Future of Music for US?

Sunisa 12-28-2005

It's required by each DJ unless they only perform in already licensed venues, in which case the venue provides that license instead. Playing MP3s anywhere in public is illegal unless you own the PPL’s (Phonographic Performance Limited) new Digital DJ license, available for a little over $344 per year. Which seems like a hell of alot to me, especially for a per year item.

Who is PPL?
Record companies have various rights in their sound recordings. Some of these rights are transferred to Phonographic Performance Limited (“PPL”), enabling members of the public to obtain licences from one source rather than having to contact all the different record companies.

PPL’s rights include the right to perform a sound recording in public, the right to broadcast a sound recording and the right to copy a sound recording for subsequent use in public performances or broadcasts.

Why do I need a Digital DJ Licence?
Under UK law it is necessary to obtain the permission of the owner of copyright in a sound recording if you copy that sound recording.

If a copy of a sound recording is made in order to play that sound recording in public, PPL controls the relevant copying rights and so can grant you a licence to ensure that your copies comply with the law.

Why do I need an extra licence if I have obtained the tracks lawfully?
When you purchase a vinyl record, tape or CD you only can use that record for domestic purposes. You do not acquire any rights to copy that record or to play that record in public. So if you want to copy a sound recording on that record onto your computer, you must obtain the permission of the owner of the copyright in that sound recording.

The position in respect of lawful downloads is very similar, save that you are given a limited right to keep a copy of the downloaded sound recording for your domestic listening. If you want to keep that copy for other purposes, then the law requires you to obtain the permission of the copyright owner.


UPDATE from SINXATION
However, flaws have been highlighted in the new license. If you own the Digital DJ license you’re allowed to play an MP3 off a laptop’s hard disk. But you’re not allowed to play that same MP3 off a CD-R.

BonitaPajarita

OK this law belongs in the "Stupid Laws Around the World" book. Courtesy of the stupid people.

This is just a ass-backwards law. I bought the CD/record/MP3 and I have to have a licences to own my MP3's and for them to burned only so many times and regulate how I use them on my MP3 player. Now on top of that licences to own and to play and to burn I have to get another licence to play the song in a club. What difference does it make if you play the songs for people at a small house party or the most popular club in the city. They don't hand out the songs, or burn copies, and besides they bring there music when they come to the gij and they leave with there music.

So I dont see the point at all in this new law and/or purpose.

Hsoolien

Actually this law is not stupid, when you purchase a song/cd/mp3 you purchase the right to listen to it privately (at home/car with frineds), the same applies to movies. (the same part of the law also says no copies unless otherwise specified, like in Canada I'm entitled to one legal copy of any media I own for backup) When you play it to a large public audience, especially if you are being paid to do so you are now boradcasting the song.

Radio stations pay around 2$ (iirc) per play of any song they air (broadcast), that's per play.

SO say a radio station plays 'Nickelback - How you remind me' 10 times per day for a month, this means at the end of a 30 day month they cut a check for 600$ to Nickelbacks label, this is one fo the two reaons Pirate Radio stations are illegal (the other being that radio frequencies are liscenced for so many dollars a year, an amount that is (once again iirc) 20k$ a year).

So the liscence gives you the legal ability to broadcast the songs you have in club situations (if you're a private DJ, clubs that have DJ's pay a fee every year)

What's stupid is the fact they won't let you play said songs off of a comp, but you can off of a CD

BonitaPajarita

Its a horrible way to weed out the lower income DJ's. Unless you can find someone to sponsor you or you make a good salary being a DJ. Its just another way for them to attempt at trying to get money. Not to mention this would have never happened if all these type of copyright and music laws where growing like weeds and wildfires.

Me playing my CD for a few people, or a house full of people or a dance hall of people I just dont think makes any difference. Music is getting played for others. And the number or amount should not matter. Now if you want to sell music or use it for another project which would include giving credit to someone and making money off of it like tv commercial/movie/ I understand.

There goes the "freedoms" that were supposidly have.

...And if I am missing something...please inform me, I'm always up for further knowledge and understanding of issues. However that is the purpose of this wonderful place now isn't it.

Hsoolien

You never really had the freedom to use other peoples intellectual property as your own (this all comes down to how do you declare ownership/rights to use of something that has no permanent physical form), and it has been decided if you want to make money playing your music collection for someone (this is the crux of the issue), you should pay the persons who made the music for that use.
If 350$ a year is too much, somebody's not doing a very good job of their job o_O

Sunisa

Well I don't think the law is all that stupid either but I don't think its well thought out either. Like Hsooly said ownership/rights have always been determined but since they actually never been clearly stated at any time, I think its wrong to after all this time they want to make money off of it.

Like right now most of the computers in the US right now uses windows XP but no one really reads the ownership/rights for that operating system. Yes you bought for $300 or whatever but you don't own it. But I seriously think the law will never come to the US. Its just one of those laws that would do more harm then good. Less people would hear the music whichjust decrease sales.

sassicassi

need i say more lol you guys said it all lol

SiNXation

OK let me put my 2 cents on this.

First let me shocc Hsoolien saying I don't think this law is stupid. I actually think its a very good law. Sorry had to get that out. The problem I have with it is that why its becomming a law. RIAA, Record Companies and so on are trying to find more ways to get their money bacc that they declair they lost to piracy. The law will only hurt Artist.

Piracy does hurt sales but it also helps sales in some ways. Since mostly so many people are burning their own mix cds, when your in your friends car and they playing them you hear stuff you haven't yet and want to hear more from the artist. I play alot of indie (Independent/Unsigned Artist) and can't even tell you the number of people who bought their albums just becuase they hear me playing it and they wanted to hear more from them.

This law will never come to the US. Trust me on this. Radio Station DJs are not about to pay $350/yr just to play other people's music.

It would be alot different if they started off with this law but I refuse to pay to do something that has been free for so long. Why you think I don't buy bottle water. You can't give something free to people for so long and then end up charing them so many years later for doing the exact same thing.

Hsoolien

As a note Sin, Radio station DJ's have the station itself paying the royalties, as metioned above about 2$ per song per play.

Piracy hurts sales more then it helps, for an independant, they have the option to allow people to distribute their song for free, and the copyright law people hate allows them to rotate this music freely while at the same time disallows other popel to make money playing that music.

And this law will come to the US, the RIAA is very effective at lobbying, and it's really for the better int he end.


and ont he why pay for what was free...

USed to be you could hunt deer here for free, now you must pay for a liscen or be fined heavily, nothing is set in stone (except some fossils )

BonitaPajarita

As I gain more wisdom from these comments in makes me see things in different aspects.:china:
I just thought of this after reading Hoos and Sin's comments...lets just say (hypothetically speaking) our Justice system here in the U.S. was considering that type of law here. Then RIAA's job would be even more intense or it would defeat the purpose of what they are doing. In a way it is defeating the purpose now...I think its wrong to sue kids, or the parent of that child for everything they got over some songs. Especially when they were just downloading them for there own benefit. As long as they were not selling them...yeah OK fine them, they got caught, and they must pay a fine. But do they have to wipe out a college kids fund, or almost make some parents go completely broke, or pay a debt that would never get paid. RIAA and some recording artist complain they are loosing so much money (*flash back to South Park episode w/ RIAA talking about Brittany Spears *) yet at the same time RIAA is using tons of money and tons of money to use certain resouces to locate people and then spend more money to take them to court and fine them outragous amounts of money and if they win the case in court most DONT have the money so it would be a long time 5-10-15-20-30 years before RIAA gets all of there monies and by that time its worth nothing and they have pulled in double, triple, quadroupled the amount by that time.
Noticed how they have never said HOW much money they are really loosing?
Dont get me wrong $334 dollars a year is not bad...however you know that fee will only last for so long and they will pull a Bush Sr. move saying no new taxes and once in office the taxes increased. Same concept here the annual fee would increase quickly I'm sure.