A Licence For Djs

[UKHero 0]

I agree just like you pay more for the more time you spend on the phone, I think you should be charged more road tax the more you use the road... Why should a pensioner how only does a few thousand miles a year pay the same as the rep doing hundreads of thousands....

 

 

A question for the DVLA. Why not put it to them?

 

I will

 

Radio stations pay more the more music they play so why not DJs....

 

How would that work exactly?

 

As per my above example the more you earn via DJing the more you pay..

 

Poor or low erners always have to pay more than rich high earners its how it is but its wrong....

 

Example please.

 

pay as you go electric meters for an example charge more for the electric or gas used compared to quarterly billed accounts.. Most people who have a PAYG meter are lower earners.....

 

As per one of the posts above the less you convert the more you pay per unit... How is this fair to the lower paid less worked DJ compared to the 5 nights aweek £1000 a gig DJ who will convert more but pays less per track...

 

Since nothing is finalised on what do you base this comment?

 

I was using an example from an above post ... I know nothing is set in stone this is all speculation on all of our parts....

 

Me thinks the last two posts are from people my idea would affect the most in the pocket and as I said in the original post i bet the high earners wont go for this... Looks like im right...

 

Not sure I understand this remark

 

Or me :dan+ju:

 

 

Yes most of us pay the same for our CDs, well thats biased in favour of the high payed heavily giged DJ as they sometimes get there music free.. Ever heard of DJ lists... Do a local pub once a week they wont want to know you Do five London night clubs per week and they will be sending you everything for free...

 

As I'm sure you know, that's because the record companies expect to get promotional exposure.

 

Yes I do but it is an example again that is all

 

£500 to a £1000 pound per year DJ is 50% £500 to a £100,000 is 0.5 % how is that fair????

 

Where did these figures come from?

 

As an example you could do just the same for £250 or £150

 

Nik

 

Unfortunately, Nik, the amount you earn bears no relation to the number tracks you may wish to copy.

If you are a lorry driver that only does three 10 mile trips trips a year, then the cost per trip of your lorry is very much higher that a lorry driver who does 300x 10 mile trips.

 

 

thats my point exactly how is that fair if the lorry is not using the road as much why should it be charged the same for its tax...

 

Thanks for helping me with that one... tongue out icon

 

Nik

[andyw 0]

 

 

Me thinks the last two posts are from people my idea would affect the most in the pocket and as I said in the original post i bet the high earners wont go for this... Looks like im right...

 

 

 

Nik

 

surely you don't think i am in the high earners brigade nik we are right at the bottom and proud of it. just because someone can afford to pay more for the same thing don't make it mean they should surely, i take it you are somewhere in the middle so would you be happy if the guy down the road who already charges less than you was able to buy his music at a cheaper rate because he don't make as much as you do,so his expenses will be less than yours again and he might even pass this on to his customers and then be able to go out for even less each night.

 

your other point about the more you use the more you should pay

no matter what you buy in this country if you buy it in bulk you will get it cheaper, which makes sense

[UKHero 0]

surely you don't think i am in the high earners brigade nik we are right at the bottom and proud of it. just because someone can afford to pay more for the same thing don't make it mean they should surely, i take it you are somewhere in the middle so would you be happy if the guy down the road who already charges less than you was able to buy his music at a cheaper rate because he don't make as much as you do,so his expenses will be less than yours again and he might even pass this on to his customers and then be able to go out for even less each night.

 

your other point about the more you use the more you should pay

no matter what you buy in this country if you buy it in bulk you will get it cheaper, which makes sense

 

The guy down the road charging less wont bother with the license so wont make a jot of difference to him... He will still go out for £75, but i dont want to get into another price war... Yes I know there are legit djs on here who work for £75

 

And if we dont sell on price as is always preached in this hallowed place what difference does it make...

 

As to your second point about my second point, I know but it is just a shame that the rich get things cheaper than the poor... I know bulk buying makes sence... I just used it as an example as requested by Spinner...

 

Nik

[andyw 0]

The guy down the road charging less wont bother with the license

 

Nik

a very bold statement but i wont get in an argument about that here .

but you never answered my question nik would you like to see this guy paying less than you for your music and the guy earning more than you paying more,or is it a case you believe that anyone earning/charging lower than you have got to be illegal so don't count.

nik do you offer big discounts to the lower paid,if so what are they if not why not surely it's not fair for them to pay you the same as someone who earns more

[UKHero 0]

a very bold statement but i wont get in an argument about that here .

but you never answered my question nik would you like to see this guy paying less than you for your music and the guy earning more than you paying more,or is it a case you believe that anyone earning/charging lower than you have got to be illegal so don't count.

nik do you offer big discounts to the lower paid,if so what are they if not why not surely it's not fair for them to pay you the same as someone who earns more

Oh god this is getting a tad tedius now...

 

but you never answered my question nik would you like to see this guy paying less than you for your music YES!!! As long as the guy earning more than me pays more also...

 

or is it a case you believe that anyone earning/charging lower than you have got to be illegal so don't count.

NO!!! I am sure there are DJs charging much more than me that are illegal...

 

nik do you offer big discounts to the lower paid,if so what are they if not why not surely it's not fair for them to pay you the same as someone who earns more

 

YES I do, My usual charge for a Sat night is £220 to £250 locally... Last weekend I did a gig for £50 for a cancer victim who was getting married before he gets to ill and will sadly die...

 

Next Sunday I am providing a full band PA for £100 for a Macmillan cancer charity fund raiser.... I would have done it for free but had to cover expences which they accept....

 

I and my wife earn enough to live on and I do like to give sometimes and not just take take take.. If the big corporate world put as much back into society as it takes monitarily what a wonderfull world it would be...

 

Some people are too busy making money to stop and look around them...

 

I do now hope this answers your questions and gives you an insite into the kind of person I am in reality and not how you percieve me to be by a few lines on a vertual page.

 

Nik

[Dukesy 0]

 

Dan, you can't possibly be suggesting that the Canadian model is a better solution?

 

The reason that the MCPS guy mentioned NADJ was, he was making a presentation at the NADJ AGM!!

If he made a presentation at the DJ@ AGM, I expect he would mention DJ@ a fair amount too!!

 

On the first point, I quoted facts from their web site and benefit of membership info. LOL!

What I DID suggest was "does that include discount on downloads for bulk purchase ????????????"

 

OK,I'll put it another way using Andy's point:

"no matter what you buy in this country if you buy it in bulk you will get it cheaper, which makes sense"

 

So I'll ask again! Why haven't the LWP fought for benefits for the DJs? E.G. discount on downloads (bulk purchase)

 

If the DJ@ was negotiating on behalf of its member DJs only for this licence and any other licence which would have an impact on the MEMBERS ONLY, there would still have to be a hell of a lot more negotiation, however, for starters, as the impact of the licence will be of such a magnitude and affecting ALL DJs, the DJ@ would not elect itself to be the spokesperson on behalf of everyone!!!

 

As you have already stated, the PPL licence was not right and that DJs should not to buy it, although it is STILL law to buy and has not, to my knowledge, been withdrawn (the PPL STILL advertise the Digital DJ Licence) the DJ@ would not be rushing into negotiations and making decisions which would have great impact. Again, as stated previously, there are so many areas which have NOT been consulted upon and there will be many who may not even be aware of ANY licence requirements - even since the PPL fiasco!

 

You can't effectively rush such a huge idea like this. It can take YEARS to get it right. It's taken the MU years to get to the stage where it is now and is a proper union.

 

There is so much DIVERSITY in our sector of the profession and until a thorough study, research and findings are presented in a detailed report, the path on which you are journeying is descending into a slippery slope which, 'in the name of our profession', you are dragging DJs down with.

 

Please, please, please take a step back and look at the wider plain - the bigger picture.

The long term benefit for ALL, and not just your organisation will be so much more rewarding. And, I'm sure you will pick up more recruits along the way KEEN to join your organisation when you and your team PROVE you can listen and negotiate with actual DJs, taking on board what Their Need's are before giving away the golden key to the crapper to the likes of the MCPS or PPL.

 

You chose this path and you've still got A LOT more work to do. A working party / representative has to listen to ALL sides of the argument! Don't roll over and let the inexperienced clown dictate how you should run your business as exampled previously, stand up for the DJs. Stop ignoring them. Listen. It's not too late. smile icon

Edited May 11, 2008 by Dukesy

[Danno13 0]

RE: Your previous comment regarding the NADJ website. The video recording from the Q&A is avaliable on the show website, how can we possibly be more open than that? There is also a broadcast quality version on the way!

 

There is so much DIVERSITY in our sector of the profession and until a thorough study, research and findings are presented in a detailed report, the path on which you are journeying is descending into a slippery slope which, 'in the name of our profession', you are dragging DJs down with.

 

Please, please, please take a step back and look at the wider plain - the bigger picture.

The long term benefit for ALL, and not just your organisation will be so much more rewarding. And, I'm sure you will pick up more recruits along the way KEEN to join your organisation when you and your team PROVE you can listen and negotiate with actual DJs, taking on board what Their Need's are before giving away the golden key to the crapper to the likes of the MCPS or PPL.

 

You chose this path and you've still got A LOT more work to do. A working party / representative has to listen to ALL sides of the argument! Don't roll over and let the inexperienced clown dictate how you should run your business as exampled previously, stand up for the DJs. Stop ignoring them. Listen. It's not too late

 

But as far as I'm aware a very small amount of people have actually contributed their views to the LWP. Its only now that they've got somewhere that people seem to be intent to moan and criticize those who've actually got off their backsides and done something. Also, any DJ in the country was welcome to come along to the Q&A at the NADJ show, and those that did, will have their veiws taken on board.

 

as the impact of the licence will be of such a magnitude and affecting ALL DJs, the DJ@ would not elect itself to be the spokesperson on behalf of everyone.

 

But if the LWP didn't stand up and represent DJs then who else is going to? Should we all just be too afraid to actually do anything for fear of upsetting some DJ somewhere who wasn't prepared to do anything themselves? That kind of attitude will get the industry nowhere.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Danno13

[spinner 0]

 

So I'll ask again! Why haven't the LWP fought for benefits for the DJs? E.G. discount on downloads (bulk purchase)

 

 

 

Whilst this is a valid question, isn't this something that should be directed at inidividual record companies or download sites rather than PRS/PPL/MCPS?

 

Surely the LWP was formed because of the proposed licence which is a separate ( although intertwined ) matter?

Edited May 11, 2008 by spinner

[Gary 0]

I love a good Pinyana. :mikee:

 

 

[Dukesy 0]

But as far as I'm aware a very small amount of people have actually contributed their views to the LWP.

 

Dan, I'm sure you're no fool but such a statement is ignorant. Maybe Ok to say if the NADJ and LWP have taken out advertisements in the national media advertising of your event. Either provide evidence to support your statement of national advertising to let all DJs know about your AGM, where DJs all over the country would have heard of the event, or hold thy tongue until the official spokesperson from the LWP can volunteer an answer or proof what you say. smile icon

 

Also, any DJ in the country was welcome to come along to the Q&A at the NADJ show, and those that did, will have their veiws taken on board

 

So does this mean that the next time there is a general election, all of the populous should have to travel down to London in order to cast their vote and pay £5 on the door in order to gain access to cast that vote?

Having a say in something which has the potential to affect business, should be a courtesy which is extended to them whether they are in London or Inverness, or Essex or Northern Ireland as should the ability to have their say on it (and to be informed of its progress).

 

This is not a matter which should be limited to people who use forums, or a members of an association and neither should the requisite of this be limited to one meeting, held by one association in one area of the country, unless of course that the license is only going to be limited to, and have any jurisdiction over members of that association, and that association alone.

 

So in order to have your opinion taken seriously or onboard in relation to this licence, you are required to attend an NADJ meeting in Birmingham (and pay entry for the privilege of doing so?) is that what you are saying? Because that's how I read your comment above, anybody more sceptical than me could possibly believe that this was some deliberate act to get more people to the show, but I don't believe that, so I wont put my name against it.

 

So beyond the NADJ, SEDA and the various online communities and other associations, exactly how is the word being spread, because we have already established time and time again, there is a good chance that these entities only represent a small number of those, of whom, ultimately the licence is going to affect.

 

Its only now that they've got somewhere that people seem to be intent to moan and criticize those who've actually got off their backsides and done something. Also, any DJ in the country was welcome to come along to the Q&A at the NADJ show, and those that did, will have their veiws taken on board.

 

Second thoughts, why not just forget what I and everyone else with an opinion have said. Why don't we take it all back, applaud and toss the LWP a treat?

After all, why should DJs bother bringing any discussion via the online communities because essentially, what you are saying is the views of the DJs don't count unless they attended the AGM meeting or have internet access for the super wonderful broadcast quality recording that seems more important to mention than what the REALLY IMPORTANT topic matter is!?

 

It appears that if you didn't know about the AGM or don't know about the licence, what is being discussed.....sorry, its tuff!

 

Whilst this is a valid question, isn't this something that should be directed at inidividual record companies or download sites rather than PRS/PPL/MCPS?

 

Surely the LWP was formed because of the proposed licence which is a separate ( although intertwined ) matter?

 

The PPL and MCPS-PRS of course have the remit (authority) to discuss on behalf of their boards a variety of proposals which would, had they been put forward, allowed a few but small end benefit for DJs.

Part of negotiating is compromise towards an end solution. If you don't bring anything to the table data wise and have no requests - nothing is achieved and the 'negotiating' can and appears to be, one sided!

 

Decisions made on behalf of any sector of an industry which are decided by a small group of individuals is, in mine and many others opinion totally wrong.

To date, no one has mentioned about the legal advisor the LWP sought and proofed researched findings with.

 

The PPL contracts negotiator stated in 2006 that they would welcome and review any proposal. I'm sure the MCPS-PRS would have done the same but would have obviously used their in-house legal team.

Whilst the LWP may feel they are championing the humble DJ, they still should have consulted a legal body.

 

As I stated before, the DJ@ would happily investigate lobbying.

 

Whilst DJ@ is a free to join online based association, DJ@ does not receive core funding to carry out lobbying and advocacy work. Yes, it does cost money to consult solicitors, have letters proofed and have a fighting fund for advertising and conducting duties on behalf of the DJs represented.....like I said, if there is demand for lobbying against, DJ@ will accept, still happy to investigate.

 

On top of this, of course, there is nothing, stopping the negotiation with individual companies but with the weight of the PPL and MCPS behind this and any such proposals, the end negotiation would obviously be easier but of course, the LWP know this.

 

 

[spinner 0]

 

 

Decisions made on behalf of any sector of an industry which are decided by a small group of individuals is, in mine and many others opinion totally wrong.

 

 

To be fair the LWP ( as I understand it and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong ) essentially represents the NADJ, SEDA and M.D.A so initially, at least, they are there on behalf of their members, rather than DJs as a whole.

[Phil Cunnington 0]

To be fair the LWP ( as I understand it and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong ) essentially represents the NADJ, SEDA and M.D.A so initially, at least, they are there on behalf of their members, rather than DJs as a whole.

Dan, you personally had the opportunity to take part in the discussions the LWP were having and you dropped out. I presume because you didn't agree with the approach the LWP took.

 

You must concede that the proposed licence, at the stage we are at now, is less restrictive and more appropriate than the licence you, yourself, proposed immediately before leaving the LWP.

 

Can I take it that you then decided that you would not represent your opinion at all and would leave it to someone else? Or maybe you thought that if you said nothing about your opinion (and the opinions of those DJs who agree with you) that MCPS and PPL would simply guess that's how you felt and act accordingly.

 

What's the point of sitting back, silently watching when you could be 'lobbying' as you put it?

You publicly discredit the LWP but then are prepared to criticise them when they don't do things the way you want, those two things don't match up.

 

That is not good enough. You have let yourself and your followers in your association and on this forum down, if they agree with your approach to the licence.

 

There is still time for you to be heard so get onto MCPS and PPL and start making your demands known.

Come on, guys, stop moaning and start acting. Take responsibility for your own business.

 

The LWP don't have a divine right to talk to them exclusively, we have put forward the opinions given to us, every single one. Any DJ is welcome to get behind the LWP's approach or formulate their own discussion body/lobbying group.

 

We have responded to whatever MCPS or PPL have put in front of us and tailored our approach as a result.

 

Go ahead and get legal advice, start a fighting fund, open discussions or stonewall or whatever you feel is the right approach. I am sure you will find a string of DJs prepared to risk everything in supporting you. Make sure you warn them of the consequences though.

 

You can write as many arguments as you like or throw as many criticisms as you like on this forum at the LWP or at MCPS/PRS or PPL. It will achieve nothing.

 

I wonder who will shoulder the most blame when a licence finally arrives - those who tried to get a better deal for DJs, even when not as good as would have been preferred? or Those who sat sniping on the sidelines doing nothing. Yep, I know, it will be those who actually did something. Oh, what strange irony.

 

By the way, when did you change your mind about copying music being illegal?

 

[Gary 0]

Dan, you personally had the opportunity to take part in the discussions the LWP were having and you dropped out. I presume because you didn't agree with the approach the LWP took.

 

You must concede that the proposed licence, at the stage we are at now, is less restrictive and more appropriate than the licence you, yourself, proposed immediately before leaving the LWP.

 

Can I take it that you then decided that you would not represent your opinion at all and would leave it to someone else? Or maybe you thought that if you said nothing about your opinion (and the opinions of those DJs who agree with you) that MCPS and PPL would simply guess that's how you felt and act accordingly.

 

What's the point of sitting back, silently watching when you could be 'lobbying' as you put it?

You publicly discredit the LWP but then are prepared to criticise them when they don't do things the way you want, those two things don't match up.

 

That is not good enough. You have let yourself and your followers in your association and on this forum down, if they agree with your approach to the licence.

 

There is still time for you to be heard so get onto MCPS and PPL and start making your demands known.

Come on, guys, stop moaning and start acting. Take responsibility for your own business.

 

The LWP don't have a divine right to talk to them exclusively, we have put forward the opinions given to us, every single one. Any DJ is welcome to get behind the LWP's approach or formulate their own discussion body/lobbying group.

 

We have responded to whatever MCPS or PPL have put in front of us and tailored our approach as a result.

 

Go ahead and get legal advice, start a fighting fund, open discussions or stonewall or whatever you feel is the right approach. I am sure you will find a string of DJs prepared to risk everything in supporting you. Make sure you warn them of the consequences though.

 

You can write as many arguments as you like or throw as many criticisms as you like on this forum at the LWP or at MCPS/PRS or PPL. It will achieve nothing.

 

I wonder who will shoulder the most blame when a licence finally arrives - those who tried to get a better deal for DJs, even when not as good as would have been preferred? or Those who sat sniping on the sidelines doing nothing. Yep, I know, it will be those who actually did something. Oh, what strange irony.

 

By the way, when did you change your mind about copying music being illegal?

 

 

 

Several 100% spot-on accurate points there Phil, although I wouldn't narrow down the behavioural observations to DJU or any specific member, or members of DJU exclusively. Reactions to the Pro-dub license, at least the reactions which I've either read about at various places on-line, or heard face to face, have been remarkably familiar to a situation which many DJs encounter from time to time: eg:

 

 

 

Unhappy Guest wanders up to DJ) "Oi Mate, play something else will yer!"

 

Dutiful DJ replies: "What would you like to hear?"

 

Unhappy Guest: "Ohhhh I dunno, anything but not this..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

might as well be:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unhappy Pro-user of dubbed materials: "make a different license will yer!"

 

MCPS/PPL/LWP: "what features would you like a pro-dub license to have?"

 

Unhappy Pro-user of dubbed material: "Ohhhh I dunno, anything but not this..."

 

 

Edited May 12, 2008 by Gary

[McCardle 1]

(Dukesy) To date, no one has mentioned about the legal advisor the LWP sought and proofed researched findings with

 

just out of curiosity, (and leaving aside anything which the deejays may want), at any point in these negotiations over the last few years did you obtain any form of legal advice from somebody familiar with / specialising in the copyright laws?.

Edited May 12, 2008 by McCardle

[spinner 0]

A good way to gain an understanding of this subject is to visit the BPI website and read the Music Business Group Response To UK IPO Consultation on copyright exceptions.

 

The Music Business Group is a coalition of 10 organisations including BPI, PPL, MPA, MU, MCPS/PRS Alliance and Music Producers Guild.

 

The report is 26 pages long and explains the position with regard to licensing, not just in the UK but in Europe generally.

 

From reading this and other related material I have ( regrettably ) seen no basis to challenge the principle of the proposed licence, although there is at least one provision of it which strikes me as illogical.

Edited May 12, 2008 by spinner

[davemoody 0]

I vote for no licence at all. This country is bound up with rules and regulations.

[Dream Catchers 0]

although there is at least one provision of it which strikes me as illogical.

Spill the beans then Steve :joe:

Is that 26 A4 pages or 26 web pages the length of some of these :dan+ju:

 

Jim

[spinner 0]

Spill the beans then Steve :joe:

 

Please see my post under Digital Licence Again

 

Is that 26 A4 pages or 26 web pages the length of some of these :dan+ju:

 

That's 26 A4 pages contained in a .pdf file.

 

Jim

 

[Dukesy 0]

To answer the imprudent question first (your questions I've placed in italic):

 

Dan, you personally had the opportunity to take part in the discussions the LWP were having and you dropped out. I presume because you didn't agree with the approach the LWP took.

 

I dropped out of the discussions, purely because of the huge backlash which was occuring within the DJ community in general, it seemed that very few, Djs actually approved of its existance and clearly didn't like what it stood for. I didn't want DJ@ involved in anything which so clearly wasn't being well recieved by those whom I was professing to represent, and yes I did poll my membership at the time, and yes the majority were against it. So I can truely say that my actions were the result of a majority decision, amongst my members at least. Given the subsequent U-Turn as a result, which delayed the PPL version for many, many months, I believe that my decision was the correct one.

 

 

You must concede that the proposed licence at the stage we are at now, is less restrictive and more appropriate than the licence you, yourself, proposed immediately before leaving the LWP.

 

Now, how could I possibly know how restrictive this new licence is at this stage? Obviously, this licence is very different from the PPL licence. Either way, you cannot deny that the current response in general from those who do know about, is not exactly positive - so not a lot has changed from those early days has it. I'm just glad that my members are not giving me a brow beating purely because I was involved in something which was proving to be so unfavourable.

 

People, by definition, tend to remember who was involved in the introduction of something so unpopular, and will tend to vote with their feet, or at least lay blame at those they see as responsible, and I don't wish to alienate my membership in such a manner.

 

Whether I do persue the matter further, and whether any other third party is consulted is indeed my decision, however it will not occur until I have discussed it with my members. I feel that their opinion is just as important as my own, as I don't profess to be more intelligent than my members or to know whats best for them or intrude on the way in which they CHOOSE to run their business

 

From your own words:

 

The main point to remember in everything you ask or I answer is that the final version of the licence has not been agreed between MCPS/PRS and PPL

 

Apart from the briefing info and that it would be introduced in July, who can say what exactly the proposed licence is? If only a couple of people in MCPS know (and of course your good self and maybe the rest of the LWP) we'll just have to wait and see when its released, whenever that day is.

As with the majority of others, I am not privy to certain information, which puts me at a clear disadvantage, so I will elect not to rely and post on assumption until facts are on the table.

 

Can I take it that you then decided that you would not represent your opinion at all and would leave it to someone else? Or maybe you thought that if you said nothing about your opinion (and the opinions of those DJs who agree with you) that MCPS and PPL would simply guess that's how you felt and act accordingly.

 

What's the point of sitting back, silently watching when you could be 'lobbying' as you put it?

 

To acquire knowledge, one must study; but to acquire wisdom, one must observe. The most profound statements are often said in silence. I have many regrets, but have no regret in silence. smile icon

 

People can of course fight for their own opinions, but should not believe that they contain the whole truth, or the only truth. If I was to be satisfied with my own opinion and content with the knowledge, I'd be pretty ignorant and probably permanently ignorant at that!

 

I would be the first to lend my support to those who are listening to the feedback from Djs and acting on such, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anybody in existance who fits that criteria, that is why I feel that its time somebody started listening. If you feel that is sitting back and doing nothing, then your idea of apathy certainly differs from mine.

There is currently a thread, which was started by Gary earlier, which gives the Dj's the ability of role playing and taking the stance of being involved in rolling out such a license. You should take the time to read it, however off the record it may be taken, a few members do seem to have picked up on several key points which perhaps would have resulted in a smoother and widely more receptive license.

 

You publicly discredit the LWP but then are prepared to criticise them when they don't do things the way you want, those two things don't match up.

 

DJ@ dropped out of the LWP because we didn't agree with the policies which it was putting forward and because it went against the general feeling of my membership, we also didn't think that enough empathsis was put on listening to Djs and their feelings on the matter and that things were pretty much steaming ahead with the PPL firmly in control and DJ@ were there as a token gesture.

 

Indeed your own posts are enough to illicit widespread confusion, so its hardly surprising that nobody can follow what is, and is not a requirement.

 

For example in one post, you clearly state that all Dj's should consult the PPL before buying a license or self exempting by not doing so:

 

please, please speak to PPL before deciding to not buy a licence

 

However in another post some time later you contradict this advice and tell people not to buy it:

 

Re. the PPL licence, I doubt that you would or should buy it at the moment.

 

There is still time for you to be heard so get onto MCPS and PPL and start making your demands known.

 

Thank you, I may just do that.

 

 

Go ahead and get legal advice, start a fighting fund, open discussions or stonewall or whatever you feel is the right approach

 

Thanks for the thought and support, but I really don't need your approval or permission.

 

I am sure you will find a string of DJs prepared to risk everything in supporting you. Make sure you warn them of the consequences though.

You can write as many arguments as you like or throw as many criticisms as you like on this forum at the LWP or at MCPS/PRS or PPL.

 

That is not good enough. You have let yourself and your followers in your association and on this forum down, if they agree with your approach to the licence

 

I'm not sure how I am letting down my members, because they are also not in agreement with the license in its present form? If they were, then we both know that we wouldn't be having this discussion.

In a similar manner over 95% of members who have taken the time to vote on DJU wish to see an alternative one size fits all style license, as opposed to the current one, oh apart from 2 members that is.

 

We are still awaiting a reply as to whether the LWP have consulted with legal representation on this matter, if not then perhaps we would be the ones doing something radically different and calling on expertese that we don't (pretend to) possess internally.

 

I really don't see why you are so opposed to this, had you have already confirmed that this license is justified and fair, direct from a legal entity then you shouldn't be too worried about me doing exactly the same on behalf of my members.

 

I try not to give advice unless asked and when giving, I seek to help, not please. I'm no expert or legal professional but you can be sure that if the world was to blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying "it can't be done!" LOL!

 

We live in a world where armchair lawyers are plentiful, but sometimes the advice of the real thing and support from various other third parties must be sought. Its not a crime to ask for help.

 

I wonder who will shoulder the most blame when a licence finally arrives - those who tried to get a better deal for DJs, even when not as good as would have been preferred? or Those who sat sniping on the sidelines doing nothing. Yep, I know, it will be those who actually did something. Oh, what strange irony.

 

Sorry, I don't have a crystal ball so I'm not able to predict the long term outcome of something which hasn't been formally announced yet! So I'm not going to answer this one!

 

By the way, when did you change your mind about copying music being illegal?

 

Didn't you basically do the same when you encouraged members not to buy the PPL license???

 

So, at the end of the day, how does not agreeing with the licence in its current form have anything to do with change of mind? I'll happily give you examples of change of mind.

 

Over time, there has been a lot of comments and statements where 'change of mind' occurs, I don't have any exclusive title! Some comments may appear to the casual observer as 'U turn', some may appear as confusing:

 

Comments from Phil Cunnington

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.

 

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).

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Comments from Danno13

I'm sure i'm not alone in thinking that 10p charge for ripping a track to your PC is unwarranted.

The BPI have said they won't prosecute people copying their CDs to an iPod for personal use but yet we have to pay.

Ok, i know we're using it for business use, but by that logic shouldn't we then have an extra charge for our CDs in HMV??

 

 

Well why can't that also cover the same tracks being played from a digital system... after all it shouldn't make any difference to the record company whether i play my music from a CD or a PC.

Oh.. actually i know why.. its because record companies are greedy and we're an easy target..

 

 

The problem is more one of principle than the financial aspect. Why should there be an extra "tax" just for using a digital playout system, when it doesn't represent any extra cost to the record labels???

 

 

Comments from RobbieDJ

Digital djing currently has no licence as the only one was suspended.

 

chris you have my word everybody will be kept informed as long as i am involed as i have said this thing is too big an issue it will affect the whole future of the industry not only for djs but manufactures and record companys also

 

 

sorry we are working on plan and mission that is why we are asking for imput from all the plan must be the wish of the majority not mine or any member of the working party it has been set up to try and serve all

 

 

Just as a further point, MCPS are launching their own website on this.

When we get the address I will post a link for everybody.

 

 

i think you have missed the point of the working party we are trying to work with all the associations and forams that is why it has been posted on an all of them and when we get a draft from mcps and ppl we are hopeing to take out adds in national press this is being done for all djs not for one association .It is my peronal opinion that this is such a big isue that it needs the backing of all the djs and in this respect we need your help and input. Hope this helps you understand how we feel and you can work with us

 

 

I, myself would prefer to get away from a "digital" licence and have a DJ licence covering all needs, not just ripping to HDD.

 

 

OK, folks, please read this as it was the first meeting with PPL and held a few surprises.

We would like comments on proposals from both sides. As you will see the LWP is pushing for a "fair use" approach, rather than a "digital" one.

PPL have admitted they were stunned by the reaction from DJs and want to sort out the problems

 

 

you will need the other licence still even having purchased the new one.

 

If this is not a rip-off what is?

 

You are still only playing the same music to the same people.

 

Incidentally, when a question is posed or placed as a Poll, I have no power over the opinions of others, I don't make the voting decisions for them. Individuals read, vote and perhaps comment.

[Danno13 0]

Firstly, please don't confuse my personal veiws with that of the LWP, as I'm not directly involved.

 

Yes, those were my personal views at the time, but I've since had the intelligence to accept that we're not going to be allowed to copy for free, so surely the 2.5p a track that the LWP have negociated is a fair compromise?

 

I can't see why so many people are opposed to this current license and don't think it can be enforced, but then in the same breath suggest that a DJ license would be a much better idea? If anything, thats far more pie in the sky and unenforcable than this dubbing one, and will most certainley be more expensive!

 

You can dress it up as democracy if you like, but this poll is dileberatley misleading by having the other fantasy license listed and at a lower rate - of course 95% of people are going to vote for it! Same as if I started a poll saying would you rather pay £10 per CD, or get given the CD for free and a bonus of £100 for your trouble?

Edited May 13, 2008 by Danno13

[McCardle 1]

You can dress it up as democracy if you like, but this poll is dileberatley misleading by having the other fantasy license listed and at a lower rate

 

If you really feel that its misleading then surely its no more misleading as those on other threads under the impression that this licence will somehow revolutionise the way in which deejays work and market it as some kind of snake oil which will rid the deejay industry of problems. Sugarcoating something which is purely a licence to change format and packaging it and marketing it for far more than its worth, or as being some way of harmonising deejaying under strict quality guidelines is also somewhat of a fantasy also is it not?. So far, I have not seen one once of proof of the inclusion of pli /pat checking within this licence or how it is going to stop people being let down or disappointed by a crap deejay.

 

to quote the comments of another member:-

 

The purpose of this licence is to generate revenue from format shifted tracks on behalf of the clients of PPL/MCPS/PRS.

 

Any "legitimising" is only within the context of its scope. There will be no wider effect

 

agree 100%

Edited May 13, 2008 by McCardle

[Paul Smith 0]

this poll is dileberatley misleading by having the other fantasy license listed and at a lower rate - of course 95% of people are going to vote for it!

 

Sorry you see it like that. The reason for the lower price is based on the fact that it would apply to more people and thus could generate more money so should be cheaper. Also taken into consideration is the announcement by the MCPS under current proposals that a lot of their work in compiling a database would be for DJs who don't need to pay. This expense of this will have to be subsidised by those who do pay.

 

I did expect that those who don't format shift would have gone for the more expensive option, knowing that they wouldn't have to pay for it - but it would appear not to be the case. A significant point I think :shrug: