The Pro Dub Is Two Weeks Old

[spinner 0]

So if you only do private functions i.e. weddings and parties, do you still need the licence? :shrug:

 

 

I believe the answer is "yes".

 

The licence is required for the act of format changing/ripping.

 

In addition it authorises the changer/ripper to play the tracks in public.

 

That may be because PPL and PRS issue public performance licences to venues and think of everything in terms of DJs playing at public, as opposed to private, performances.

 

It may also be because they have given no consideration to the fact that some DJs - wedding specialists especially - do not undertake public gigs.

 

Bearing in mind this licence will apply to fitness instructors, for example, all their engagements are likely to be public since anyone can sign up.

 

So it could be construed that some of this licence and consequently some of the cost, is unnecessary for those not undertaking public gigs.

 

I guess I'm just more of an optimist that you Nik and I don't think iPods or people DJing at their own events is really much of a threat, besides thats a whole other topic anyway.

 

I wonder if caterers are going to go out of business, people can just cook their own food surely.. can't be that expensive to buy a couple of ovens... or how about any of the hundreds of other wedding/events services that make good livings from their work?

 

 

 

Good points.

[TonyB 0]

I beg to differ!

 

They do differentiate between public and private performances. PPL charge for public performances but not private ones.

 

The fact is that this is a legal document and it states that it only applies to public performance.

 

A wedding/family party is not a public performance, it is a private one.

 

As it stands either the license doesn't apply to private performances so you still can't use copied/format shifted tracks at one or they have decided its not needed.

 

The terms and conditions are quite clear in what they state and define.

[andyw 0]

I beg to differ!

 

They do differentiate between public and private performances. PPL charge for public performances but not private ones.

 

The fact is that this is a legal document and it states that it only applies to public performance.

 

A wedding/family party is not a public performance, it is a private one.

 

As it stands either the license doesn't apply to private performances so you still can't use copied/format shifted tracks at one or they have decided its not needed.

 

The terms and conditions are quite clear in what they state and define.

 

it will be interesting to know the correct answer for sure,but i would i thought you would need the license,as you will still be format shifting to make money from it.but i dont know for sure

 

[NRG Roadshow 0]

Im wondering how many pro-dub licences have been sold......

 

I havent heard of anyone having an issue number of above 100......so they have sold less that 100 of them.

 

How many people in the UK are their that are supposed to have this licence.....maybe 10,0000......not a very good conversion rate is it, thats less than 1%.

[Dream Catchers 0]

i even see a thread asking what is wrong with illegal downloads,

I think that was meant to be tongue in cheek.

As far as being a professional well moderated forum, I think the mods and admin do a great job. After all sometimes sensitive subjects need to be discussed.

 

Jim

[andyw 0]

Im wondering how many pro-dub licences have been sold......

 

I havent heard of anyone having an issue number of above 100......so they have sold less that 100 of them.

 

How many people in the UK are their that are supposed to have this licence.....maybe 10,0000......not a very good conversion rate is it, thats less than 1%.

 

i hope your right,the less people that buy it for now the better chance i have of winning the denon hdc (perhaps i should buy 2 licenses and double my chance )

 

I think that was meant to be tongue in cheek.

As far as being a professional well moderated forum, I think the mods and admin do a great job. After all sometimes sensitive subjects need to be discussed.

 

Jim

i agree the mods have an impossible balancing act to do sometimes and some subjects(like this one) get peoples blood boiling . i do believe in freedom of speech but also believe it is upto everyone of us to keep within forum rules,ounce they start to slip there will be no going back.we all need to learn that when we can't agree we agree to disagree,not continually make snipes at each other on every occasion and everythread we can. :rant:

[NRG Roadshow 0]

Well a forum member got issued with his the other day....and got the number 79.

 

So your one of the 79 are you Andy?

I thought you used CDs anyway?

[andyw 0]

Well a forum member got issued with his the other day....and got the number 79.

 

So your one of the 79 are you Andy?

I thought you used CDs anyway?

no not yet,

we have been using a combination of cd's and laptop lately, thats why i say i am confused by the license and which way to go.everytime i sit and discuss all the possibilities the pro's and con's with jamie we end up changing our minds as to the best way forward. i am pretty sure that he will buy the license to convert all his current tracks though

[spinner 0]

I beg to differ!

 

They do differentiate between public and private performances. PPL charge for public performances but not private ones.

 

The fact is that this is a legal document and it states that it only applies to public performance.

 

A wedding/family party is not a public performance, it is a private one.

 

As it stands either the license doesn't apply to private performances so you still can't use copied/format shifted tracks at one or they have decided its not needed.

 

The terms and conditions are quite clear in what they state and define.

 

 

You may have a point there. Since you mention it, I'm reminded of the 'phone conversation I had with PPL on the subject of the original "Digital DJ" licence.

 

I said that I did only private functions and was told that, since the licence was for public performances, I would not be covered by that licence and none was available for private functions. Therefore I could not dub and play at private functions!!!

[deejaymitch 0]

Over ther years I have bought, at some considerable expense, a lot of CDs. As I understand it I can take these CDs to my local bar and play them through my CD decks and get paid for thaty service. I have PLI & PAT, I pay tax on my earnings.

 

I have also, at great inconvenience and over a lenghty period of time, ripped those CDs to a hard-drive. So now when I go to my local bar and provide the same service with the same tracks for ther same fee, I bring my CD decks, my hard drive and my laptop.

 

I don't see any reason why I should have to pay to play tracks that I have already purchased once, just because I am playing them on 2 different formats.

 

I have tried to put this in its simplest terms and hope that someone can explain to me, in equally simple terms, how this is fair.

[andyw 0]

Over ther years I have bought, at some considerable expense, a lot of CDs. As I understand it I can take these CDs to my local bar and play them through my CD decks and get paid for thaty service. I have PLI & PAT, I pay tax on my earnings.

 

I have also, at great inconvenience and over a lenghty period of time, ripped those CDs to a hard-drive. So now when I go to my local bar and provide the same service with the same tracks for ther same fee, I bring my CD decks, my hard drive and my laptop.

 

I don't see any reason why I should have to pay to play tracks that I have already purchased once, just because I am playing them on 2 different formats.

 

I have tried to put this in its simplest terms and hope that someone can explain to me, in equally simple terms, how this is fair.

 

i think we can argue about the fairness of this for eternity,,but for your argument when you bought your cd you paid for 1 copy of those tracks now you have 2 copies

i m not saying it is fair but in simple terms that is the reason

Edited July 23, 2008 by andyw

[Dukesy 0]

Over ther years I have bought, at some considerable expense, a lot of CDs. As I understand it I can take these CDs to my local bar and play them through my CD decks and get paid for thaty service. I have PLI & PAT, I pay tax on my earnings.

 

I have also, at great inconvenience and over a lenghty period of time, ripped those CDs to a hard-drive. So now when I go to my local bar and provide the same service with the same tracks for ther same fee, I bring my CD decks, my hard drive and my laptop.

 

I don't see any reason why I should have to pay to play tracks that I have already purchased once, just because I am playing them on 2 different formats.

 

I have tried to put this in its simplest terms and hope that someone can explain to me, in equally simple terms, how this is fair.

 

According to the poll, it could be interpreted that a lot would seem to agree it is unfair too!

 

Here is an o-l-d-ish theory - revamped.

 

There is a fear in the music collection companies 'management' that a users mp3 collection will end up in someone else's hands. If a user allows someone to have say just 10,000 mp3 tracks, then that user would have prevented, by down load example, a sum generated around the £7,900 mark back into the industry.

In other words, the industry is being 'cut out of the equation' thanks to technology and millions upon millions of users worldwide who share, email, bluetooth and rip music….and now they want to tie up loose ends wherever feasibly possible….and guess who is a tangible target!

 

If a user allowed their friend to copy their new NOW album which was then distributed across the internet to 1,000 other users, the approximate loss of sale to the industry would be around the £9,990 mark.

 

The music collection companies have to exist, or 'survive' might be a better word to use.

From their perspective, their clients are losing exponential millions every day, hour minute and second…..and the 'DJ' is just one of many for the new kids on the companies block to give scrutiny and focus, more so since their former management 'Dinosaurs' moved on to other pastures.

 

Times are different, trends are different, the companies objectives are different, and, both companies seem to have better cooperation these days...

 

These are only crude examples but you can see why the DJ is a more approachable pursuit than that of the general public!

 

You can imagine the board room meeting upstairs in the BPI a few years back...."We need money, so use whatever means necessary...." and that is what their staff basement have responded with and will continue to do so!

 

Our sector of the industry is not regulated and both music collection agencies will seek to exploit this simple fact if they can see a potential revenue return, even with only a few licence holders.

 

So, one answer to the question put maybe "Buy one copy but make another, someone is not getting their cut!"

 

If the end item was not a music track but a pair of Levi Jeans made from a replicating machine from the Star Ship Enterprise, then Levi Jeans would still not be getting their cut...so to speak.

A crude example but I think you get the idea!

 

I am law abiding and am not against the artistes making money, but like others have indicated both online and off, I find the notion of being dictated to how I should run my business by a business a BIG concern, and especially hearing echoes within the profession fills me with a great sadness as I too can see our sector begin to change for the worse, not for the better .

 

What of the few and better days, eh?

http://www.park-zone-airplanes.com/images/SpitfireBanner.jpg

Edited July 23, 2008 by Dukesy

[wendyice 0]

IT'S ANOTHER TAX END OF!

 

they have highly paid lawers and ad men and pr men to put forward all their arguments and build up their case.

 

they didnt do it for cassettes or reel to reel. albeit it was a much smaller problem, but i bet we have all dubbed stuff to play in the car i defy any of you to say you have NEVER COPIED OR RIPPED A CD ILLEGALLY.

 

its like the bin charges a way to make more money from something you have already bought once.

 

we are all as a society being reamed and ripped off daily.

 

maybe we should charging them a dub licence for RIPPING US OFF?

 

i will never pay it ever not a chance.

 

i'd rather stop dj'ing for money and do it for free then i am not a pro or making money.

 

a donation to my partner or a friend would be nice tho and they can lend me some money.

[Reverandfunk 0]

I'm still amazed that people actually think that this license is ever going to be checked.

[spinner 0]

I beg to differ!

 

They do differentiate between public and private performances. PPL charge for public performances but not private ones.

 

The fact is that this is a legal document and it states that it only applies to public performance.

 

A wedding/family party is not a public performance, it is a private one.

 

As it stands either the license doesn't apply to private performances so you still can't use copied/format shifted tracks at one or they have decided its not needed.

 

The terms and conditions are quite clear in what they state and define.

 

 

A colleague of mine used the contact form on the Pro Dub website to get clarification on these points.

 

The answer was that the Pro Dub licence is NOT a performance licence and is required by anyone copying tracks etc.

 

As far as the public performance aspect is concerned he was given a link to the PRS/PPL site FAQ section, no part of which answered the question.

 

He responded and pointed this out whereupon the Pro Dub contact undertook to clarify the position. However the Pro Dub contact, whilst saying that he is not an expert, thought that weddings would be classed as public because of the number of people attending!!

Edited July 23, 2008 by spinner

[Gary 0]

I'm still amazed that people actually think that this license is ever going to be checked.

 

Are you confirming or indeed fully guaranteeing that it wont be? I dont think that any member of DJU is naive enough to expect that you are guaranteeing that. More the case perhaps that you are "betting" on the ratio of ripped music professional/business users Vs the percieved number of inspectors? eg: Along the lines of "I thinking of parking in this pay and display car park (which used to be free to park in), it's 4:59pm, I reckon that there's not that many traffic wardens around here, and besides they'll probably go home at 5:30. I'll risk it."

 

That gamble, be it parking wardens or PRS inspectors is obviously your gamble for you to decide whether you want to take it. If you are attempting to incite other members of the forum, and thanks to Google-bots, other web users, to take the risk - that could be something far more worrying.

 

One similar myth, or at least "unknown variable" about the PRS inspectors, who of course already exist and regularly visit venues who play music (anywhere from a hairdressers with a radio on the counter, to hotels and nightclubs etc), is that they are "just" 9 til 5'ers. This bit of wishful thinking was dispelled at a large DJ meeting last weekend, where the attendees were advised that a member had been in a venue at 9pm on a Friday night a few months ago, when the PRS inspector was led around the venue.

 

The license is, dependant on the way that each music user either works, or wants to work, optional. And that needs to be explained before anyone runs off with the idea of "oh well, if it's optional, I opt not too."

 

If a dance instructor, fitness instructor, DJ, aerobics trainer etc, opts to play their music from the format in which they bought it, then the don't need the license. If however they opt to move their music around from the original format to another format, for conveniences sake for example, then they would need the license, just the once, during the act of format shifting said music. Once shifted under license, the professional music user can play and play and play those tracks which were moved/dubbed under license for years to come, without further license for those same tracks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2008 by Gary

[Dream Catchers 0]

I wonder what the legalities are in discriminating between DJs etc and "the public" copying tracks?

Isn't it akin to the traffic police not prosecuting porche drivers because they are too fast, but will prosecute fiesta drivers because they can catch them, and making it public that they will not chase the porche drivers?

 

Jim

[Reverandfunk 0]

2 regular venues I play at:

 

No awareness whatsover of Pro Dub

No visits by ANY licensing body for 2 years

 

I have and would not encourage/discourage people to buy or not to buy the Pro Dub, I just simply stated the fact that I think so many people here live on the moon.

 

I will not be purchasing the Produb

 

All the tracks on my laptop are legal downloads - and I would say to a visitor how are going to verify that exactly?

Edited July 23, 2008 by TonyB

[Reverandfunk 0]

I still have to laugh

 

Are produb going to communicate to EVERY venue? If it's anything like the way they launched it - no chance

 

I dont attend DJ shows nor am I a member of a DJ association, I dont read DJ magazines - How am I going to get briefed?

 

Saying they are going to be tracing people through forums is just totally unbelievable but if you want to believe that miraculously overnight venues that havent been visted for 2 years will be then you carry on.

 

No-one has still answered how the invisible inspectors are going to verify the tracks on a laptop - certainly not on the night

 

You've paid for it thats your choice, the same as I choose to keep 250 quid in my back pocket as oppossed to buying a license that is totally un-enforcible

[deejaymitch 0]

A friend of mine is a cigar smoker (don't start him on the smoking ban, you can't nip out for 5 minutes to smoke one of those bad boys).

 

Anyway, he smokes big, fat, Hannibal Smith type cigars, not Hamlets or anything like that. When he buys them he removes them from their original packaging and places them in a very stylish, specially designed pocked humidore (I think he calls it). Basically it's a wee cigar case that he has.

 

Now even though the cigar is not as originally bought and is now transported in a different, more convenient way, he does not need a license to go ahead and smoke it.

[TonyB 0]

But does he make another copy of it? :ads:

Edited July 23, 2008 by TonyB

[deejaymitch 0]

But does he make another copy of it? :ads:

 

OK then, another example. If a DJ who only used CDs makes a back-up copy of every CD in his collection in case the disc gets damaged/lost etc, why does (s)he not need an additional license? And how is that different from backing up on a hard drive?

Edited July 23, 2008 by deejaymitch

[Dukesy 0]

A colleague of mine used the contact form on the Pro Dub website to get clarification on these points.

 

The answer was that the Pro Dub licence is NOT a performance licence and is required by anyone copying tracks etc.

 

As far as the public performance aspect is concerned he was given a link to the PRS/PPL site FAQ section, no part of which answered the question.

 

He responded and pointed this out whereupon the Pro Dub contact undertook to clarify the position. However the Pro Dub contact, whilst saying that he is not an expert, thought that weddings would be classed as public because of the number of people attending!!

WHAT!

[Gary 0]

OK then, another example. If a DJ who only used CDs makes a back-up copy of every CD in his collection in case the disc gets damaged/lost etc, why does (s)he not need an additional license? And how is that different from backing up on a hard drive?

 

They do. (grief! It sounds like I'm at a wedding...)

 

The Pro-dub covers those wishing to move all, or some of the tracks they have on CD (one format), to CD-R, CD-RW, DVD+-R, DVD-+RW, which are all other formats - eg: MP3, WAV etc.

 

Many DJ's, myself included asked about this 3 or 4+ years ago when PPL prototyped the PPL Digital DJ license - but it's final version didn't cover CD-R variants, only Hard Drive storage of the tracks.

 

We all know that when we buy an album, it contains some fantastic "killer!" tracks, and some right ol' "filler" tracks. Many DJs back then, and still now, I suspect want to be able to create a CDR collection of discs just full of all their killer tracks, and no filler tracks - some of those DJs, and other users I suspect, also wanted to be able to compile all their CD singles onto CDR too - after all, its usually just the Radio Edit which we need from a CDR, not the DJ Bang-Bangs, rub-a-dub-dub-club-n-pub-boppy-boppy-ruined-and-nothing-like-the-original extended remix mix".

 

The Pro Dub license allows that sort of compilation making - which means that pro music users, be they DJ or Dancing/Aerobic intstructor, could carry around a fraction of the number of discs with them to, in and out of their venues.

 

[deejaymitch 0]

Thanks for explaining that Gary.

 

The license disgusts me even more now.