that the EU are attempting to deregulate?

 

Now would be the time to TRY and make your constructive points and feelings known in the thread, or forever hold your peace. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/smile.gif

Edited October 17, 2005 by discodirect

[Gary 0]

One bit of related news, and I'll update the other related thread also.

 

I've just spoken to PPL, who have confirmed that they have received my recorded delivery letter with all the "DJ A wants to do this, DJ DD wants to do that" and...(someone catch me) the email reply should be in the next 5 working days !!!

 

OK, it wont change everything for everybody, but it'll hopefully blow away a few of the clouds which arent helping matters.

 

I'll post the reply as soon as I get it.

 

[Paul Forsyth 0]

Great stuff Gary - any clarification is gonna help to find out exactly what they're trying to sell us.

 

Let's face it this product is not fit for use as it stands - if it was a real life product it wouldn't make the shelves.

 

Hey anyone want to buy a breathing license?? £200 a year will give you permission to put air into your lungs and to breathe it out again - but we're not sure just now if it covers transfering of that air into a baloon or other object>

 

Vinnie

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (Vinnie @ Oct 14 2005, 02:21 PM)

Hey anyone want to buy a breathing license?? £200 a  year will give you permission to put air into your lungs and to breathe it out again - but we're not sure just now if it covers transfering of that air into a balloon or other object>

Suddenly, I'm getting an image of 50 members of DJ United, on the steps of PPL

 

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/omg.gif http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/Protest_emoticon.gif http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/signdammit.gif http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/wasntme-sign.gif http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/9.gif http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/stupid.gif http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/offtopic.gif

 

(Dont read the slogans, these were the only banner-wielding smilies I could find)

 

...on the steps of PPL, with a CD-Ghetto blaster playing a single-tracked ripped CD of "Sometimes, all I need is the air that I breathe...". (With the original 7inch vinyl single, to show we had paid the artist/once already.

 

Ah...problem...the steps would be public, not private...

 

Ods law is, we'd get moved along before the 2 local newspaper photographers arrived. Another image springs to mind of the PPL guys coming down the steps with a couple of police officers, holding their own ghetto blaster playing a original CD of "I fought the law, and the law won"... (ah...but they'd need a licence to play that publically...they'd probably write one out for themselves in the lift on the way down).

 

I dont feel we're that far off some sort of "Turn up at PPL en-mass" type demo...

Edited October 14, 2005 by Gary

[FDDJ 0]

QUOTE (Gary @ Oct 14 2005, 05:01 PM)

Ods law is....

Not another new piece of legislation Gary?

 

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/huh.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/tongue.gif

[Gary 0]

Ok, from what I can gather the basic "objections" to the PPLs Digital DJ Licence (apart from me not liking the name of it) are still a bit fuzzy - apart from a general, understandable dislike.

 

Perhaps a good way of moving this thread forward would be to try to mould our objections into succinct

 

* We've already bought the music in other formats eg: vinyl, CD album, CD singles, 79p legit download, etc. - We're performing a dinner dance in a venue which has its own PPL music license which allows me to play those tunes from their original format at no extra cost to me - Why does "Public Performance Ltd" want to charge me more for playing the same sounds at the audience from my laptop/harddrive device?

 

 

 

 

In this vein, do DJU members feel that this is a good way of clarifying our objections to the licence? If so, what other sensible questions do members have?

 

 

[Dukesy 0]

Apart from the obvious - How did they determine this licence would be embraced by Mobile DJs as reasonable? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/laugh.gif

 

And also, can either the PPL or Mastermix outline what legal instrument they are using as the basis of power? Statute? Judicial? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/533.gif

 

QUOTE

Why does "Public Performance Ltd" want to charge me more for playing the same sounds at the audience from my laptop/harddrive device?

 

Don't forget the MP3 CD Players!!!

Edited October 17, 2005 by discodirect

[DJ Geco 0]

This may be back-tracking a bit, but if you donload the songs on a legal sight, and then copy them straight accross to your road-PC do you still need the liscence? The way i understood it, the liscence was to allow you to change the format (MP3, CD, Vinyl) once. But if you are going straight from PC to PC then you aren't changing the format, right? It's all very confusing http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/wacko.gif

 

I think it is totally a new way for the business man to make his wallat even fatter! In my opinion, the best soloution should be "if you own the original CD (or have legally downloaded it) you are allowed to put it onto your computer, aslong as it is not shared/given with anyone. You must keep the original CD/receipt from download aslong as you have the track on your PC". Simple, clean cut and fair!

 

Bubbles