Lwpto Meet Mcps Re. A New Way Forward

[Phil Cunnington 0]

Although what is being proposed relates to private copying, all CD's we buy are only licensed for private use and it is the PRS or MCPS license that the premises hold that allows the use in public and I don't see that it will be any different for private ripped copies.

 

The new regulations will probably come into effect in 2008 so I wonder if this is why there is suddenly activity to bring the license into being before the copyright laws change.

 

As I see it, if the copyright laws are changed as proposed, it will be difficult to enforce a prosecution for using a ripped copy of a CD if you have ownership of the original and are solely the user of it as a levy to make a copy would have already of been paid when purchased.

 

Tony, it is PPL or PRS who licence premises for performance (that word is key)

It is PPL and MCPS that deal with copying (MCPS = Mechanical Copyright Protection Society)

 

The key to all dicussions with PPL and MCPS is copies 'for business use or professional gain'.

The BPI, when we met them were also very explicit on this point.

 

[Dukesy 0]

You are incorrect to label it as NADJ-LWP, as the LWP became an autonomous body whose participants included NADJ, SEDA, ( Autofiltered - The association in question has requested that their name be not mentioned on this forum) and DJ@ (at that time).

 

Sorry Phil. Agree, or agree to disagree on this point, administrative and financial decision-making matters that define an autonomous body were clearly not shared equally by, or contributed by the member Associations. As I recall at the Essex meeting between you, me, John Kidd and Paul Forsyth, both the SEDA and DJ@ Association offers of financial contribution at the time was rejected for the obvious reason that the parent Association (NADJ) Chairman and committee would have a hard time accepting it, let alone allow it!

 

Our last dealings were when you requested DJ@ resign from the LWP.

The DJ@ logos were removed from all web pages etc. at that time, apart from the forum which was missed but I have now rectified that.

Thank you. I'll check!

:bouncy:

 

It is not possible (or appropriate) to retrospectively edit press release PDFs as they were released at a moment in time and are a matter of historical fact. At the time the press releases with the DJ@ logo were released, they had been explicily approved by all members of the LWP including you, Dukesy (on behalf of DJ@). If you feel that there is any instance of the DJ@ logo being used outside of historical context, please advise me and I will remove it at the earliest opportunity.

I'd personally prefer you go that little extra-mile and remove all logo references once and for all. As much as I respect a point about 'historical fact', it is not fact that the membership of DJ@ voted for the DDJ Licence. Yes, it was against! Visible logo references should have been removed at the time of the C&D, and considering the considerable time since then, it's a relatively small request really amounting to a little time.

Phil, if the logos still remain, it could be construed or misinterpreted by third parties. It may even come to haunt either your working party, NADJ or the DJ@ in the future if allowed to stay. Please, could you see that this is finally resolved?

I am sincerely happy for you to amend the removed logos with perhaps a text disclaimer for historical reference such as former member/affiliate/associate member if you really wish to mention the DJ@. smile icon

 

I made specific reference to the fact that whilst you never explained to me your reasons for leaving the LWP, your web site clearly stated that DJ@ are against any form of licensing for DJs and I saw no reason to pursue what seemed to be a non-negotiable position you had taken on behalf of your members.

Fair enough Phil. But actually, the decision to back the decision of the membership vote was a logical, crystal-clear and above all loyal decision to take. Did you think that such positions are not with responsibilities, whether it be an online based Association or not?

You would not listen back then Phil! Remember the request to draft a proposal for an acceptable licence (for the PPL) and the obvious disagreements between us then?

I most sincerely do not expect you to remember every single detail of email correspondence but there was evident disagreement between your wish and the members of the DJ@ I represented! All vote info was stated on this forum as well as the DJ@ website.

But for further clarification purposes, the DJU member poll was conducted from Oct 13 2005. The DJ@ Association membership had already contributed their vote replies by October 26 2005.

Whilst only in the infancy stage, the bottom line from DJ Associates was an overwhelming majority:

 

Do you think the license in its current form offers value for money?

No

Do you think the license needs review?

Yes

Would you agree to take a joint stance with the members of the DJU who have voted 90% in favour of NO to this introduction?

Yes

Should we lead the argument or accept association with other DJ Associations especially as DJ Associates is INDEPENDENT?

Lead

 

Hope this clarifies. smile icon

 

For clarification, my express wish is for any DJ Licence to be as reasonably priced as possible

You see! This was clearly not the expressed wish of the DJ@ membership regarding the DDJ Licence! OK, my own personal views or express wishes had to be taken into consideration when I formed the online Association, sure. But in doing so, in meeting the level of responsibility with the DJ@, I had to uphold the expressed interests of the members which I'm sure you will appreciate comes first.

 

and if that means removing 3rd parties (eg. Mastermix) from the PPL loop and the subsequent saving to PPL being passed on to DJs (of any affiliation), I consider that a step forwards.

Glad you've finally got that out in the open!

 

I abhor the idea of any 3rd party body (including any of the associations) making any money or taking any special discount off the cost of the licence. When such a suggestion was mooted in a meeting (I cannot remember which one, or with whom, but certainly by one of the licensing body representatives) it was instantly dismissed by all the LWP members, and rightly so. I don't believe for one minute that any of the LWP parcipant associations has any ambitions in that area.

Can't really answer that one Phil as I was not a member of the working party when such a meeting apparently took place. :shrug: I'd suggest that you do not admit what you can't remember, especially when attending an important meeting!!!!

:bouncy:

 

The notice of PPL was drawn by Music Factory to their fear that DJs were copying their DJ only CDs and they were losing revenue. Hence their involvement with the current PPL Licence.

For sure. And I think we can agree more or less on that!

 

I will only, in future, make factual comment on this forum

Totally agree 100% with that. It's the best way forward, and I'd even extend that stance to all forums for a fair ride..

 

and any other discussion on the activities of the LWP or the Licensing Authorities can be carried on by other members of the LWP who attract less vitriol.

I can not make any guarantees Phil on members not asking awkward questions when statements or information is presented in a post, obviously presenting the members the opportunity to reply and indeed question.

Been an interesting, long day, eh?! :snow:

 

 

May I ask why DJ Associates dropped out?

Of course Stevie boy! See above! And the decision to pull out of the working party was without trauma all-round in my opinion.

 

Even if it is against a policy that they have, I would have thought that it was in there interests to stay involved.

Members of the working party had already elected to / agreed to keep all the forums informed of progress (and stated as such).

 

Oh, and I believe the answer was 18 tongue out icon

[mikeee 0]

I'd personally prefer you go that little extra-mile and remove all logo references once and for all.

 

I think you will find it would be illegal to remove any indentification for anything that at the time you were a party to. The same as if anything was called up about the NADJ when you were on the committee you could be called to answer questions. This is the same for any club, society, association, co-operative, etc, etc, etc. Any person that accepts a position of responsibility, becomes equally responsible in the event of a dispute, legal proceedings etc ect.

 

Personnaly, I wish the govenment would bring in the licencing of all entertainers, as was the plan in 1995. I could contact the DCMS and the DBERR and start stirring that up again. Why, because having sat back and done next to nothing for the last two years, and the time proceeding that, I have come to the conculsion that "entertainers" in general can not and or will not police themselves - everybody wants, but nobody really does - so perhaps if the govenment said you can not work with out being registered, that would start to sort the men from the boys. But most of you know my feelings on this from 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 odd years ago.

 

So, lets start with a registration fee of, say £1,200.00 a year :dan+ju:

[TonyB 0]

Tony, it is PPL or PRS who licence premises for performance (that word is key)

It is PPL and MCPS that deal with copying (MCPS = Mechanical Copyright Protection Society)

 

The key to all dicussions with PPL and MCPS is copies 'for business use or professional gain'.

The BPI, when we met them were also very explicit on this point.

 

Yes sorry, got my PRS, PPL's and MCPS mixed up.

 

What exactly is meant by "professional gain" does that mean financial gain?

 

I gain nothing either professionally or financially by ripping a CD to a hard drive. I can only play one or the other and my income from the function is the same whether I use either a CD or the ripped copy.

 

If anything I make a financial loss because I have to buy the storage media and additional equipment to play the ripped copy.

 

So a definition of professional gain would be helpful.

 

It is clear from the MCPS website that they are more concerned with putting a stop to illegal copying and selling/distribution. I.E. activities which in effect reduce the income to record industry or from which an individual profits from.

 

By ripping a CD to a hard drive does not reduce the record industries income. I can only use one or the other. I am not selling the ripped copy or distributing it to anyone, I'm not receiving any gain from doing it and the record industry are not losing any income from me doing it.

 

As I said previously, if someone was taken to court for using ripped copies, I'm personally sure that it would be difficult to make any charges stick because the record industry are not losing any revenue as long I have purchased the original CD and I am not making any extra gain as a result. The fact the industry have decided to turn a blind eye to it at the moment for personal use does somewhat set a precedent.

 

In any case copyright law for CD's is up in the air a bit at the moment and no one knows the outcome of any Government decision following the Gower report which could well throw a new light on the whole situation.

[Mattaious 0]

By ripping a CD to a hard drive does not reduce the record industries income. I can only use one or the other. I am not selling the ripped copy or distributing it to anyone, I'm not receiving any gain from doing it and the record industry are not losing any income from me doing it.

 

 

:Thumbup:

 

Excellent Comment!

[mikeee 0]

QUOTE

By ripping a CD to a hard drive does not reduce the record industries income. I can only use one or the other. I am not selling the ripped copy or distributing it to anyone, I'm not receiving any gain from doing it and the record industry are not losing any income from me doing it.

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent Comment!

 

That it may be, but it is still theft at the end of the day. Look at how many DJ's are getting uptight their web sites being copied in whole or part. You put in the hard work to create something unique, then someone else copies it word for word and in this case to take away potiential earning from your pocket. There are probably 000's of other instances that could be mentioned, and at the end of the day it's theft.

 

Please think very very carefully before jumping up and down.

[TonyB 0]

That it may be, but it is still theft at the end of the day. Look at how many DJ's are getting uptight their web sites being copied in whole or part. You put in the hard work to create something unique, then someone else copies it word for word and in this case to take away potiential earning from your pocket. There are probably 000's of other instances that could be mentioned, and at the end of the day it's theft.

 

Please think very very carefully before jumping up and down.

 

I understand where you are coming from but if it is theft, you are financially depriving someone of something or you make personal gain. It could be said that by stealing someone elses website content, the thief is gaining by getting extra business and making extra profit. A website is also different in so far as it is unique and by copying it you take away its uniqueness.

 

Edit paragraph added: There is also a difference between stealing something and paying for the right to use something. Taking website content without the owners permission is stealing just as downloading a copy of a track from the internet without paying for it is.

 

Paying for a license to use someones content usually gives you the right to use it on as many of your own websites as you wish as well as in any printed literature. Buying a CD is more akin to buying a license to use something than stealing it.

 

I understand that by the copyright license applied to a CD you are not allowed to make an additional copies but as I said, by doing so, as long as you have the original, you do not deprive anyone of the revenue from your original purchase and if you only use one or the other what difference does it make if its played from the CD or a hard drive?. Most other countries agree and have a fair useage policy for CD's. The government agree and following the Gower report are proposing to make changes to the copyright law. Incidently the Goverment have said that it is up to them to decide what is best for the consumers, not the music industry.

 

That aside, if I downloaded for example NOW68 from Itunes, I would be allowed to store a copy on up to 5 authorised PC's, store a copy on an Ipod and burn to a CD up to 7 times. Under their fair useage conditions, I can have up to 13 copies AND change the format when its burnt to a CD. If this applies to downloads, why are CD's different? Why is having more than one copy of a digital download not considered theft when copying a CD is?

Edited December 6, 2007 by TonyB

[Swingcats 0]

I agree, which is probably why Phil posted this thread the day before the meeting, which gave ample time for members to post opinions that could have been taken foward to the meeting. But yet there was only one reply....

 

You've lost me on your last comment though, I'm not sure how that relates to this?

 

 

That post pasted me by, one day is not enough to ensure we all see it, unless we are e-mailed to make us aware it is there. I would have had some feed in to give had I known about it.

 

:Thumbup:

 

Excellent Comment!

 

 

Futher lets not loose sight of the fact that with no Top of the Pops, DJ's are out there promoting the recordings for the artists and companies who sell them. They should be paying us!

[Paul Smith 0]

That aside, if I downloaded for example NOW68 from Itunes, I would be allowed to store a copy on up to 5 authorised PC's, store a copy on an Ipod and burn to a CD up to 7 times. Under their fair useage conditions, I can have up to 13 copies AND change the format when its burnt to a CD. If this applies to downloads, why are CD's different? Why is having more than one copy of a digital download not considered theft when copying a CD is?

 

Interesting point - and worth putting to the MCPS if it hasn't been already.

 

I think you will find it would be illegal to remove any indentification for anything that at the time you were a party to. The same as if anything was called up about the NADJ when you were on the committee you could be called to answer questions. This is the same for any club, society, association, co-operative, etc, etc, etc. Any person that accepts a position of responsibility, becomes equally responsible in the event of a dispute, legal proceedings etc ect.

 

I'm not a legal expert like you mikeee but I think if there is any paperwork with Dan's signature, best forward it on for happy days smile icon .

[spinner 0]

lets not lose sight of the fact that with no Top of the Pops, DJ's are out there promoting the recordings for the artists and companies who sell them. They should be paying us!

 

 

Top of The Tops may have gone and in its heyday, was the place to get exposure. But today there are dozens of Digital TV and radio stations, both sattellite and terrestrial, pumping out pop music constantly.

Edited December 6, 2007 by spinner

[Mattaious 0]

Copies made for personal use are acceptable according to the BPI.

Didn't the BPI say that if a member of the public was copying music to say an MP3 device for personal use from the music they had already purchased, they would not be seeking to prosecute?

 

But if you are a DJ, musician or even a tranny stage act that uses recorded music during or in-between sets, if the music is copied from your purchased collection for what may be considered 'commercial use', then the copyright law might say you are breaking the law…..?

 

I'm no expert and would not elect myself to be, but isn't law a funny old thing ? It's complicated in some areas and very complicated in others, according to the experts!

 

Whether it be image copyright theft or music copyright disputes, seems to me that the one thing that can not be disputed whatever side of the fence you sit on with this particular subject is that we are in Rip Off Britain -and that is totally undisputable I believe!

 

Have you noticed how the likes of the musicians and bands and singers we work alongside or bump into are not really jumping up and down because of the digital DJ licences? Why is this…?

 

Have they elected anyone to request a digital musicians licence for copied music...so when they play copied music in-between their sets from home compiled CDRs, mini-discs, DAT or laptop playlists they are as legit as those DJs? Is that so?

 

Have musician members asked the likes of the Musicians Union to say "hey, we need a licence for our members, especially if they've copied all their music to an ipod and connected it to their PA for the audience to listen to? Really?

 

It would seem that the Musicians Union do not appear to be pushing on such issues, attending meetings with the PPL or MCPS or the BPI, rattling cages hard on behalf of their 30,000+ strong on such matters. But could if elected to do so.

 

And if they did, then they would be doing it transparently because the end-payer i.e. their membership would be picking up the tab, wouldn't they?

 

It's not rocket science to work out the actual savings on a particular item that is tax deductable either, so you can imagine the opinion of their membership if this was sprung upon them after having closed door meetings!!! tongue out icon

 

Interestingly, do you think that if the likes of the MCPS clicked their fingers and demanded a meeting to the PPL, they would stand to attention and jump?

Who knows??? Others seem to jump pretty quick. Why?

 

Maybe it's in their interests to jump and perhaps ask "how high?"

But whatever the outcome, I'm sure that all parties involved would do it properly within the eyes of the law and of course on behalf of their membership, as elected to do so.

 

So, is being a member of the MU a Get-Out-Of-Jail_Free-Card then?

Probably not?! Who knows?

 

Like all things, one has to apply a little common sense in all this, not jump the gun and continue to rattle cages drawing attention...

 

Others in the same field may not like it!

[Phil Cunnington 0]

Have you noticed how the likes of the musicians and bands and singers we work alongside or bump into are not really jumping up and down because of the digital DJ licences? Why is this…?

 

Have they elected anyone to request a digital musicians licence for copied music...so when they play copied music in-between their sets from home compiled CDRs, mini-discs, DAT or laptop playlists they are as legit as those DJs? Is that so?

 

Have musician members asked the likes of the Musicians Union to say "hey, we need a licence for our members, especially if they've copied all their music to an ipod and connected it to their PA for the audience to listen to? Really?

 

I am not breaking any confidences by saying that MCPS fully intend for all copying of music for business purposes to be licenced. Maybe even with the same licence as for DJs.

 

They will certainly expect coach operators, fitness instructors, bands playing interval music etc. etc. to have a licence for any music they copy. No exceptions.

 

Remember MCPS are approaching this anew rather than starting from a facsimile of the ridiculous PPL Digital DJ licence. Probably because they have been told that they need to.

[Dance Vibe 0]

I am not breaking any confidences by saying that MCPS fully intend for all copying of music for business purposes to be licenced. Maybe even with the same licence as for DJs.

 

They will certainly expect coach operators, fitness instructors, bands playing interval music etc. etc. to have a licence for any music they copy. No exceptions.

 

Remember MCPS are approaching this anew rather than starting from a facsimile of the ridiculous PPL Digital DJ licence. Probably because they have been told that they need to.

thanks for looking into this. im glad we have a legal team dealing with the suits

[Dukesy 0]

thanks for looking into this. im glad we have a legal team dealing with the suits

As I understand, the LWP are not a 'legal team'.