Lwpto Meet Mcps Re. A New Way Forward

[Phil Cunnington 0]

All members of the DJ Licensing Working Party (LWP) are meeting with MCPS at their headquarters at 11am, Thursday 29th November.

 

Discussions with MCPS have revealed a slightly different approach to licensing DJs than was proposed before which is the reason for describing it as a new way forward.

 

I will report here at the earliest opportunity. Bearing in mind I am working Thursday nght that may not be until Friday morning.

 

Phil Cunnington

DJ Licensing Working Party

[spinner 0]

Sounds interesting.

[Phil Cunnington 0]

Statement from the DJ Licensing Working Party

 

All members of the DJ Licensing Working Party (LWP) met today (29 Nov) with MCPS at their headquarters in London.

 

We are pleased to advise you that the meeting was enlightening and productive for both sides and was held in an atmosphere of mutual co-operation.

 

Whilst details of our discussions have to remain private for now, the LWP are pleased to inform all those we represent, and other interested parties, that a new team at MCPS have taken up responsibility for providing a licence to enable DJs to copy music as part of their profession. This new team are starting the process afresh and are using the previously established good relationship with the LWP to ensure they fully understand the way DJs work; the concerns DJs have over a new licence; and how a licence might affect DJs in carrying on their business. Particular attention was paid to digital formats, DJ hardware, DJ earnings, affordability, additional elements such as karaoke and video, existing licences, future-proofing, copying limits, enforcement, venues responsibilities and payment collection.

 

The LWP have no doubt that the team at MCPS are fully committed to providing a fair solution for their members and for DJs and we can say we are extremely encouraged by the approach they are now taking which possibly represents a big leap forward and much fairer deal for DJs than has previously been mooted.

 

We will continue to liaise with the team at MCPS over the next couple of months in order to swiftly arrive at a mutually acceptable position and at that time we will be able to give you more actual detail of what has been discussed.

 

[Mattaious 0]

Whilst details of our discussions have to remain private for now

 

Why?

 

Surely a DJ who may show an interest in this topic would like to know whats been said. Obviously the LWP are not a voice for every other DJ.

the LWP are pleased to inform all those we represent

 

 

Sorry to sound blunt,

 

 

[Danno13 0]

I'm sure its because a firm agreement hasn't been reached yet, and there are obvious legal implications for any (mis)information being leaked. I'd have thought that was quite obvious.

 

I'm sure details will be released when the time is right.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Danno13

[Paul Smith 0]

My thoughts are that if someone goes into a meeting purporting to speak on behalf of DJs across the UK then the more feedback and opinions they have in advance from those DJs can only serve to strengthen their case.

 

The PPL have already discovered that when they come up with a fait accompli and try to impose it, not surprisingly DJs say 'No'.

 

Organisations are quite happy to use this forum to publicise forthcoming events and try to increase their membership - why not use it to gauge the feelings of grass roots DJs as well. You will not get support by keeping people in the dark until the deal is done.

[Danno13 0]

My thoughts are that if someone goes into a meeting purporting to speak on behalf of DJs across the UK then the more feedback and opinions they have in advance from those DJs can only serve to strengthen their case.

 

 

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?

Edited December 4, 2007 by Danno13

[Paul Smith 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

My reading of the post is that is was a metter of fact and not asking for opinions. :shrug:

 

OK these are my personal thoughts and not to be taken as official DJU policy.

 

Firstly we are all DJs who love what we do. We should use this forum to gain, and offer, advice to others.

 

There are some who only come on here and use us to promote their organisations. Where are these same people when, for instance, a new member joins and asks for advice. Isn't this what we all should be doing?

 

This forum isn't a one way street. If all members used it just to promote themselves, their discos, their organisations without offering anything in return then we'd have closed down years ago.

 

Thankfully there are members who do offer this advice (inc members of those organisations smile icon ) however I can't help but notice that the leaders, who purport to represent us, only come on here when it suits their agenda. :ads:

 

Are we going to continue allowing, what I consider, this one sided use of the forum? Are we going to unite as one team or are there going to be some who still think that DJU is here to be used only as required when it suits? :protest:

 

Again my own thoughts but if certain organisations stopped behaving like some secret society and were more open about their policies, where the membership money is spent and how they have a plan for the future of DJing they might recruit more members which would make them a bigger force and one to be taken seriously.

 

If this has touched a raw nerve with some, sorry but let's just say that I am in contact with DJs throughout the UK on a daily basis and, whilst I don't for one minute claim to speak on their behalf, I feel that the above summarises a lot of the feedback I receive.

 

I'm not saying that DJU is the answer to all DJs problems - but we do need to try and work together without this oneupmanship or one sided agenda.

 

There I've been open with my position - I really hope that those who feel they are the leaders of DJUK can come forward with theirs. smile icon

[Corabar Steve 0]

Wasn't a member of the DJU admin team on the LWP for a while?

[Gary 0]

Wasn't a member of the DJU admin team on the LWP for a while?

 

Yes, there were two members of the DJU admin/mod team who were closely linked to the LWP discussions, and a 3rd was and is ready to step in also if required. One of those DJU admin team members found themselves in that difficult position between "too many hats" and "not enough hours in the day" (especially when DJ'ing and family get added to the equation) and opted for devoting his time to the LWP discussions.

 

I've heard some of the potential new licence and I really think that things are much much closer to DJ needs now, than the original PPL license - although even that had its merits.

 

Whilst any receipt-keeping/claiming DJ should have no real qualms in welcoming any license which allows the DJ to keep their head above the waters of legal business practices, versus "DJ Dave Dodgy Decks" or "The Bad Boy Backhander Bill Rogueshow", there will always be those others who will merely spout statements like "It's not the cost, it's the principle, init!" and "I've already bought the music once" etc.

 

The way I look at it, if I have to spend say...£300 next year on licences, and £200 each year thereafter- that's ok - it's simply more receipts which will get claimed back like any other business expense.

[Mattaious 0]

I'm sure its because a firm agreement hasn't been reached yet, and there are obvious legal implications for any (mis)information being leaked. I'd have thought that was quite obvious.

 

I'm sure details will be released when the time is right.

 

Not obvious at all,

 

If any party or person/persons are planning on speaking on my behalf, i would like to know whats been said etc.

 

 

However i might be thinking out of the box :shrug:

 

Paul - I agree with your comments :Thumbup:

[digitaldistortion 0]

 

Whilst any receipt-keeping/claiming DJ should have no real qualms in welcoming any license which allows the DJ to keep their head above the waters of legal business practices, versus "DJ Dave Dodgy Decks" or "The Bad Boy Backhander Bill Rogueshow", there will always be those others who will merely spout statements like "It's not the cost, it's the principle, init!" and "I've already bought the music once" etc.

 

The way I look at it, if I have to spend say...£300 next year on licences, and £200 each year thereafter- that's ok - it's simply more receipts which will get claimed back like any other business expense.

 

The theory of the above is probably correct. However, I think you are generalising with the first paragraph, and I have to say that the additional cost of PLI, PAT etc has only once (1 TIME) been the deciding issue in somebody hiring me...and even they were in the 'blimey, you're a bit expensive' category until I explained why! And yes, part of me DOES feel: I've already paid for it once.

 

If I have to pay more for a license, then I will, but unlike the above (even less so) it can't even be used to achieve anything......Unless you're now going to tell us that the license money will be used to fund the cost of policing EVERY venue and shutting down/prosecuting anyone that doesn't have one.

 

I suspect that isn't the case, though????

[Dukesy 0]

Wasn't a member of the DJU admin team on the LWP for a while?

 

Yes, me! :karen:

[Phil Cunnington 0]

 

.... the LWP are pleased to inform all those we represent, and other interested parties, that a new team at MCPS have taken up responsibility for providing a licence to enable DJs .......

 

 

The above statement makes it abundantly clear that I am not claiming (or are any of the other LWP members) to represent anyone except those who have subscribed to the LWP as a group. Some people should read things thoroughly before shooting from the hip.

 

I would have placed any DJU members, who are not a member of the formally constituted associations incorporated in the LWP, under the 'other interested parties' label. In the same way that we do not claim to represent anyone apart from our members, would it be the preference of this forum that we do not keep them informed of what is going on as well?

 

I have not promoted the organisation I am a member of in this thread. I have never attempted to do so. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is 'one way'. We take whatever comments and suggestions are made on here or any other forum into account during our deliberations. In the statement I posted I merely imparted information I felt may be of interest.

 

I rarely visit forums as I am far too busy to do so regularly.

 

Even though one mod from here has left the LWP, surely it is only right that we tell you whatever we can. It is a stated aim of the LWP to conduct itself openly and transparently. What more can we do? It is not our fault that no other DJ group has been organised to deal with this matter.

 

I suppose it is much easier to watch from afar and snipe when possible. We had three days notice of the meeting and had no details of the subjects to be discussed from MCPS until we were there. I felt it was courteous to alert everyone, who was possibly interested, that the meeting was due to take place, so that they would be aware that more information may be forthcoming once the meeting was over.

 

Dukesy, I salute you. Your views on this matter are clear but you are straightforward and courteous in our dealings. You at least recognise that the time, effort and personal cost we put in is not done so for selfish or biased reasons, even if we don’t entirely agree on the principle of licensing.

 

During discussions, each side will set limits on how much of the detail they are prepared to make public.

 

With regard to MCPS - and their refusal to allow details discussed to be publicised. Their team investigate, evaluate and prepare a proposed licence. This proposal is then subject to the approval of their members (the people who employ them). I completely understand that their members should expect to find out the details of the proposed licence from their own team and not from some public forum some time before they have the opportunity to discuss it.

 

I can say that the MCPS team stated that they would make a flat public denial of any unapproved details made public by the LWP and such a situation would compromise the relationship between MCPS and the LWP. Please tell me what the LWP would have to gain by ignoring that request.

 

This is one main reason for MCPS wanting to talk to an interested and organised group at this time as they then feel they have reasonable control over which part of their business plans are made public whilst, at the same time, garnering information as to the way DJs work etc. Which from our discussions, and even though they had done some initial investigating themselves, they did not understand DJs as well as they thought and it would have been wrong for them to make assumptions about the way DJs work. This lesson they have learnt from PPL and their failed licence.

 

There is no question of the LWP agreeing to anything on behalf of DJs generally. The LWP was formed in order to, and continues to, make representation on behalf of a number of associations during their process.

 

The LWP has no exclusive rights to make representations, but for those members of the various organisations it represents they are doing so in good faith. This is one good reason DJs join those associations, in order to have a unified voice. At this stage MCPS are extremely unlikely to have the time to hold discussions with hundreds or thousands of individual DJs. Once they have something that their members have approved they will put it out for consultation and the LWP will take part in those open consultations (as can any DJ for that matter).

 

I am happy to answer any courteous questions I can, within the bounds stated before, so please ask away.

 

Phil Cunnington

DJ Licensing Working Party (LWP)

 

......Unless you're now going to tell us that the license money will be used to fund the cost of policing EVERY venue and shutting down/prosecuting anyone that doesn't have one.

 

 

Sometimes I feel like breaking our agreement with MCPS re. disclosure.... It would make life so much easier.

[Dukesy 0]

Dukesy, I salute you. Your views on this matter are clear but you are straightforward and courteous in our dealings.

 

Phil, out of curiosity, when was 'our last dealings' as you put it?

NADJ-LWP wise, wasn't it when I had to forward a C&D regarding the use of this DJ@ logo on your site?

http://www.djassociates.org/images/dj@1.jpg

But I'll come back to that in a moment...

 

I too am happy to answer any courteous questions from the members regarding anything to do with former ties to the NADJ-LWP as an individual and I'll happily make a statement of fact every time...such as

 

Even though one mod from here has left the LWP

For the record, there were two members from DJ Associates part of the 'working party'. Mr Paul Forsyth and myself. We also happened to be moderators of DJU at the time too. Both of us were members of SEDA along with Robbie Earl.

I withdrew DJ@ from the 'working party' because of a major conflict. The direction the working-party was taking was not in line with that of the DJ Associates Association who, along with the DJU, had voted against the licence! Paul's position then merely represented interests from SEDA, and not DJ@.

 

Phil, why is the DJ@ logo STILL IN USE (below) on your site and in some of your PDF files when clearly, these should have been removed and amended at the time I requested via the C&D route many, many, many months ago??

http://djlicence.org.uk/forum/images/logo.gif

 

Phil, I'm going to be as 'straightforward and courteous' as ever and give you a reasonable 96 hours notice to remove all reference images that contain a DJ Associates logo from your NADJ-LWP site. You've already updated the logo for other PDF files so please, no excuses:

http://djlicence.org.uk/graphics/LWP%20Logo.jpg

 

The DJ Associates Disc Jockey Association IS NOT part of your working party and should not be continued to be promoted that it is, or, construed to be after all this time.

It is totally wrong, and very, very misleading. :nono:

 

You at least recognise that the time, effort and personal cost we put in is not done so for selfish or biased reasons, even if we don’t entirely agree on the principle of licensing.

 

I recognise and know exactly what is to be gained indeed Phil.

Are you seeking discount off re-packaged or introduced licences yet for your members? Have you made it clear yet you would like to act as an authorised agent in selling the license?

 

Seems that these days the 'in' thing is to lose valuable databases on disc.

Would you like to know how much Mr Stewart from the PPL offered for such a database last year? :ads:

 

So Phil, what are my clear views on the matter of licensing? And come to think of it, what are my personal views on the principle of licensing to that of the members of the DJ@ and the DJU, as you interpret them?

 

And more interestingly, how many DJ's who bought the Digital DJ Licence first time around, renewed it upon expiry 12 months later? And how many of those DJs who paid for the Digital DJ licence has ever been asked to show it?

 

Phil, I know how many signed up to the NADJ-LWP forum out of interest in the Licensing matter (around the time I was indeed involved) but do you want to share how many interested individuals have joined up since?

 

Further, like our forum host said before, I believe that it was DJ's leaping up and down shaking their E-penis's out of the window which got the original licence implemented in the first place, or at least played a BIG part in its creation.

And now the same thing will happen with those attempting to wave an even bigger E-penis!

 

Many moons ago, there were numerous threads regarding the legality of converting original Vinyl and CD to MP3. It was suggested that one representative (ideally from an association) contacted the PPL and MCPS with questions on behalf of an interested party, namely those DJ's who had a vested interest in knowing the answer.

 

However, what actually happened was that everybody emailed the PPL en masse with their own concerns and no doubt, the influx of enquiries in such a short period of time on the same subject warranted attention of senior management, rather than the guy or gal who routinely answers the emails, which was probably where the enquiry would have ended had there only been one email sent from one person or body representing their colleagues....

 

So yes, I can appreciate the logic of an officially appointed/approved body. But hang on! Can you see a problem at this stage?

 

Anyway, there is a moral to the story.

 

"Don't draw attention to either a grey (or unaddressed) area which may otherwise give you some flexibility and leap up and down promoting its existence by shouting loudly.... because you may not like the result.

At one time, slow and steady used to win the race."

 

Also, I still fail to see the connection which makes DJ's with this license any more professional than DJ's without the license - there are elements of Propaganda!!

 

DJ's who use CD's don't need a license (Yet) so how is the industry going to make sure that CD or vinyl based DJ's are also paying taxes and have PLI & PAT?

And are professional 'checks and inspections' (which some have suggested before) are not also extended to them?

 

By hinting that it is only DJ's who need to be checked for a form of digital license who also need to be checked at the same time for other paperwork, smacks of discrimination.

 

 

[Paul Smith 0]

The above statement makes it abundantly clear that I am not claiming (or are any of the other LWP members) to represent anyone except those who have subscribed to the LWP as a group. Some people should read things thoroughly before shooting from the hip.

 

Actually I have and that's not what it says in the aims of the LWP

the DJ Licensing Working Party recognises that the best interests and needs of it members are the same as non-member DJs all over the United Kingdom and, as licensing is such a fundamental issue, undertakes to work closely and openly at all times with other DJ associations, and individual DJs with no membership affinity, without prejudice.

 

would it be the preference of this forum that we do not keep them informed of what is going on as well?....

 

.... so that they would be aware that more information may be forthcoming once the meeting was over.

 

This is my point - that you make a post basically keeping us in the dark. The post didn't tell me (or anyone else) that this was at the request of the MCPS and from my interpretation of it (based on the last 2 years of NADJ involvement here on DJU) yet another propaganda exercise.

 

I suppose it is much easier to watch from afar and snipe when possible.

I'm sorry but I cannot offer support to something when I don't have a clue what I'm supposed to be supporting :shrug: and when you make a post on DJU I am, along with every other member, entitled to comment and ask questions about it.

 

During discussions, each side will set limits on how much of the detail they are prepared to make public.

I accept that if the MCPS want something kept 'secret' you have to comply but the 'each side' of your comment goes against your aim (quoted above). How much of what was discussed at this last meeting is being withheld at the behest of the LWP?

 

I do feel that when people are deliberately being kept in the dark it's for a reason - normally not a good one - hence my suspicions.

 

I also feel that, so the MCPS don't make the same mistake as the PPL, they should be made aware that openness to those who will be affected might be a better policy.

[Phil Cunnington 0]

Actually I have and that's not what it says in the aims of the LWP

 

Paul, what do you insist on deliberately misinterpreting everything?

Nowhere in the aims of the LWP does it claim to represent every DJ.

 

It says it will work closely and openly with DJ Associations and individual DJs.

 

This is my point - that you make a post basically keeping us in the dark. The post didn't tell me (or anyone else) that this was at the request of the MCPS and from my interpretation of it (based on the last 2 years of NADJ involvement here on DJU) yet another propaganda exercise.

 

The post didn't need to tell you that but, for the purpose of clarification, whilst both sides has the right to ask for details to be kept private, the LWP members asked to be able to make more detail public but MCPS refused. The LWP made no request to keep any detail private at all.

 

I need to clear up something here.

The DJ Licensing Working Party (LWP) is not a NADJ body.

That might be how it started but fairly soon after its inception, all other recognisable DJ associations/bodies were invited to join the LWP to make it a truly representative body.

At that time NADJ became merely a member, jointly with SEDA, ( Autofiltered - The association in question has requested that their name be not mentioned on this forum) and (at the time DJ Associates).

It remains so and takes no guidance from any one of the associations mentioned.

Therefore, yes you could call the LWP statements 'propoganda' but certainly NOT propoganda on behalf of any one association, merely propoganda on behalf of the LWP in order to make as many DJs as possible aware of what is happening.

 

I'm sorry but I cannot offer support to something when I don't have a clue what I'm supposed to be supporting :shrug: and when you make a post on DJU I am, along with every other member, entitled to comment and ask questions about it.

 

That is a shame but if you do not want to support the aims of the LWP, surely you at least would like us to keep you appraised of what is happening in the same open way that the LWP has always operated.

 

I accept that if the MCPS want something kept 'secret' you have to comply but the 'each side' of your comment goes against your aim (quoted above). How much of what was discussed at this last meeting is being withheld at the behest of the LWP?

 

I do feel that when people are deliberately being kept in the dark it's for a reason - normally not a good one - hence my suspicions.

 

Answered above - nothing at all has been kept 'secret' at the behest of the LWP.

Why so suspicious?

You can always ask me or any other member of the LWP whatever questions you like and I (and I expect the other LWP members) will always answer you honestly and in the most forthright manner possible.

 

I also feel that, so the MCPS don't make the same mistake as the PPL, they should be made aware that openness to those who will be affected might be a better policy.

 

Answered in a previous post and will be further answered in a response to Dukey's post.

 

I will say once again, there are no alterior motives behind any of the LWP members involvement.

Except it would be fair to say that any licences produced would affect each of us as we are all working DJs.

That notwithstanding, I am not aware of any of the current members putting their own private interests in front of the aims of the LWP and would be very disappointed if that were ever the case.

 

I fail to see what more I can do but post here as openly and honestly as possible, not least because readers are probably not aware that all of my posts are moderated before they see them and therefore are subject to change/deletion by the moderators before anyone sees them.

 

The moment there is anything to report from the LWP, that MCPS permit us to, I will post it here unless requested not to.

[Dukesy 0]

I rarely visit forums as I am far too busy to do so regularly.

The moment there is anything to report from the LWP, that MCPS permit us to, I will post it here unless requested not to.

 

Time permitting of course.

 

Phil, I've edited your comment directly aimed at the Admin/Mod Team and if you feel that there is a problem with the forum operations, use the same system as everyone else and inform via PM like you have done in the past.

 

I can assure you that we do not discuss individual cases of moderation. It's no one elses business!

Like I said, if you have a complaint, please inform a member of the moderator or admin team.

We are here to help.

[mikeee 0]

...and I was about to do a long post....

 

I will make my views clear....later.....when I can a) find the time, b) can be bothered, c) have something really useful to say (please delete as applicable).

 

I have just been out for two hours and in that time I have received 5 phone calls, 17 e-mails and several PM's. I would like to thank everyone thats contacted me, I will reply as quickly as possible, but I am working most evenings and days are getting shorter, so please bear with me, I will get back to you all - honest.

 

 

[spinner 0]

I took it as read that MCPS would be the ones wishing to keep things under wraps.

 

Otherwise why wouldn't the LWP be more forthcoming?

[Paul Smith 0]

Firstly I don't want you Phil or anyone else to read my posts as a personal attack on you - that is not my intention. I am merely questioning the actions/position of the association(s) you represent and are the spokesperson for.

 

I am also aware that, as happens on forums, sometimes the written word does not come across in maybe the way it was intended (other times it does) - for instance

 

Paul, what do you insist on deliberately misinterpreting everything?

Nowhere in the aims of the LWP does it claim to represent every DJ.

 

I was referring to the word in bold "undertakes to work closely and openly at all times with other DJ associations, and individual DJs with no membership affinity"

 

On the point about the MCPS not allowing the publication

The post didn't need to tell you that

- it didn't but would have removed some of my suspicion about what exactly is going on. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

You ask why 'suspicious' - well as we are going to be the paying customers for this I can't understand why we are going to be the last to know the details. By allowing the MCPS to dictate the terms of this gives me a foreboding of what else has been agreed.

 

Lack of information leads to rumours and some of our members on here have approached me with their concerns/ things they have heard and this might be a good time to clear them up.

 

That the LWP is soley funded by the NADJ.

 

That the NADJ wish to become the 'provider' of the licence (in a similar way to Mastermix/PPL)

 

That at a publicised event it was promoted as the NADJLWP

 

Have the UK DJ forum owners ever been invited to attend a meeting, given their large member base?

 

As I say these are some of the concerns/points/rumours - call them what you will - that have been mentioned to me and I would appreciate you clearing them up to allay my suspicions and for the benefit of our members.

 

Thanks smile icon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phil Cunnington 0]

Phil, out of curiosity, when was 'our last dealings' as you put it?

NADJ-LWP wise, wasn't it when I had to forward a C&D regarding the use of this DJ@ logo on your site?

http://www.djassociates.org/images/dj@1.jpg

But I'll come back to that in a moment...

 

Simple to just answer freely rather than explicitly. Here goes ...

 

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). From that moment forward the best interests of the members of those associations (apart from, now DJ@) were and are equally represented.

 

The LWP aims were updated at that time to represent that fact and all participants in the LWP agreed those aims before they were published.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

I will only, in future, make factual comment on this forum and any other discussion on the activities of the LWP or the Licensing Authorities can be carried on by othe members of the LWP who attract less vitriol.

 

[TonyB 0]

All this sudden surge of activity with the LWP and MCPS has caused me to look into this licensing issue a bit further.

 

It is interesting that as a result of the Gower report, the Government believe that the Copyright law in the UK needs revising to be brought up to date with todays technologies. It is generally accepted that the music industry turns a blind eye to copying or ripping a CD to a hard drive or MP3 player for private use even though it is technically illegal under the license terms of the CD.

 

Gowers proposes that the Copyright Law is changed to allow for private copying and a levy is added to the purchase price of CD's to compensate.

 

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.

[Corabar Steve 0]

May I ask why DJ Associates dropped out?

 

Even the licence is against some policy that they have, I would have thought that it was in their interests to stay involved.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Corabar Steve

[Phil Cunnington 0]

No problem, Paul.

While I am here I will take the opportunity to answer you.

 

Firstly I don't want you Phil or anyone else to read my posts as a personal attack on you - that is not my intention. I am merely questioning the actions/position of the association(s) you represent and are the spokesperson for.

 

Ok, thank you. We should all question actions/positions of associations although, as you know, I only have any small influence on one of them.

 

 

Lack of information leads to rumours and some of our members on here have approached me with their concerns/ things they have heard and this might be a good time to clear them up.

 

That the LWP is soley funded by the NADJ.

 

No any funding at this time has been made personally by the LWP members in the form or personal tme and expenses out of thir own pocket.

 

I don't believe I am breaking any confidences in saying that SEDA and ( Autofiltered - The association in question has requested that their name be not mentioned on this forum), as well as NADJ have promised to aid the LWP with any funding that might become necessary in the future in order for the LWP to carry out its responsibilities. As previously stated, to date no funds have been requested from or been given by any organisation.

 

That the NADJ wish to become the 'provider' of the licence (in a similar way to Mastermix/PPL)

 

I don't see any reason why NADJ would want to become a 'provider' of the licence unless it was as a proxy within the membership fee, but that seems too unnecessarily complicated to me and an unfair imposition on NADJ volunteers. I am sure that is the same for the other associations too.

 

For me, the ideal solution would be for both Licensing Authorities to only sell their licences direct and any 'middle man' saving be taken from the cost of any licence.

 

That at a publicised event it was promoted as the NADJLWP

 

Not to my knowledge and certainly not since the LWP embraced all the associations.

 

Have the UK DJ forum owners ever been invited to attend a meeting, given their large member base?

 

This is a difficult one because I understand the reason for the question.

Forums are, unfortunately by their very nature, outlets for anonymous participants and have no constitutions controlling the actions of its 'members'.

 

The word 'owners' sends out alarm bells which should, I hope be understood by all.

 

I hope these answers help clarify matters.

 

Phil