Pro Dub Licence - Are We Equal?

[Dukesy 0]

One element of the pro dub licence that I don't quite understand is that Djs are getting financially penalised by the introduction of the pro dub License for recreating the original CD in another format of their choice, yet a band or singer can openly recreate an original song in their own format (style) whilst even remaining faithful to the original lyrics, night after night at as many as several venues every week without paying a single penny in licensing fee's???

 

Are these singers / bands not charging a fee for their acts and so making a profit commercially from using the works / efforts / talents of other artists???

Where is the difference for DJ's? The only difference I can see is that one example uses their voice to "format shift", the other uses a hard drive or CD-R!

 

We've also all stayed in hotels all over the coast of the UK from Skegness and Blackpool to Brighton and Eastbourne, where cabaret singers have performed songs made famous by other artists, and then after the show or during a refreshment break, have been seen selling CD's of their songs for literally £££'s to their audience.

 

Surely by singing a song which was written and performed by another artist 'lyric by lyric' and who holds the copyright to those lyrics is considered a 'format shift' in anybodies eyes.

 

Yet to actually then record and sell for a profit on a CD the fruits of that format shift - could this even be construed as a commercial act???

 

When Djs recreate their original music to mp3, even with a pro dub licence, they are still forbidden from selling CD's containing a recording of their 'act'! And mix Djs are also forbidden from selling mix tapes of their performance in clubs for doing much the same thing! Talk about double Standards!?

 

Yet neither of these acts have the attention of the MCPS / PPL and neither, it would seem, require any form of license, or, rather if they DO require a license, then where is the same level of publicity in the music media that the pro dub license has got, and when is the clamp down going to start and the venues going to be informed???

 

We are all equal under the eyes of the law….or are we?

 

You decide!

[Danno13 0]

The MP3/CD etc. is a physical copy though, the singers performance is only sound waves heard by a particular audience on a night, surely thats the difference?

 

The arguments about this thing are getting so boring, it seems some people won't rest until they've thought up every possible way to avoid buying it, or claim its unfair.

 

When instead, we could be activley using this as a tool (along with PLI & PAT, which aren't even legal requirments) to bring some kind of regulation to this industry.

[Robster 0]

The MP3/CD etc. is a physical copy though, the singers performance is only sound waves heard by a particular audience on a night, surely thats the difference?

 

The arguments about this thing are getting so boring, it seems some people won't rest until they've thought up every possible way to avoid buying it, or claim its unfair.

 

When instead, we could be activley using this as a tool (along with PLI & PAT, which aren't even legal requirments) to bring some kind of regulation to this industry.

 

 

I think this is where the difference of a direct copy or sample and in the style of or interpretation comes in..karaoke files for example are not copies of the original track but in the style of (sometimes they are so bad they are nothing like the original )..just as a singer is not saying he is Tom Jones hes Ron Jones the tribute act tongue out icon in the style of Tom Jones.

 

do i feel its fair for mix djs who create new completely different sounding music from other music? no i dont as they are just using the samples like an instrument and creating there own new interprutation but the law on samples has been in place for a long time now and i cn see the point that it is a direct copy of the original not a in the style of.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Robster

[McCardle 1]

The MP3/CD etc. is a physical copy though, the singers performance is only sound waves heard by a particular audience on a night, surely thats the difference?

 

Leaving aside the grey, and highly debateable areas and points from both sides in relation to on-stage performance, I can see the point that in selling their work recorded onto a CD because it then becomes a tangeable (sp) product? rather than just soundwaves. Surely to produce a CD (a physical product) wouldn't a form of license be required, in the same way that if another singer releases their cover version of a song into the charts, they would need to seek permission of the original songwriter and perhaps pay royalties?. Why would there be a difference to a caberat singer selling a CD full of popular covers, and Mark Ronson releasing Valerie as his own? surely its possible that royalties could be due to the original songwriter in both examples.

 

 

The arguments about this thing are getting so boring

 

In YOUR opinion.

 

Sometimes, and on some occasions its good for us to listen and read just as much as we speak. God gave us two ears, two eyes and just one mouth for a reason. (smiley).

 

When instead, we could be activley using this as a tool (along with PLI & PAT, which aren't even legal requirments) to bring some kind of regulation to this industry.

 

Now, how do you propose that a license aimed at, and on sale to several very different industries can accurately regulate one - i.e Deejays?. To my knowledge Aerobic Instructors and dance tutors do not get booked by clients to work at venues and neither do they attend many wedding receptions or get asked to do Karaoke's in pubs, so i'm not sure that your wish is going to be granted and how workable it really would be, as their businesses, clientele' and business focus and profit margins are all very different to each other.

 

This license is NOT a DJ specific license, we keep getting told that, and so it covers many spheres as its a license to format shift, no more - no less. To say its a form of betterment is a bit like suggesting that a hairdresser with a PRS certificate on display in her salon is much better at cutting your hair than the salon across the road who doesn't. What if the one across the road doesn't have any music on?, is the absence of a PRS certificate good reason to avoid his business? or for the PRS holding hairdresser to advise clients not to frequent the non PRS salon on this basis?, and how would the legitimate and perfectly legal non PRS salon business example be any less regulated than the other?. Please explain.

 

I will also point out that like the above 'salon who doesn't play music doesn't legally need a PRS license example' - many of us Dj's who still use CD's / Vinyl ( a reasonable percentage I would imagine) still do not require this license and that is perfectly legal for them to continue to trade and operate without it and this is factually stated on the MCPS - PPL website, therefore these DJ's can never be regulated by a product of which they have no legal requirement to buy.

[Robster 0]

 

 

it seems some people won't rest until they've thought up every possible way to avoid buying it

 

whoa hold your horses!!!

 

No one here has suggested or advised anyone not to buy a licence that is required by law IF they are required to because they host a show from format shifted recordings that are covered by the PPL.

 

 

 

 

[deejaymitch 0]

When instead, we could be activley using this as a tool (along with PLI & PAT, which aren't even legal requirments) to bring some kind of regulation to this industry.

 

The only way that this industry can be properly regulated is to have one governing body issung one "DJ License" which permits the holder to play any legally-acquired music in any format - something which many of us have been asking for for a long time (as you can see in many threads on these forums).

[Andy Westcott 0]

But if the price of a 'DJ licence' was pitched at the silly level the ProDub licence was, many part-timers would have to cease working as DJs, or continue illegally.

 

And remember - the ProDub fee was arrived at not as a result of a calculation of the lost revenue suffered by artists (zero pounds in fact) but rather by guessing the maximum fee they thought they could get away with - this is almost stated literally in some communication from them posted on this form.

 

I think that's nothing short of disgusting.

 

And I use CDs - I am therefore, it seems, no longer worthy, and risk being classed as dodgy, especially if such tripe as this continues to get posted:

 

"When instead, we could be activley using this as a tool (along with PLI & PAT, which aren't even legal requirments) to bring some kind of regulation to this industry."

[Dukesy 0]

I'm all for protecting the consumer as well as protecting the art of DJ'ing but 'Regulation' is a subject that probably deserves its own thread, where the pros and cons can be discussed.

 

And remember - the ProDub fee was arrived at not as a result of a calculation of the lost revenue suffered by artists (zero pounds in fact) but rather by guessing the maximum fee they thought they could get away with - this is almost stated literally in some communication from them posted on this form.

 

Actually, the PPL said pretty much the same back in '06.

[Danno13 0]

And I use CDs - I am therefore, it seems, no longer worthy, and risk being classed as dodgy, especially if such tripe as this continues to get posted:

 

Of course you wouldn't be classed as dodgy if venues were educated about the licence and new that you didn't need it!

 

And yes, any DJ licence would be far more costly than the ProDub due to the extra admin involved. I don't think the ProDub is a "silly" level at all, part-time or full-time doesn't make a difference, its still a business and your decision as to what you charge.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Danno13

[Andy Westcott 0]

OK, so what about the guy who chooses to perform 6 gigs a year? They are out there.

 

He may be a top class DJ, just not wishing to do gigs every weekend. Such a licence would push him out completely, and there's a good chance that such a licence, if very expensive, would push me out also.

 

There's no need or justification for a DJ licence - money for nothing.

[Danno13 0]

I think we're getting our wires crossed here, I never said we needed a DJ licence, I don't agree that we do, I was just arguing that it would be far more expensive than the ProDub licence.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Danno13

[deejaymitch 0]

I think we're getting our wires crossed here, I never said we needed a DJ licence, I don't agree that we do, I was just arguing that it would be far more expensive than the ProDub licence.

 

So you want to se the industry regulated, you support the farcical, discriminatory, disgusting Pro-Dub license, but you don't agree with the idea of a DJ license?

 

Baffling

[Danno13 0]

But how would you administrate a DJ licence? What would the criteria be? Who would administrate it? How would all this be paid for? Its just not workable, which is why I disagree with it...

 

The ProDub licence is simply needed if you copy music (and are honest enough to care about the legality of your business) you can call it all the names under the sun, but it doesn't change anything.

 

It's here, we knew it was coming, we thought it would be more expensive (without the LWP we'd be paying £250 to PPL, £250 to MCPS EVERY year, no minimum band based on not copying as much in the next year).. those of us who've been ripping music have been doing so illegally for the last 3-4 years, and now we have a way to legitimise it!

 

If you don't agree with the licence, then don't rip music.. work from original CDs. What on earth is all the moaning about?

[Robster 0]

£250 is more than 3 gigs for some Legit DJ's.

 

The minimum level is too high in my opinion.

It has to be affordable to the part time and low income DJs to stand a chance of being accepted by the masses..many will ignore it and try to avoid paying because of the minimum level....that is my opinion but also to clarify my opinion I DO NOT CONDONE AVOIDING PAYING FOR A LICENSE THAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW

 

It also is not clear on if it(pro dub) actually covers all karaoke tracks.. you may think your ok now you have your produb but as for example sound choice do not allow you to convert there discs so you are still operating illegally.

These are genuine concerns and un answered questions

 

These are NOT moans and they are genuine concerns from DJ's who take there business as i am sure you do seriously.. to dismiss anyone who asks genuine ,precise and researched questions as a moaner is in my opinion insulting there professionalism.

 

I personally was not aware of the LWP negotiations , but i am glad they acted on behalf of DJ's ..I am just trying to help other DJs with information and facts , we should not be squabbling amongst our selves we should be all working together as one for all djs no matter if they are small pub djs in poor parts of the country or DJ quiz hosts who play a bit of music or high end club and function DJs .

we should work to promote everyone of us DJs.. this means trying to encompassing everyone's point of view.. sometimes we will as DJ's not agree but lets keep this cordial and professional and lets agree to disagree.

 

I accept some find the pro dub a great licence i also accept others do not.

[Andy Westcott 0]

If you don't agree with the licence, then don't rip music.. work from original CDs. What on earth is all the moaning about?

 

What I'm moaning about is the fact that I now wish to purchase tracks via legal download sites. I don't have the facility to play mp3 format, therefore would have to burn these tracks to CD.

 

Someone somewhere has decided to introduce a 'licence' for doing this. Now - I have estimated that the amount of tracks I would purchase in a year would be way under 200, but let's use that figure anyhow.

 

'They' are expecting me to pay £250 for the honour of burning less than 200 tracks to CD - don't you think that's a little excessive??

 

Incidentally, buying the original CD singles is not really going to be an option shortly - the CD single is heaving its last. I have started to seriously consider the viability of the business I run and the options open to me.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Andy Westcott

[spinner 0]

What I'm moaning about is the fact that I now wish to purchase tracks via legal download sites. I don't have the facility to play mp3 format, therefore would have to burn these tracks to CD.

 

Someone somewhere has decided to introduce a 'licence' for doing this. Now - I have estimated that the amount of tracks I would purchase in a year would be way under 200, but let's use that figure anyhow.

 

 

 

Interesting point here. On the PPL site it is stated that where a legal download site allows burning to CD-R, this is regarded as the same as a shop bought CD and no licence, other than the usual venue performance licence is required.

 

Unfortunately an MCPS representative has told me that they (MCPS) do not regard this in the same way and consider that burning to CD-R is "making a copy", despite the fact that the download site terms expressly allow this, so that a pro-dub licence is required.

 

Confused?

 

I'd be surprised if you weren't.

 

 

[gadget 0]

 

Confused?

 

I'd be surprised if you weren't.

 

 

Yes totally confused.

[Dukesy 0]

Unfortunately an MCPS representative has told me that they (MCPS) do not regard this in the same way and consider that burning to CD-R is "making a copy", despite the fact that the download site terms expressly allow this, so that a pro-dub licence is required.

 

The new "JOINT" licence venture between PPL and MCPS, regardless of who is managing, CLEARLY has questionable areas - how unfortunate that this new joint venture between PPL and MCPS is makig the sector look like a big circus.

:bouncy:

http://www.familycourtchronicles.com/news/2005/clowns.jpg

[McCardle 1]

I have started to seriously consider the viability of the business I run and the options open to me

 

I think that quite a few people will be considering the same option. Why work for a living when you can earn just as much money living on benefits, after all how can 2 million people be wrong!. I guess quite a few people will be joining the one remaining UK growth market in the next year or so - unemployment.

 

The problem is, that those hanging up their headphones are usually the ones who least deserve it, and have given it their best shot. Those earning small amounts from being 100% legit and paying for every piece of red tape which comes along, and judging by the profit poll recently, its quite a few who are going to see 25% of their annual profit being spent on just 1 license.

 

Most of those who buy DVD's full of pirated NOW Cd's or Mastermix compilations still keep their expenditure to a minimum, and still continue to compete at £50 a night or lower because they probably pay no tax, no n.i and certainly have no license. I see nothing in the dubbing license which addresses this problem either now or in the near future, indeed some unscrupulous digital users previously working with nothing but ill gotten MP3's on their devices will probably just be changing format and going back to a case full of CD-R's burned from 'Knock off Nigels' master DVD's and staying below the radar by declaring themselves exempt by way of using CD's, after all if they pay no tax and work cash in hand they can't afford to get themselves 'in the system' nor have their name published on a website.

 

So once again the market void between legit deejays and non legit deejays widens, and the legit deejay gets an increase in expenses which may require an increase in price, whilst the non legit deejay continues unphased and unchecked and is able to maintain the same pocket money prices.

 

I also wonder just how many deejays living just on the breadline who were once buying original cd's and downloads will now be turning over to the darkside out of sheer desperation in order to survive and have one last fling at remaining in business. Suddenly the demand for nigel's wares takes a sudden increase. We all like to bury our heads in the sand and hope that it never will happen and these people who've had had a sudden drop in expenses won't be competing with us in the near futrue, but what if it does?.

Edited September 29, 2008 by McCardle