Mcps-prs Alliance Pro Dub License.

[robbiedj 0]

Phil Cunnington has asked me to post this:-

 

A statement from Philip Cunnington, Chairman – DJ Licensing Working Party

24 June 2008

The forming of the DJ Licensing Working Party (LWP) was a milestone as I

marked the first public display of mutual co-operation between NADJ (National

Association of DJs), promoting or criticising other DJ forums is not permitted (Mobile Discotheque Association) and SEDA (South-

East Discotheque Association). NADJ and SEDA had sometimes over the years

enjoyed a ‘prickly’ relationship.

New members on the committees of both NADJ and SEDA put old issues behind

them and forged a new and, to this day, highly co-operative relationship. This is for

the benefit of all DJs and is something I am proud to be a part of.

The LWP was formed in direct response to the Digital DJ Licence that PPL

introduced in late 2005. This licence was ill-conceived, annually renewable,

restricted on formats and didn’t take into account advancements in technology or

the way that DJs work.

The first instinct of the LWP was to completely oppose any form of licence for DJs

to copy music. We looked at the fair-use regulations in force in other countries and

initially targeted that as a potential solution.

It didn’t take long to realise that it would take substantial changes in the copyright

law for this to be achievable and the opportunity came to make our case when the

government introduced ‘The Gower Review’ of copyright laws in the UK.

Unfortunately, commercial use of music and musical works was not considered

suitable for ‘fair-use’ and, whilst a pseudo fair-use policy will eventually be

introduced for consumers’ personal use, the LWP was forced to accept that

commercial use would not be free and re-visit our approach.

At that time, we had gathered a large number of views and opinions from DJs of all

types from all over the Country and, whilst we passed every one of these views on

to PPL and MCPS/PRS, we had to decide how the LWP could be most effective in

its negotiations.

Given that we had no legal challenge to the introduction of a licence from each of

the licensing bodies, we looked at the feedback we had received and took the

majority position of accepting that there should be a licence but that the best deal

possible for DJs should be our aim.

Some didn’t agree with this and felt that any licence should be utterly opposed.

They rightly distanced themselves from the LWP in order to pursue their own

argument with the licensing authorities. More of them later.

We held a number of talks, initially with PPL and then with MCPS/PRS about how

the Digital DJ Licence was wrong and investigated during those meetings and

various other discussions, just how we could make sensible steps forward and

deliver a solution which respected the need to pay royalties for copying of music for

commercial use, but at the same time was fair to DJs both in cost and in

permissions.

The LWP took the key requirements of the majority of DJs as our targets for

negotiation, which were repeated over and again by those who gave us their

opinions:-

 A licence had to be reasonably priced and should be staged, rather

than expecting all DJs to pay for 20,000 tracks as per the PPL Digital

DJ Licence (DDJL).

 A licence should be once per copy rather than an annually renewable

‘rental-style’ licence as per the PPL Digital DJ Licence (DDJL).

 There should be no restriction on formats, effectively allowing DJs to

take whichever technological course they wanted without concern.

 Account should be taken of the need to make security backups of any

music database.

 A licence should be flexible enough to take into account future, even

currently unforeseeable technological developments.

 There should be the ability to have add-ons. Karaoke, being one

example.

 There should be one single licence rather than one from each of the

licensing bodies.

 Any licence should be properly policed in order to give it credibility.

It should be remembered that all members of the LWP are working DJs and

none of us were, or are, minded to pay for an unfair licence any more than the

next DJ.

As previously stated, there were some DJs who didn’t agree with the LWP’s

approach and believed fundamentally that there shouldn’t be any licence at all.

They, unfortunately, have not taken the opportunity to approach the licensing

bodies themselves over the last two years and now, all of a sudden, are

throwing their arms in the air claiming the new ‘Pro-Dub Licence’ to be unfair or

unworkable.

To those parties I simply say, “you have had the same opportunity that the LWP

has had to discuss your views with the licensing bodies. To criticise the LWP is

unfair because we never claimed to represent your views as, in our opinion,

they were unrealistic. The LWP has never had the monopoly on representation

of DJs to either PPL or MCPS/PRS and any criticism of the LWP is simply a

venting of frustration at your own inability to make your case and your own

laziness in not representing your views to the relevant bodies until almost past

the 11th hour.”

I understand that some DJs do not want to pay for copying music, they believe

that they have already paid their dues (royalties) when purchasing a track in the

first instance. They will not buy any licence and will deliberately flout any

regulation or legitimacy. There are also many DJs who work almost exclusively

from illegal downloads. These are not the same, but I believe they are both

wrong. DJs need to recognise they have chosen a profession and it is their

responsibility to run that business professionally by adhering to regulations that

exist and by licensing themselves properly. I have little or no time for those DJs

who sell themselves cheaply by not paying for their music, which is the tool of

their trade, and by side-stepping their other professional responsibilities as a

business.

Over the past few months, individual members of the LWP have been subject to

substantial and unfair abuse by a minority of DJs. This is something that none

of us, especially me, will miss.

With the introduction of the new ‘Pro-Dub Licence’ on 1st July 2008, my task is

over. I believe that we have made a significant impact in our industry by

delivering on every single one of the targets we set ourselves and that the new

licence represents a fair solution for all parties.

I am proud that we have achieved such a licence at a reasonable cost. A

licence which is much fairer, wider ranging, more flexible and more reasonably

priced than those introduced in other countries such as Canada, for example.

I do not feel the need, therefore, to take any further part in the LWP and will

leave the other members to decide if they wish to continue further discussions

with the licensing bodies about minor additions/adjustments to the new licence

or to review other areas of DJ licensing.

I would like to personally thank the members of the LWP – Paul Forsyth,

Robbie Earl and Darren Thomas – who have worked so hard with me over the

last two and a half years, regardless of the personal cost, always with

constructive and innovative views, and never once with a cross word. It has

been truly inspiring to be involved in such mutual co-operation and I am

pleased to now consider each of them a personal friend.

To all DJs out there – “be professional, raise the standard and keep ‘em

dancing!”

Phil Cunnington

 

I would like to personally thank him for all his hard work with us on the LWP. as I am sure MCPS/PRS & PPL will. They are currently using his licensing grid for their own reference.

Without a doubt, 2 and a half years work by all concerned has softened the blow of what was going to be the inevitable and actually got the associations working together for the first time in their history, much to the surprise of the music industry in general. The combined licence is more than 50% less than the two seperate ones were first mooted to be and back-up & karaoke have been included.

 

Once the last few details are ironed out, we should have something to work with.

 

Forgot to mention, once again, the official statement will be going out to the national press shortly.

Edited June 24, 2008 by robbiedj

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

Who can sum up in 1 sentence, why do you need this Dub Licence?

[Danno13 0]

Who can sum up in 1 sentence, why do you need this Dub Licence?

 

If you want to drive a car, you get a driving license, if you want to break the terms that you agreed to when buying a CD by copying it to a hard drive, then you need a dub license.

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

If you want to drive a car, you get a driving license, if you want to break the terms that you agreed to when buying a CD by copying it to a hard drive, then you need a dub license.

 

Surely you have a driving licence to prove you are capable of driving a car? If a CD states do not copy, then surely the whole hard drive thing is illegal unless your track is actually purchased as a digital file?

[Danno13 0]

If a CD states do not copy, then surely the whole hard drive thing is illegal unless your track is actually purchased as a digital file?

 

Or you buy a license. Thats exactly what I'm saying. So its either buy your whole collection again at 79p per track.... or pay the equivelant of 2p per track to copy it from CD by buying the license.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Danno13

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

Am not causing an argument here as I don`t know much about it. But,,, Isn`t that just a money making thing for someone?

 

It seems like someone is moving the goal posts about....... You can`t copy it! but hey hang on, you can if you pay us?

[Danno13 0]

Isn't that the definition of a license? To allow you to do something that would otherwise be prohibited?

 

Not being argumentitive either, just trying to explain :)

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

Yea, but why suddenly now after all these years? Who gets the money?

[Danno13 0]

Its distributed amongst the songwriters and performers. The previous option was the SG6 and PPL Digital DJ license, which was alot more costly and unworkable.. which is why the LWP was setup and have helped to make this one as fair and affordable as possible for DJs.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Danno13

[UKHero 0]

Yea, but why suddenly now after all these years? Who gets the money?

 

Becase the Music industry is very Ill and not getting as much dosh as the oil barrons. We are an easy target we activley promote our contact details and can be easily traced. This will not stop music piracy or your sixty quid sids.. It will just raise your operating costs making you less competertive along side sid.

 

A select few thought the pole tax was a good idea but look how that panned out. just because something becomes a legal requirement does not make it right...

 

And I have a car licence but there are many on our roads who do not.. The police are more active on trying to stop them than they ever will be on non dub license paying DJs....

 

I truly want there to be a licence that covers the Music industry the artists and most of all my lively hood..

 

This licence does not do the third of these points and I feel it might be detrimental to the first two in time...

 

Nik

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

Cool... The song writers get the royalties from the original purchase of the CD, radio play and the PPL the venue has to have. Blimey the rich get richer..

 

Do the kids who have i pods and mobile phones have to have this license? Its the same thing really, copied from a cd onto their i pod.

 

What benefit does the DJ get from it? I have a driving license, which means I can drive a car, I have a TV licence which pays for the bbc so I don`t have to listen or watch adverts which other forms of media need.

 

One last thing (sorry to be a pain) you said its a license so you can copy a cd to a hard drive, how do you know which track is the cd and which one has been down loaded in the first instance?

 

Cheers,

[UKHero 0]

Cool... The song writers get the royalties from the original purchase of the CD, radio play and the PPL the venue has to have. Blimey the rich get richer..

 

Do the kids who have i pods and mobile phones have to have this license? Its the same thing really, copied from a cd onto their i pod.

 

What benefit does the DJ get from it? I have a driving license, which means I can drive a car, I have a TV licence which pays for the bbc so I don`t have to listen or watch adverts which other forms of media need.

 

One last thing (sorry to be a pain) you said its a license so you can copy a cd to a hard drive, how do you know which track is the cd and which one has been down loaded in the first instance?

 

Cheers,

 

:nbow: :Thumbup:

 

Phil Cunnington has asked me to post this:-

I would like to personally thank him for all his hard work with us on the LWP. as I am sure MCPS/PRS & PPL will. They are currently using his licensing grid for their own reference.

Without a doubt, 2 and a half years work by all concerned has softened the blow of what was going to be the inevitable and actually got the associations working together for the first time in their history, much to the surprise of the music industry in general. The combined licence is more than 50% less than the two seperate ones were first mooted to be and back-up & karaoke have been included.

 

Once the last few details are ironed out, we should have something to work with.

 

Forgot to mention, once again, the official statement will be going out to the national press shortly.

 

Cool but why did Phil not post this himself I note he is on this thread as I type this post

 

Nik

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

Must admit from what Danno has kindley told me it all seems a bit strange. Who actually governs this licence?

 

The only conclusion I have come to is exactly what you`ve said Nik... The music industry isn`t making enough millions so someone is having to pay the price.. Wouldn`t it be easier to add an extra 50pence to a cd album or even put an additional 10p on a download from i tunes?

 

Or they can`t police the illegal downloaders (hence the music industry losing revenue) so the DJ is having to pay the price..... If the DJ has to pay for this licence then surley the kids will also have to put their hands in their pockets to use their ipods?

Edited June 24, 2008 by Steve_Mitchell

[mikeee 0]

He didn't because he is not a member of this forum, in fact don't think he belongs to any forums now.

 

Steve, this is the first joint venture between the two bodies (PRS-MCPS All and the PPL), It simplifies a very complicated situation, and is the cheaper option in the long run. If you don't think they have teeth, read last Thursday's Stage. PRS-MCPS are taking the police to court for not haveing PRS licences in the their social clubs.

 

Please remember "DJ's" up until now are / were the only body not paying a "licence" fee, I think we have done very well over the years and we have a good deal now.

 

The next thing to consetate on now is persuading central govenment to introduce a "performers" licence to ensure that only registered performers can work. Shall we say, a £1,000 a year???

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

Thanks Mikee. None of my questions have been answered though really. The venue needs a licence (PRS) to play music and a DJ needs a licence to play copied music? So therefore 1 venue 2 licences?

 

Still waiting on an i pod answer if anyone knows it.

Also Mikee you say the DJ is the only one not paying a licence fee. The DJ is the only one purchasing the music.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Steve_Mitchell

[spinner 0]

Cool... The song writers get the royalties from the original purchase of the CD, radio play and the PPL the venue has to have. Blimey the rich get richer..

 

Do the kids who have i pods and mobile phones have to have this license? Its the same thing really, copied from a cd onto their i pod.

 

NO. A BLIND EYE WILL BE TURNED TO CONSUMER DUBBING.

 

What benefit does the DJ get from it? I have a driving license, which means I can drive a car, I have a TV licence which pays for the bbc so I don`t have to listen or watch adverts which other forms of media need.

 

THE (ASSUMED) PEACE OF MIND THAT COMES WITH BEING TOTALLY LEGAL

 

One last thing (sorry to be a pain) you said its a license so you can copy a cd to a hard drive, how do you know which track is the cd and which one has been down loaded in the first instance?

YOU PROBABLY DON'T

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

A select few thought the pole tax was a good idea but look how that panned out. ..

 

Nik

 

 

A tax on Polish people. Whatever next?

 

 

Please remember "DJ's" up until now are / were the only body not paying a "licence" fee, I think we have done very well over the years and we have a good deal now.

 

 

Format shifting and event promoting aside, they didn't need one.

 

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

Thanks Stevie. I bet all the DJ`s (only) with digital music files copied from a cd will be buying 2 licenses... tongue out icon .. All sounds a great idea. Can`t wait till they bring out a license for using cd`s only.

[UKHero 0]

He didn't because he is not a member of this forum, in fact don't think he belongs to any forums now.

 

beg to differ Mikeeeeee

Phil C Profile on DJU

 

Nik

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

beg to differ Mikeeeeee

Phil C Profile on DJU

 

Nik

 

I`ll agree there Nik. I seen his name on here before..

[UKHero 0]

Thanks Mikee. None of my questions have been answered though really. The venue needs a licence (PRS) to play music and a DJ needs a licence to play copied music? So therefore 1 venue 2 licences?

 

Still waiting on an i pod answer if anyone knows it.

Also Mikee you say the DJ is the only one not paying a licence fee. The DJ is the only one purchasing the music.

 

You always seem to hit a brick wall when it comes to DJ Assocs such as NADJ and SEDA etc... And now the LWP.... Who all seem to be the same group of people... You never get the answers fully answerd and only a small snippet of your post quoted that suits the responde...

 

Yes we taxed Polish people Steve lol... Im now wondering if they should bring that back :hide:

 

Nik

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

You always seem to hit a brick wall when it comes to DJ Assocs such as NADJ and SEDA etc... And now the LWP.... Who all seem to be the same group of people... You never get the answers fully answerd and only a small snippet of your post quoted that suits the responde...

 

Nik

 

Funny you should say that Nik. I noticed the people who were answering (part) of my questions were the very same members as you`ve just quoted.

I also got the impression they are all for spending more money on a track they have already purchased? I just can`t understand why!. Having said that maybe I will understand abit better when my questions are fully answered..

 

No disrespect to your answers Spninner.

 

[spinner 0]

The venue needs a licence (PRS) to play music and a DJ needs a licence to play copied music? So therefore 1 venue 2 licences?

 

Venue licence = 1

DJ Dubbing licence = 1

 

So the venue needs only its PRS and PPL licences for performance of music. DJ with just CDs needs no licence. DJ with format shifted material needs a dubbing licence for dubbing of music.

 

I can see logic in both sides of the licence/no licence argument.

 

On the one hand the copyright owners argue that dubbing brings an extra copy into existence and a royalty on it should be paid.

 

On the other hand the CD owners argue that they are not making a copy for gain and not selling that copy. They are merely transferring to use a different playback method.

 

So it could be said that they are both victims of the new technology which simply didn't exist when the original copyright rules were drawn up.

 

The copyright owners because digital copies can be made so easily and the CD owners who now have to pay a licence fee just so that they can take advantage of modern day technology.

 

I am reminded of "Home Taping Is Killing Music" or something similar which was a slogan used by record companies in the 1970's to combat the prevalence of people putting their vinyl onto blank cassettes to play in their cars, rather than buy prerecorded material from the record companies.

 

Then, with the advent of the CD, the record industry went through a renaissance. Unfortunately the medium is changing again and this time they have been slow to grasp the potential or foresee the consequences of the digital age.

Edited June 24, 2008 by spinner

[Dukesy 0]

DJ Associates Association members questions which are unanswered will be presented to their Business Development Director (by his request) at the meeting. I see no reason why anyone else's questions can not be submitted, so if anyone has any which they would like answered - please forward to

chairman@djassociates.org

as soon as possible!

 

I can not promise that he will be able to answer all questions at the meeting, but I can guarantee that questions will be submitted and in complete confidence.

 

 

 

[Steve_Mitchell 0]

The only way the music industry can lose money is if, you transfer your cd onto your hard drive and then give your mate the cd, hence your mate not having to buy the cd (coz you`ve just given him it).

 

Its impossible for the record company to get more than 1 sale per 1 cd/mp3.

 

They`ll do better if they concentrate and put their efforts into shutting down file sharing sites.

 

 

I can not promise that he will be able to answer all questions at the meeting,

 

That won`t surprise me... tongue out icon

 

Edited June 24, 2008 by Steve_Mitchell

[Dream Catchers 0]

Dan, will you ask him if you have to keep the original after purchasing the right to make and use a copy of it?

 

Jim