Technology And The Ever Evolving Needs Of Consumers

[Dukesy 0]

Q:- Do the Licensing Authorities need to change or update current UK Copyright laws to reflect new technology and the ever evolving needs of consumers and DJ's alike?

[spinner 0]

Absolutely.

 

The current legislation is both restrictive and unfair and probably more applicable to a time when wax cylinders were the main medium.

[Andy Westcott 0]

Absolutely agree with Spinner.

[theoloyla 0]

Thing is it is not the licensing authorities that make the laws - it is parliament. We can ask our government to change/update the laws and so for that matter can the licensing authorities - but I sense that they are not about to do that anytime soon. Whys should they. In the case of the produb licence the wording is based in their favour even though the spirit of the law was never meant to cover the eventuality it now does of computer dj's.

[spinner 0]

In the case of the produb licence the wording is based in their favour even though the spirit of the law was never meant to cover the eventuality it now does of computer dj's.

 

 

As a point of interest, I have now had it confirmed by Tom Weller of MCPS that if a digital file is downloaded directly to the place from where it will be played e.g laptop or hard drive, or even SD card I guess, no Pro Dub licence is required ( other than the usual performance licences ) since no copy has been made.

 

Since digital downloads are the 21st Century alternative to the CD it would appear that MCPS regard the download as the equivalent to the CD.

 

So far, so good, if you can find files that will play as downloaded and some sites are selling high quality DRM-free files.

 

On the other hand it still seems unfair that Joe Public can burn a copy of that file to CD-R, as part of the legitimate purchase process but a DJ doing the same thing is deemed to be making a copy and needs a licence.

[McCardle 1]

As a point of interest, I have now had it confirmed by Tom Weller of MCPS that if a digital file is downloaded directly to the place from where it will be played e.g laptop or hard drive, or even SD card I guess, no Pro Dub licence is required

 

This has been on and off more times than the BT couple, and they seem to change this point more often than Cindy Lauper changed her hair colour. I wonder what will be the trend next week, or the week after or the week after that?. Why can't the MCPS-PPL get their story straight?, after all according to members who have asked the question, their own staff seem to be giving conflicting advice on this issue, on one thread it says we can, then click another thread and it says we can't, read this thread and once again it says we can. Perhaps they'd be good enough to update their website to convey this important bit of information and put paid to the speculation. Will they also be issuing refunds for those who may have bought it earlier on an incorrect requirement basis and now may realise that they no longer actually require it?.

Edited September 17, 2008 by McCardle

[Robster 0]

As a point of interest, I have now had it confirmed by Tom Weller of MCPS that if a digital file is downloaded directly to the place from where it will be played e.g laptop or hard drive, or even SD card I guess, no Pro Dub licence is required ( other than the usual performance licences ) since no copy has been made.

 

 

 

So far, so good, if you can find files that will play as downloaded and some sites are selling high quality DRM-free files.

 

 

 

Karaoke wise (here he goes again banging on about karaoke..lol)

I download legal MP3+G files... These are intended for public performance ..so there is no silly grey area there either as with some music files

 

If you download legal karaoke MP3+G files to your performance hard drive you DO NOT NEED A PRO DUB LICENCE FOR THESE as no conversion or copy has been made .

 

Zoom entertainments was as far as i am aware the first UK company to offer MP3+G downloads legally (pirates had been doing this for years before).

Zoom entertainments and labels like Laughing Gnome who make some really rare and sought after karaoke tracks have us KJ's interests at heart. This is because they realise that the vast amount of customers who buy there products are not ordinary consumers but professional KJs and DJs.

 

There are some interesting developments regarding Karaoke and the licence and when i have more information i will keep you guys posted smile icon

[macca_dj 0]

I Feel your Pain

I started Djing back in 1990 and love the Progression the Industry and Technology has made Quicker, Lighter, Convenient,

I love the sound of Vinyl Always Have always will but its too Cumbersome 1 Hdd Versus 1 Transit van of Vinyl

Lets see what do you Prefer, ? No contest HDD.

 

As a point of the Modernisation of Technology from analogue GramaPhone To Vinyl isnt it the same from Digital CD to Hdd the same, ?

So As a Point why did we not face this Licensing Provado Back in the Early Days (1980s), For the Compact Disc Jockey,

After all is that not Digital in its Native form, And its Next form from Analogue .

 

We Have Gone from

GramaPhone Analogue to Vinyl Analogue from vinyl Analogue to Digital CD from Digital CD to Digital HDD

 

No License No License Licensed

[djcaoimhin 0]

I am new to DJing MP3 files and it just seam a crock of S##T about charging for one format and not another

is there some organization that is trying to stop this unfair tax and if so what would i have to do to join in

as i am sick of the record companys /Artists saying they want more money as the DJ plays the tracks and this to me is free advertising its a shame that we can not charge the companys for playing there stuff

Then they wonder why so many people down load without paying for traxs

If you ripped the cd as its original file and did not convert it to mp3 would you still need a dub license

[vokf 0]

I am new to DJing MP3 files and it just seam a crock of S##T about charging for one format and not another

is there some organization that is trying to stop this unfair tax and if so what would i have to do to join in

as i am sick of the record companys /Artists saying they want more money as the DJ plays the tracks and this to me is free advertising its a shame that we can not charge the companys for playing there stuff

Then they wonder why so many people down load without paying for traxs

If you ripped the cd as its original file and did not convert it to mp3 would you still need a dub license

 

Hi and Welcome to the forum- perhaps you'll be able to spend a few min introducing yourself;

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/index.php?showforum=13

 

Ie, experience/location/style of DJ etc.etc

 

 

Whilst I'm certainly no fan of ProDub (for many reasons), there is a lot of mis-information from both sides of the fence.

 

If you dub (make a copy) into ANY format, you are required to have produb. So CD Audio to MP3/OGG/WAV/WMA etc requires produb.

If you copy the CD, (ie clone into another CD), or complile your own CD (with tracks from other audio CD's), then produb is required.

 

Its not just MP3 (or any digital format from CD Audio)

The way around this is to use CD, or do not rip any tracks.

 

Sadly, this all dates back to an age when there wasn't many alternatives to using the music in its original media. The Vinyl guys will remember a few large and heavy crates of singles and 12"s.

CD guys had it a bit easier, but still needed to carry the media separately, and lots of cases.

 

In more recently times, the CD guys could create their own CDs of floor fillers, and with PC based DJing being very common (and hard drive controllers etc), its easy to keep it all digital and walk into a club/bar with a laptop+controller and run a night.

The music industry is not keeping up. You can almost hear them wondering what all the fuss is with this "new" iPod... lol

The film industry also have similar problems, but BluRay and now 3D makes things more difficult to get a new release, mainly due to the massive filesize.

For me, £7 for an album download is still far too expensive when there is no physical media (so no cover art/inlay notes).

If they can drop this price and also provide more value (vip area on the artist site, loyalty discounts etc) then perhaps peoples attitudes may change.

They can apply all the rules they want, but a DJ paying £250-£400 for produb is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of pirate downloads.

 

I do feel we are being treated unfairly for the publics attidute to copying music. I've never spent so much on music since starting out a few years ago.

I don't see the local guys who use priated music being raided or prosecuted, and they certainly won't have produb. I've actually reported a local DJ for openly selling drives full of Karaoke tracks (and software, chart music etc).. Twice.

 

The MCPS are not interested, or willing to act. They have the URL, and his contact details.

 

My last comment to them was that should I consider using his music rather than paying for it, as I can't see any action being taken against him, and I'm the stupid one for continuing to pay for my music!

 

 

I've even see "pleased to have produb" DJ's offer HardDrives full of music in other places. :ads:

 

 

So... DJ's are really not helping themselves - mis-information (ie your "DJ must have produb") from some DJ sites.

Its a sad state of affairs, and in years gone by, DJ's were respected by record companies (way before my time!).

I wonder what would happen if any of us wrote to a record company, offering to promote any of their artists (in public gigs), if they can send the media?

 

Something to try next week! lol

 

Jason

[Dukesy 0]

I'm not a fan of the Pro-Dub either, purely as it only attacks a fairly easy target in a soft area which isn't really piracy as such, as we would assume that the Entertainer has paid the artist, label and distributor a fair price for the original CD / Vinyl based material in the first place, and by making a single 'back up copy' for their own use on a more flexible digital media, doesn't really threaten the artist, label, distributor or cost any of them anything in the form of lost revenue from lost sales. Its just a method of raising more money from the same material in return for doing very little.

 

Certainly it doesn't seem to be an issue or deterimental to the music industry beyond the UK, i'm not aware of any international pro-dub variant, but then again most other civilised countries change with the times and don't follow base laws which were passed when their grandparents were still filling nappies or have the desire to introduce more and more red tape which serve only to tax small businesses out of existance.

 

Neither does Pro-Dub do anything to stop those Dj's who continue to use entire cases of copied CD's at events completely unchallenged for years, nor does it address those venues who use copied material themselves - often the very same venues which are, laughingly, expected and en-trusted to police the Pro-Dub.

 

The real threat to music industry revenue, of course are those spiv's selling mass produced hard drives full of music on the internet and those with market stalls full of CD's, computer software and even the latest DVD's, who are making thousands of pounds every weekend in the local market or car boot sale which is effectively thousands of pounds that the music and film industry will not be seeing. Multiply that by the number of people in every town who are literally making a living from these and similar activities and the revenue loss must be huge - millions probably, yet as Jason says, very little is done about it, even when its reported and effectively handed to the relevant people on a plate.

 

The Pro-Dub has been here now for some years, and there is nothing we can do about it, other than hit them where it hurts financially with a silent protest, and examine every possibility where we can actively and legally avoid contributing anything more to the industry which has now turned on us. The obvious example, is to use only legal downloads on digital based media, which is already downloaded and kept in its original format as Mp3 , Wav etc and to carry on using our CD's to play out the material which isn't yet on Digital Download.

 

The other alternative is to actively look at what we spend on new material every week, and examine whether we really need to buy 10 new tracks, when 3 will probably do and some weeks you may skip buying anything. Unless you do a pub / club with a younger audience or get booked for kids parties then most of what is in the charts has limited appeal and so probably won't ever get asked for anyway. I know from personal experience that i've managed to halve what I used to spend on new music every week, just by taking the time to examine client request lists and function request slips of the past, to see that very little of what was being actively requested at the time, reflected what was in the charts at the same period. This alone probably sums up just how appealing new music is in the real world to those who are able to break away from the X-factor every now and again

 

I reckon by the end of the year, by just being thrifty with what I spend on new music and cutting out the crap, will probably have saved me almost £1500 in new material over the past 12 months, non of which I haven't really missed and previously, a few years ago I would have spent in HMV or the local CD outlet without giving it a second thought just for the sake of it . Effectively, this has also cost the music industry the same £1500 on this basis alone. The fact that I don't need a Pro-Dub anyway because I still use CD's is a huge bonus, not withstanding that its yet another couple of hundred quid saved, and its always worth more in my pocket than theirs .

 

If anything the whole Pro-Dub fiasco and their negative attitude towards encouraging modern technology in modern business with this draconian tax has made me look at more closely at what I spend on music compared to what I used to spend in previous years. On this basis, I not only have avoided gifting the Pro-Dub folk with my Pro-Dub fee by sticking with CD's, but its introduction has meant that they are down effectively £1500 a year in revenue which I would normally have spent on new music. Thats not a brilliant success story

 

Of course, my example will not apply to all Dj's but those. like myself who do mainly Weddings and the type of mixed groups where very little brand new music is actively requested will be surprised at just what they can save, simply by not gorging themselves needlessly with every track which is released