Gah! Parasites (£200 to play mp3s!)

[magneze]

This covers legally bought/encoded mp3s. It dosen't cover you for anything you've obtained illegally, although as it says that you are covered for mp3s encoded from CDs you have since lost I'm not sure how they can enforce it. Just have a load of tracks, pay £200, then say you lost the originals when you moved house or something....

Yep, I understand that - but what I don't understand is why legal MP3s are being treated differently to CDs and records? It doesn't really make sense, apart from potentially discouraging DJs from using them - maybe that's the point?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

*afaik at the moment it is illegal to even make a "backup copy" of anything you own onto, say, a CD-R

Yes, and as a professor of copyright law I was talking to said, the only reason that is tolerated is because it's never enforced.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Yep, I understand that - but what I don't understand is why legal MP3s are being treated differently to CDs and records? It doesn't really make sense, apart from potentially discouraging DJs from using them - maybe that's the point?

It doesn't have to make sense. Copyright law is increasingly based on ignorance, paranoia and kneejerk reactions. Presumably they're thinking that they want to stop people from DJing with downloaded music, but a moment's thought would tell anyone that it does nothing for that (burn as an audio CD anyone?)

 

[topaz]

It's all just a way of ripping off the people that can afford it the least as i see it.

i've just spent 600 quid on final scratch 2 and was planning to buy a laptop so i could effectively use those as well, but the 200 thing's putting me off. for one thing i don't use illegally downloaded mp3, i don't even know how to download the bloody things haha... but i get given mp3s legitimately by producers that theoretically i now need to pay 200 to play... sucks

 

[888]

I really can't see what the fuss is about, music isn't free, get over it.

Music is free because the state of things isn't determined by the law but by practicality, and they're fighting a losing battle.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

i get given mp3s legitimately by producers that theoretically i now need to pay 200 to play

No, you only need a license for commercial tracks that are registered with the PRS.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Music is free

No it fucking isn't.

Are you saying that musicians should spend countless hours creating stuff for no reward?

 

[top_biller]

No it fucking isn't.

Are you saying that musicians should spend countless hours creating stuff for no reward?

Would have to agree. The licence is simply an extension of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act which means that you have to have the copyright owner's permission to copy a work. Fair copies are accepted (putting records on CD, downloading MP3's for use at home) , but if you're performing it publicly you have to get the owner's licence. PPL acts for the owners, the owners get paid for their efforts. You'd be surprised at how much extremely underground music is released on labels represented by PPL. Have a bit of knowledge about the subject and also DJ (albeit vinyl only) so can see both sides but any complaint should be directed against the lawmakers not the collection societies.

 

[grosun]

No it fucking isn't.

Are you saying that musicians should spend countless hours creating stuff for no reward?

Thing is, many of them do, even with proper albums released etc. Most of the money goes into the record "industry", not to the artist. In many cases, they don't make a living off record sales... tours/live appearances make them a lot more money.... so as far as I understand it, the record/cd is often essentially a promotional tool.

 

[top_biller]

Thing is, many of them do, even with proper albums released etc. Most of the money goes into the record "industry", not to the artist. In many cases, they don't make a living off record sales... tours/live appearances make them a lot more money.... so as far as I understand it, the record/cd is often essentially a promotional tool.

That's an entirely different argument though as I'm sure you appreciate. The rights owner gets paid. Thats essentially what it comes down to, it's up to the artist to get paid when he assigns his rights. With PPL its usually the record companies that get the royalties, with PRS it's the composers or publishers.

 

[grosun]

That's an entirely different argument though as I'm sure you appreciate. The rights owner gets paid. Thats essentially what it comes down to, it's up to the artist to get paid when he assigns his rights. With PPL its usually the record companies that get the royalties, with PRS it's the composers or publishers.

Well yes, to a degree it's a different argument, but the industry's argument for this type of punitive measure is usually "oh, but think of the poor artist.. how *ever* will they make a living?", which is a bullshit argument if basically all the money they're being deprived of in CD sales would actually go to industry types; A&R men, lawyers, people who own shares in Sony entertainment etc.

I think it makes a great difference to the moral justifiability of such measures whether or not the artist (whose welfare the music listener will usually care about if they want to hear more of their work some time in the future) is losing out, or whether it's just other workers in an industry which may not be necessary any more.

So yes, although that's a bit of a distraction, I think it's highly relevant to the arguments the record companies & their representatives are making in favour of these new rules.

(*edit*... sorry! may have misunderstood you there, & my entire post may be beside the point, as you were arguing that it's up to the artist to secure decent payment from record companies initially in exchange for the rights, which excluding issues of bands being tricked by various devious schemes is prob. correct, i guess, in that if the record companies never see any money off the rights, they'll be unwilling to purchase them from the artists in the first place)

 

[Dask]

Don't even get me started on this......

From the FAQ at www.digitaldj.co.uk

Does the licence allow me to create mixes?

All that the Digital DJ Licence allows you to do is copy onto, and store on, the DJ Database (and Back-up Database) sound recordings in their original form (that is, the version that you downloaded or that was on the record that purchased from the shop). You are not entitled to edit or alter the track (including combining two or more tracks to create a new track).

So what the fuck is the point in using a laptop to play the tracks out, if you can't edit or alter the tracks? If you burn everything onto CD and play from CDJ's you are exempt from the licence.

 

[top_biller]

(*edit*... sorry! may have misunderstood you there, & my entire post may be beside the point, as you were arguing that it's up to the artist to secure decent payment from record companies initially in exchange for the rights, which excluding issues of bands being tricked by various devious schemes is prob. correct, i guess, in that if the record companies never see any money off the rights, they'll be unwilling to purchase them from the artists in the first place)

Yep, I was - it's a market and therefore market forces are at work. Everything has a price, in this case the rights to exploit the musical works of an artist/band. The artist can either hang onto those rights and retain the power of when and where and by whom his music is heard, prohibitively, but will also lose out on proactively affecting those same variables by virtue that he's just the artist and doesn't (usually) have the capacity to get his record recorded (sometimes), broken, released, played, publicised, accounted...etc. The latter is what record companies are good at, in return they get the rights. Everything in between is bargaining. Each party has something to bring to the table, it's usually down to finding the balance of power, which, I agree, will be skewed more in the favour of a multi-national record company than a band on their first deal. But there's a lot of in between. And every label once started out with one act. But to go back to the original issue, as long as you follow it back to the idea of controlling something you create, be it music, art, design, the written word, I don't think you can attack the principle of paying a fee to perform other people's music to the public, maybe the mechanism or level of fee can be debated, but not IMO the principle.

 

[top_biller]

Don't even get me started on this......

From the FAQ at www.digitaldj.co.uk


So what the fuck is the point in using a laptop to play the tracks out, if you can't edit or alter the tracks? If you burn everything onto CD and play from CDJ's you are exempt from the licence.

Technically, you can't edit or alter tracks anyway, whatever format you play them on. As for copying to CD's, its illegal too, again, technically.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

If you burn everything onto CD and play from CDJ's you are...

...breaking the law.