Digital License Again

[andyw 0]

with out saying anything but this,lets hear what you would like to see added to or taken away from what is proposed,may be you might get what you want so be careful what you wish for.lets keep the ideas constructed so they have tobe viablev to all parties concerned not just the dj's

[TonyB 0]

Something affordable and simple smile icon

 

An annual license that costs around £125 to £150 that makes it legal to use copied or format shifted tracks including allowing the removal of any DRM so that the tracks can be played on any digital player.

 

Whilst I can see the idea behind of venues having lists of licensed DJ's, it seems like it would be difficult to enforce and police.

 

Regulation by making something a requirement doesn't work. PLI and PAT failed to make much difference and I can't see the license making any difference. Education is a much better approach which could be done by the associations and by us, the DJ's.

 

I would just like to pay me money, get me license and get on with the job.

[Gary 0]

Ok Constructive ideas:

 

I've watched the video of the presentation given by the MCPS at The National Association Of DJs event at Birmingham a couple of weeks ago.

 

I don't have any objections with the main Pro-dub license as they called it. Its basically going to allow around 20,000 tracks to be moved from the format they were bought in, to another format for the annual fee.

 

I would imagine that most "dubbers" (remember this isnt targeted at DJs exclusively - other trades that dub and makes money by using the dubs, should consider the license when it comes out) will either have a library of ripped/dubbed tracks already to register, or else will be doing alot of dubbing/ripping in the first year. So...for me and others like me in that situation - some figure "approx" £250 for the first year for upto about 20,000 tracks is OK by me.

 

BUT...the part of the proposed pro-dub license which I feel needs to be adjusted, is the "subsequent years" part. Following on from a poll/thread which we had on DJU a couple of weeks ago, I only purchase about 1200 new tracks per annum - and in fact that drops to less than 1000 tracks per annum, once duplicates are removed. eg: I'll get various tracks from Mastermix Pro-Disc, DMC Promos month after month, then...2 or 3 times a year, the latest NOW album (and similar) will come out, and I'll end up with only ripping maybe 15 tracks off of a 42 track NOW album...The same duplicates "savings" arise from CD albums from individual artists.

 

So, for "subsequent years" I wouldnt need the the full "Dub 20,000 tracks over the next 12 months" license at around £250 (approx), I just want a "top-up" license for say "Dub 1000 tracks over the next 12 months" license - and this should be priced proportionately. eg: If it's for 1/20th of the dubbing quantity, then it would be nice if it was 1/20th of the price" - eg: "dub 1000 tracks over the next 12 months for only - £12.50". (£12.50 being 1/20th of £250).

 

I can see immediately that processing the paperwork for another 12months, for just £12.50 isnt going to be worth any organisations time, so... perhaps, the solution is for the MCPS, not to base the pro-dub license on "TIME" or annual duration...but rather on a "number of tracks" basis... a bit like a mobile phone top-up card.

 

If the MCPS did things that way, then I'd buy something like a £350 license initally, which would cover me for say, the 20,000 tracks that I've got now, and also the tracks that I estimate that I'll be ripping/dubbing over the next few years.

 

So...the change which I'd like to see to the proposed Pro-dub license is how the "subsequent years, topping up" is administered and charged for.

 

On a slightly deeper level, and I suspect that this brings all sorts of other licensing issues to the fore, I'd like to be able to edit out/blank out swear words or other unfavourable words from tracks - radio edit fashion. I can do this live already, but its a case of remembering to do it, and having a finger spare at the right time to hit the appropriate button to disguise the (potentially) offending lyric. I'd prefer to adjust the ripped/dubbed track "at source" as it were. But...if this feature, built into a license was to have any significant price change to the first, or subsequent years...I can live without it.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2008 by Gary

[spinner 0]

The other change should be to remove the need to apply for an exemption certificate if you don't dub.

 

If allowed to stand it will mean presumption that all DJs ( and any other occupation encompassed by the licence ) do dub which is nonsense to put it mildly and extremely intrusive and timewasting to put it more forcefully, for those who use original material only.

[andyw 0]

 

BUT...the part of the proposed pro-dub license which I feel needs to be adjusted, is the "subsequent years" part. Following on from a poll/thread which we had on DJU a couple of weeks ago, I only purchase about 1200 new tracks per annum - and in fact that drops to less than 1000 tracks per annum, once duplicates are removed. eg: I'll get various tracks from Mastermix Pro-Disc, DMC Promos month after month, then...2 or 3 times a year, the latest NOW album (and similar) will come out, and I'll end up with only ripping maybe 15 tracks off of a 42 track NOW album...The same duplicates "savings" arise from CD albums from individual artists.

 

So, for "subsequent years" I wouldnt need the the full "Dub 20,000 tracks over the next 12 months" license at around £250 (approx), I just want a "top-up" license for say "Dub 1000 tracks over the next 12 months" license - and this should be priced proportionately. eg: If it's for 1/20th of the dubbing quantity, then it would be nice if it was 1/20th of the price" - eg: "dub 1000 tracks over the next 12 months for only - £12.50". (£12.50 being 1/20th of £250).

 

I can see immediately that processing the paperwork for another 12months, for just £12.50 isnt going to be worth any organisations time, so... perhaps, the solution is for the MCPS, not to base the pro-dub license on "TIME" or annual duration...but rather on a "number of tracks" basis... a bit like a mobile phone top-up card.

 

 

 

what about for subsequent years if they brought in a sliding scale

say

£50 for 1000

£100 for 5000

then £250 for20 000

how would people feel about that,the more you do the more you save and none of them extortionate these prices are only an example

 

The other change should be to remove the need to apply for an exemption certificate if you don't dub.

 

If allowed to stand it will mean presumption that all DJs ( and any other occupation encompassed by the licence ) do dub which is nonsense to put it mildly and extremely intrusive and timewasting to put it more forcefully, for those who use original material only.

i think that is what tony don't like either and i tend to agree,so any alternatives as to how it can be policed(although if they just brought the license in without the exemption i think a lot will buy it )

[TonyB 0]

The other change should be to remove the need to apply for an exemption certificate if you don't dub.

 

If allowed to stand it will mean presumption that all DJs ( and any other occupation encompassed by the licence ) do dub which is nonsense to put it mildly and extremely intrusive and timewasting to put it more forcefully, for those who use original material only.

 

I think you are missing the point of why the exemption was mentioned.

 

It was suggested that all licensed DJ's would be on a central database and the venue would check the database to see if the DJ was on there before using them. A question was asked about what would happen if a DJ didn't need a license because, for example, they only used CD's. They wouldn't appear on the database and the venue might refuse them entry.

 

As a work around it was suggested that DJ's that didn't need the license could still register an exemption so that they appeared on the database and wouldn't be refused admission to a venue.

 

I think it was only an idea put forward to try and make the suggested database idea more workable.

 

I can see where Gary is coming from but i would rather just pay a flat fee and not have to worry about how many tracks I copy or dub or whatever you want to call it. It will be easier and cheaper to administer which means the artists/song writers get more of the actual money.

 

More DJ's are likely to be happy to pay a smaller amount.

 

There would be no worry about how many tracks you copy/dub in subsequent years. Just copy what you need and get on with it.

 

I really don't want to have to worry about how many tracks I can copy each year and only select what I think I need off CD's.

Edited May 12, 2008 by TonyB

[spinner 0]

I think you are missing the point of why the exemption was mentioned.

 

It was suggested that all licensed DJ's would be on a central database and the venue would check the database to see if the DJ was on there before using them. A question was asked about what would happen if a DJ didn't need a license because, for example, they only used CD's. They wouldn't appear on the database and the venue might refuse them entry.

 

 

 

I'm not missing the point at all.

 

This licence is about dubbing. By all means have one for that. But nothing else.

 

Why should somebody be refused entry for not being on a database they have no need to be on?

 

It's bureaucracy gone mad.

 

The point is that people who don't do something should not have to register to say that they don't.

 

No organisation has any right to cast doubt on anyone simply because they are not involved with what that organisation is concerned with.

 

What about freedom of the individual to go about his or her lawful business without let or hindrance. Does it not matter?

[andyw 0]

I'm not missing the point at all.

 

This licence is about dubbing. By all means have one for that. But nothing else.

 

Why should somebody be refused entry for not being on a database they have no need to be on?

 

It's bureaucracy gone mad.

 

The point is that people who don't do something should not have to register to say that they don't.

 

 

 

jamie has just sent an email to the music union asking this question and what else they know about it as it should concern them,i will let you know what they say when he gets a reply,will artist and bands have to have an exemption certificate and be on a data base or is it only dj's (if so is that victimisation)

Edited May 12, 2008 by andyw

[TonyB 0]

I'm not missing the point at all.

 

This licence is about dubbing. By all means have one for that. But nothing else.

 

Why should somebody be refused entry for not being on a database they have no need to be on?

 

It's bureaucracy gone mad.

 

The point is that people who don't do something should not have to register to say that they don't.

 

No organisation has any right to cast doubt on anyone simply because they are not involved with what that organisation is concerned with.

 

What about freedom of the individual to go about his or her lawful business without let or hindrance. Does it not matter?

 

As I said, you seem to be missing a point. It was a suggestion to overcome a problem. Its not set in stone and was offered as a possible solution to make things easier. A scenario arose at the conference that hadn't been thought of and the suggestion of registering if you don't have a licence was made on the spur of the moment.

 

If the proposed database does come into existence, what would you suggest as a workable solution to ensure that DJ's who don't need the license are not unfairly discriminated against (put aside for the moment the rights and wrongs of the database in the first place, I'm sure there are a good few that would rather not see it happen at all)?

 

I expect you will have the choice if you register for an exemption or not. If would just make your life more difficult if you try and work in a venue that will only allow "licensed" DJ's if you didn't register.

Edited May 12, 2008 by TonyB

[spinner 0]

As I said, you seem to be missing a point. It was a suggestion to overcome a problem. Its not set in stone and was offered as a possible solution to make things easier. A scenario arose at the conference that hadn't been thought of and the suggestion of registering if you don't have a licence was made on the spur of the moment.

 

If the proposed database does come into existence, what would you suggest as a workable solution to ensure that DJ's who don't need the license are not unfairly discriminated against (put aside for the moment the rights and wrongs of the database in the first place, I'm sure there are a good few that would rather not see it happen at all)?

 

 

As I said previously I'm not missing the point. Why should I ( or anyone else for that matter ) suggest anything?

 

The "problem", as you put it, arises from having a database. A database of people licenced to copy or dub.

 

Anyone who doesn't copy or dub is not involved therefore the "solution" to make them register to prove they're not involved with some else's database is unreasonable, to put it mildly.

 

Why should anyone not involved be discriminated against. On what grounds - that they don't copy and don't have a piece of paper to confirm it?

 

Crazy. Illogical. Ridiculous.

 

 

[andyw 0]

As I said, you seem to be missing a point. It was a suggestion to overcome a problem. Its not set in stone and was offered as a possible solution to make things easier. A scenario arose at the conference that hadn't been thought of and the suggestion of registering if you don't have a licence was made on the spur of the moment.

 

 

i am not against the license in principal, but surely you would agree it has to be thought through properly with all consequences thought about not there is something we haven't thought of will do this.because that will cause more problems in the long term

[Dukesy 0]

with out saying anything but this,lets hear what you would like to see added to or taken away from what is proposed,may be you might get what you want so be careful what you wish for.lets keep the ideas constructed so they have tobe viablev to all parties concerned not just the dj's

Briefly, common sense would warrant that any licence has to be fit for purpose and accessible to all in the 21st Century. That is, those who are online (have access to the internet) and of course, those who are not / do not have internet access.

 

Although the licence should include introductory rates (incentives) and payment options, it should be up to the licence issuer to inform the registered member of proposed changes / future price increases to show due diligence in giving adequate advanced warning of the fact that changes are being made.

 

Because of diversity in the DJ'ing universe, there will be those that DO NOT require a licence for public performances. E.G. Those who specialise

 

Therefore, any 'joint' licence proposal should take into consideration those who do not need the public performance aspect.

This is where there should be no automatic obligatory payment to an entity such as the PPL if the DJ who is applying DOES NOT engage in services which fall under the banner of public performances.

 

Unless one of the agencies are prepared to give a refund for the unused aspect of the licence, the obvious choice would be to have two separate entities. One for the collection of revenue for the conversion process of format shifting and the other to collect payment for the public performance of such format shifting material if the DJ should carry out functions which require this licence such as Public House functions, outside events and office parties.

 

Thus, the licence cost for the aspect of format shifting should be paid to the MCPS however, the act of playing that format shifting material should carry a charge to the PPL should it be played at any function not classed as private and public in relation to the examples above.

 

Provision in the discussions should be made for those in full time education / who are students.

There should be no discrimination on age.

 

If the licence is to be wider serving, then consultation feedback should be made available to all parties involved.

 

To ensure fairness on all sides of the negotiations, the licence should be finalised and confirmed as a wide ranging and affordable product which is also simple to obtain.

Party's involved in the process should be entitled to seek legal advice and allowed time to present to as well as collect all findings on behalf of those groups, communities represented, etc.

 

Then, an official date should be set which is agreeable to all for the end licence to be 'rolled out'.

[Corabar Steve 0]

The point is that people who don't do something should not have to register to say that they don't.

Not heard of a SORN then?

[spinner 0]

Not heard of a SORN then?

 

 

You're joking of course.

 

The SORN is for people who have or have had a motor vehicle.

 

The proposed exemption certificate is for people who don't dub/have never dubbed.

 

Completely different.

 

 

[andyw 0]

so here is my proposal for the dju license based on what we have upto date( it's easy sat here and not having to negotiate and i appreciate that)

a 2 part license

part A will be for all performing dj's covering all aspects of djing public or private parties a database will be formed and it will be upto the venues to make sure every dj that performs at there venue is on that database

PART B dubbing license a license will be required to copy/change format of legally bought musicthis will contain a sliding scale so you only buy what you need

these licenses will be policed by random checks(unfortunately the cost of paying for these checks will be in the license)

so cost's would have to take into consideration

administration

policing

advertising

legal cost's

i would suggest a consultation period of 6 months and hope the license be in force by april 09

a fair price in my opinion would be £200 per year for part A running from april to april

and part b

along the lines of

£50 for 1000

£100 for 5000

then £250 for 20000

 

any venue allowing dj's not on the database to use the venue will have there license revoked,any dj using illegal music or lying about his format will be removed from the database.policing will take place by random checks in which we will arrive at a venue check the dj playing is on the database and he has the correct license for the music he is using

 

remember this is only my version of what you want above :hide:

Edited May 13, 2008 by andyw

[Dukesy 0]

To be required to be registered 'on a database' if one does not require part of the licence is a bit iffy - Spinner virtually says the same.

 

Many parts of the 'licence' needs to be well thought out and 'approved' as being viable to all parties concerned, not just the DJ's, as per topic question:

 

lets keep the ideas constructed so they have tobe viable to all parties concerned not just the dj's

 

For example, it should be investigated how one entity such as the PPL can receive a percentage of the licence fee if the function is private?

 

Whilst we can make analogies, I have no doubt that there will be some that sound 'like for like' in comparison to the idea of this licence, however, we have to be pretty careful and not rush into rubber stamping because a requirement is in existence elsewhere or sounds like it may be.

 

To fix a tariff or price on this licence will need to take into account many things. Banding will probably be required to take into account those that are, for example, students.

We have members on the forum who have stated their age (under 15) who may indeed be required to purchase this licence, as well as those in further education, etc.

[UKHero 0]

To fix a tariff or price on this licence will need to take into account many things. Banding will probably be required to take into account those that are, for example, students.

We have members on the forum who have stated their age (under 15) who may indeed be required to purchase this licence, as well as those in further education, etc.

 

 

That is why I propose we are charged on our DJ related earnings from the Dubbed material that we use.. So that the more you use it and are paid for using it the more you pay... Then the younger DJs and the start up one gig every other month style DJs will not be penalised by the work every night for £1000+ per gig DJs...

 

This must be a fairer way of doing this the more you use the more you pay.. Again as per a radio station...

 

An artist is paid on the amount of times there track is used and equated to how much the player earns. This then gives an even playing field to all... As stated a DJ earning £1000 per year doing the odd gig here and there, such as your student or young new DJ having to pay say £250 is being charged 25% of his total income where as a DJ earning £10,000 using his music many times a week and getting a much higher level of income from the artists work, is paying 2.5% and a DJ earning £100,000 is paying 0.25%

 

How is this fair...

 

Nik

[andyw 0]

To be required to be registered 'on a database' if one does not require part of the licence is a bit iffy - Spinner virtually says the same.

 

 

 

To fix a tariff or price on this licence will need to take into account many things. Banding will probably be required to take into account those that are, for example, students.

We have members on the forum who have stated their age (under 15) who may indeed be required to purchase this licence, as well as those in further education, etc.

i think if you have a general dj license then yes it would be easy to impliment a banding similar to what the music union does,if it is a dubbing license then it should be on the amount of downloads i.e the same for everyone and an even playing field depending on how many you purchase

[Gary 0]

if it is a dubbing license then it should be on the amount of downloads i.e the same for everyone and an even playing field depending on how many you purchase

 

 

 

 

 

Andy, did you mean downloads only...? or did you mean transfers/dubs too, eg: Shop bought CD or vinyl being converted onto a hard drive?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[andyw 0]

Andy, did you mean downloads only...? or did you mean transfers/dubs too, eg: Shop bought CD or vinyl being converted onto a hard drive?

no i meant transfers/dubs basically what is proposed at the moment

Edited May 13, 2008 by andyw

[Gary 0]

no i meant transfers/dubs basically what is proposed at the moment

 

Thanks for the clarification Andy.

 

I agree. I'll have less tracks to rip/dub/transfer/convert during my 2nd and subsequent years of being a licence holder, compared to my busy "rip fest" prior/during my first year of license ownership. I would therefore hope to be charged less for all subsequent years. I think that other DJs would also benefit from a lower priced "follow on years" or "top up" license for simply adding each years new tracks as they're bought.

[Danno13 0]

By my understanding, the fact that none-dubbers have to register as exempt is part of the whole legitimasion that the license will provide to DJs. The none-legal operator isn't going to bother with a license or exemption, so its in the interest of any professional DJ, whether they dub or not, to be on the "list" so they aren't confused with the rogues.

 

Thats just the way I see it working anyway..

 

As, I've said elsewhere I think the license as it stands is reasonable as long as the minimum ripped tracks is lowered for consecutive years and of course the license is enforced properly - why people keep comparing this with PLI and PAT, which aren't legal requirememnts and aren't going to cause the venue to lose its entertainment license, is beyond me

 

[McCardle 1]

By my understanding, the fact that none-dubbers have to register as exempt is part of the whole legitimasion that the license will provide to DJs

 

how exactly is this licence going to legitimise dj's?, it deals solely with the action of converting material from one format to another, nothing more / nothing less. It's previously been pointed out that there is nothing in this licence to prevent or deter a dj from illegally dowloading music and burning it to cd, or from buying illegally mass produced cds from the local flea market, car boot sale or even off the internet in fact, it may encourage it. All they will need to do is to select the option of cd from the list, and effectively exempt themselves from paying a fee. So this means that the Dj downloading or obtaining illegal music pays nothing and can continue unchecked but those who choose to format shift from original material will be £xxx worse off, so in this example crime does pay after all. Unless of course you see, or are aware of anything in this licence which will remove this aspect, if so please explain.

 

Incidentally, on a foot note, two years ago i contacted an individual who was heaviliy involved with various authorities and reported a site whose members were engaged in selling mass produced entire back catalogues (including dj only material) of music for a few £, two years on i've recently checked the site again, and surprise surprise the same people are still selling the same material, and my guess is that they are possibly making more from it, than your average deejay!.

Edited May 13, 2008 by McCardle

[spinner 0]

By my understanding, the fact that none-dubbers have to register as exempt is part of the whole legitimasion that the license will provide to DJs. The none-legal operator isn't going to bother with a license or exemption, so its in the interest of any professional DJ, whether they dub or not, to be on the "list" so they aren't confused with the rogues.

 

 

 

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.

 

[Corabar Steve 0]

You're joking of course.

 

The SORN is for people who have or have had a motor vehicle.

 

The proposed exemption certificate is for people who don't dub/have never dubbed.

 

Completely different.

Not at all, I have a motorcycle in my garage, at the moment I choose not to ride it. I also have a laptop which I take to gigs, I choose not to play music from it.

 

By my understanding, the fact that none-dubbers have to register as exempt is part of the whole legitimasion that the license will provide to DJs. The none-legal operator isn't going to bother with a license or exemption, so its in the interest of any professional DJ, whether they dub or not, to be on the "list" so they aren't confused with the rogues.

Thats just the way I see it working anyway..

 

As, I've said elsewhere I think the license as it stands is reasonable as long as the minimum ripped tracks is lowered for consecutive years and of course the license is enforced properly - why people keep comparing this with PLI and PAT, which aren't legal requirememnts and aren't going to cause the venue to lose its entertainment license, is beyond me

At last, the voice of reason