BPI

[cookiecat 0]

I think this deserves a new post.

As you may be aware I recently emailed the BPI with regards to ripping our own cds for use on laptop.

This is a copy of the email I received.

 

This is not a grey area. The Law in the UK clearly states that you can not copy a sound recording without permission of the copyright owner for any reason (Copyright, Design and Patents ACT 1988 s16).

 

Regards

 

APU (Anti Piracy unit)

 

So does this mean everyone is going to hang up their laptops?

Edited October 16, 2004 by cookiecat

[DJ Marky Marc 0]

Does this also mean copying music from a CD to your Apple Ipod is a crime too ?

 

It is not breaking any laws to make a backup of a CD / DVD or Software title. but I think you can only use this if the original becomes damaged.

 

but alas you guys with your laptops are it seems breaking the law becuase you are infact playing a copy and not the original CD.

 

does this mean the same can not be said of music downloads as you will be playing the original file not having riped it off a cd first ?

 

I can do you all a good deal on trading in your laptops http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

[transeurope 0]

They are almost right. In "statute law" it is NOT a grey area. Statute law is what parliament writes.

 

The reason why it is a grey area is because judges have used their discretion in UK and Ireland (which they are entitled to) to "develop" the law. This is called "common law".

 

It is a mess, and each and every judge is entitled to develop common law in almost anyway he wishes.

 

He has to "pay regard to precdedent", but this is not as clearcut as you might think. It is dangerous to for you yourself to look at a previous ruling and say "that's like my case" cos to a judge's mind it may not be...and it is he has the right to use common law to go against statute, not you.

 

Furthermore a judge only has to "pay regard" to previous common law rulings. There are two extremely powerful successful precedents to a judge ignoring precedent. I don't want this to turn into a legal textbook. Do a websearch on "appalling vista" and "open the floodgates" for the details. A judge does not have to rule with previous judges.

 

Additionally, because a judge developing common law is engaging in an intellectual pursuit basically, he is entitled to use precedent from Ireland, Canada, South Africa and all other jurisdictions with a similar judicial setup. So, relying on common law means relying on a huge enormous database of previous decisions that occur not just in the UK.

 

I can see a judge changing precedent on the MP3 issue using either/or appalling vista or floodgates argument. I can particularly see this happen outside of the UK and Ireland. Both European countries are influenced by the contintental attitude to filesharing. In many EU countries filesharing is legal under certain circumstances. Judges in the UK & Ireland are entitled to take inspriation from the concept of "an ever closer union". Judges in South Africa are not. If a judge in South Africa develops common law in a particular direction, you then have yet another set of contradictions in UK law.

 

Basically it is a grey area, and you are at the mercy of the judge.

[Mo The Motown Man 0]

Hi I read in a DJ paper about a DJ who had paid ar least £3,000 ponds just to stay out of court(that's a lot of gig's) so I afraid my good DJ's that my Laptop has been layed to rest. Untill the whole idea is sorted out

 

Mo

[Kingy 0]

Why will none of you accept the fact that it is illegal?

 

Cookie cats post states it all really.

 

A Judge cannot, repeat, cannot over rule a statute when it is clear that the statute has been broken.

 

You have heard the DTI /BPI response, why not go to court and challeng it if you are SOoooooooooooooooooooo confident!

[DJ Marky Marc 0]

in my book copying your own cd's to your own laptop is just as bad as doing 80Mph on the motorway, against the law but no real harm done !

 

how ever if you do 80 in a 30 zone or just down load your tunes then they should throw the book at you ! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html/emoticons/1106.gif

 

 

[kazzachi 0]

"Back up" would be no defence in court either..... sorry to say marky.... If you damage a cd or loose one - you would not be able to say "well i did have the original at one stage, but thought I would make a back up in case the original got broken"......... you are expected to repurchase it...... "back up" is just another word for "copied".

[transeurope 0]

QUOTE (Kingy @ Oct 17 2004, 08:34 AM)

A Judge cannot, repeat, cannot over rule a statute when it is clear that the statute has been broken.

I am baffled by this idea. Have you ever been to a traffic court? Judges frequently overrule statute by virute of common law in a traffic court.

 

Indeed it is a ruling by the home secretary that actually has more effect. EG judges in the past used frequently allowed people benefit of the doubt if they had broken the drink driving law until the home secretary ruled that if they did so again they would have to justify it to him.

 

Home secretary rulings are yet another strand to this actually that I forgot to mention. And yes, there is an equivalent in all the similarly-based jurisdictions.

 

Are you suggesting that every policeman in the country that breaks the speed limit has to be convicted by a judge?

 

 

[kazzachi 0]

Dont think you can equate driving offences with copyright issues.....!

 

If the BPI decide to prosecute you because you have pirated music then YOU WILL GET DONE!.......... simple as that!

[Eskie 0]

QUOTE (DJ Marky Marc @ Oct 17 2004, 10:39 AM)

in my book copying your own cd's to your own laptop is just as bad as doing 80Mph on the motorway, against the law but no real harm done !

Sounds like you need to go to a new book store then son http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html/emoticons/wacko.gif

Copying your own CD's to a PC is NEVER gonna result in innocent people dieing is it http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html/emoticons/nono.gif

That analogy was so bizarre, it defies belief!!!

[DJ Marky Marc 0]

no one is talking about life or death , you guys always take things too far in order to make a point,

 

lighten up please, life as you point out is too short http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

[cookiecat 0]

I would like to see in black and white where it states that you are allowed to copy your own cd legally.

 

I think deep down we all know that copying music is wrong it would be nice to think that once we owned a recording it was ours to do with what we want.

If when cds were first introduced you could copy your vinyl onto cd how many people would have done this?

I have a feeling because it is "invisible" then that makes it ok,for example do you think if customers were to come up to you and see 50 cdrs that they were getting value for money? I think not.

Just to show how it affects us all I have been going around my local hotels and one of the owners told me there is someone going aroung selling laptops with 10,000 songs on for £800.The hotel owner said he was tempted as this was the price of 4 discos, you can hardly blame him.

Edited October 17, 2004 by cookiecat

[transeurope 0]

I think we are getting somewhat confused here.

 

Both "pirating" and "backing up" are illegal under statute law.

 

There is common law precdent in all jurisdictions for judges allowing "backing up", that is the grey area. Each judge can now either apply statute or common law.

 

I doubt if any judge has allowed "pirating".

 

Even outside of pirated music, the threat from automatic music systems exists in the legitimate domain. Hotel managers may be ignorant of the fact (surprise surprise) that for the cost of say 10-20 discos they can get various forms of licence that are not available to a DJ from the MCPS that allow them to copy music (and yes even "pirate" music) for roughly £1stg each.

 

OK, it's not the same thing as £800 for 10,000 songs, but the economics are still very good for a venue if they want to go down that route. Furthermore they can add songs on demand using a download service at a customer request, provided they pay £1 for each one.

 

By virtue of the paying the £1 the source does not matter provided it is of high quality and does not damage the artist's reputation. Many DJs disco with approx 3,000 tracks, therefore £3,000 + £x for a cheap computer + £500 one off fee for setting up the admin licence replaces DJ.

 

This is a very flexible system that is easy for a hotel to hook upto. Many shopping centres use this facility.

 

Technically, a DJ can get this licence too, but it is extremely difficult to get because of various restrictions revolving around what is called a "location-based licence". Even if you do succeed in getting it, you must list out the locations where it is used and register each one (each registration costs more money).

 

Don't kid yourself the battle of the BPI is not your battle. The music industry is already working very hard to develop licensing solutions that are just as damaging to DJs as what the pirates are upto. Very shortly streaming music licences will become available. They will allow venues to "rent" any song for a night for a flat monthly fee.

 

At this stage the cost to the venue will be approx £70 per month for music services + approx £30 a month for leased machinery. All tax-writeoffable, and access to a music database that a DJ could not possibly match.

[Kingy 0]

QUOTE (transeurope @ Oct 17 2004, 11:17 AM)

QUOTE (Kingy @ Oct 17 2004, 08:34 AM) A Judge cannot, repeat, cannot over rule a statute when it is clear that the statute has been broken. I am baffled by this idea. Have you ever been to a traffic court? Judges frequently overrule statute by virute of common law in a traffic court.   Indeed it is a ruling by the home secretary that actually has more effect. EG judges in the past used frequently allowed people benefit of the doubt if they had broken the drink driving law until the home secretary ruled that if they did so again they would have to justify it to him.   Home secretary rulings are yet another strand to this actually that I forgot to mention. And yes, there is an equivalent in all the similarly-based jurisdictions.   Are you suggesting that every policeman in the country that breaks the speed limit has to be convicted by a judge? You are missing my point trans!   In effect, the defendant appears in court on shall we say the motoring matter.   If the defendant states that he was doing 58 MPH in a 30, the offence is complete. The speed limit is and always will be 30MPH, regardless of what the judge hands out as a penalty! No Judge in the UK can change that. Where the judge does have a say is in the authority to hand out suitable penalties ranging from an absolute discharge to the maximum state penalty. That is not Common Law, rather more of a discretionary power. Common law relates to offences such as Murder and treason.   What I am saying is that if we have a statute that says "Red is Red", no judge can say " Red is Green". He can offer opinion and direction, but he cannot change that statute without parliamentary intervention. He can give his opinion to translating the spirit of the legislation.     Where on earth you got the idea that I suggested that every speed limit breaking police officer needed to be prosecuted, I don't know. In fact there are situations where the emergency services are allowed to go proportionally over the speed limits, however they have to be able to fully justify the action if neccesary! We are not talking the same language.   As I see it, and I will not be moved on this,the transferance of copyrighted recorded material from any source such as a CD constitutes an illegal operation. If you ( not personally you!) copy a CD to a hard drive you are breaking the law. I buy my CDs legitimatley, I do not copy them on to any form of hard drive and do not back them up. Perhaps this makes me the fool..............?

[Dukesy 0]

Yes, copyright is copyright. Any copyright material transfered, 'back-up' or 'copy, is against the copyright-law.

 

However, broadcasting a CD,Dat, MD, CD+G or mp3, etc in a public venue without the 'blanket cover' of the PPL/PRS licence (venue license) can also be considered as 'breaking the law' (public broadcast infringment).

 

Yet private performance, however, is assumed private!.

 

I would suggest that Laptop / PC system DJ users - not to hang up their gear, if they are 'mix DJs'.

 

A mix DJ is 'recognised' as someone who not only mix's music, but creates music (a type of musician - also recognised by the MU).

 

Some mix DJs pre-record their 'mix' to CDR before 'performing', but again, however, as copyright recording of copyright material is illegal, an untested 'loop hole' around this is to 'promo' the mix-recording.

Promo recordings by the mix DJ can remain the copyright of the mix DJ, however, a slight 'grey area' becomes clear when the 'unique-mix' is broadcast - and opens the musical can of worms again!!!

 

I am unaware of any UK mix DJs clamped down on for using their own CDRs at a gig, but an Australian case recently flaged-up a slightly different set of circumstances - where the mix DJ was giving away his mix to the audience http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html/emoticons/wallbash.gif

 

I think a level of individual responsibility has to be considered.

 

If you perform in public with a CD based / mp3 based system without the music licence 'in place' - you take a risk of being caught.

Whilst the music 'authorities' may take a dim view of un-licensed music played, the same 'authorities' are moving closer together and sharing info.

 

So it is not unimaginable to expect a 'fine' for breeching copyright for playing media on a different 'format' such as mp3 / CDR at the same time as being caught for playing un-licensed music.

 

The Laptop/PC DJ of today, whilst presenting music such as mp3s on legally purchased programs, can-not argue that the software 'allowed' them to rip the original recording.... because that is all it does - it allows you to do it.

So we come back to square one, and what is the answer???

 

The Musicians Union, NADJ, SEDA, etc may wish to add comment on such 'arguments' but may lean towards what is current / existing law.

 

In the meantime, it may be wise to ensure that any 'backed-up' material on to mp3 / CDR is from an original source (it can be verified if an original music source was copied from).

Ensure you check the Terms and Conditions of music sites that offer 'legal downloads' of mp3s - even if they are 'promos'.

Make sure that the public venue you perform at is covered with the correct music licence.

Never give-away copies of your music to anyone.

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html/emoticons/smile.gif

 

 

Edited October 17, 2004 by discodirect

[Loz 0]

Do you get a reciept or bill when you subscribe to these legal downloading sites. Otherwise how do you prove your collection is all above board? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html/emoticons/533.gif

[High Fidelity 0]

I'm still not convinced.

 

The opening post states:

QUOTE

This is not a grey area. The Law in the UK clearly states that you can not copy a sound recording without permission of the copyright owner for any reason (Copyright, Design and Patents ACT 1988 s16).

 

So how do all the radio stations stand in this. I'm sure I've read somewhere that most now use disk based systems.

 

I'm sure somebody is going to come back to say that they have a special licence. But the quote above is supposed to be the law, I've never seen anything that says "This is the law, but does not apply in certain circumstances".

 

I would also be very surprised if every radio station wrote to every performer/copyright holder to get permission.

[BigBen 0]

I may be incredibly naive about this but if one of us did get our lappies taken off us in order for the hard disk to be examined, surely the judge would be lenient as soon as they were aware we held the orginal copies. By lenient I don't necessarily mean let off.

 

The laws are in place to stop criminals making money; we're not criminals and we don't make money from copying our music to a computer. A smack on the wrists and a small fine perhaps but surely they wouldn't treat us like piraters?

[Dukesy 0]

QUOTE

Anyone (with appropriate connections natch) want to start contacting the DJ-specific org's such as mastermix to ask if they'd consider either licensing their tunes so they can be ripped or making encoded MP3 versions available?

 

Mastermix, when approached at Plasa 2003, were asked if mp3 versions of it's members 'mix' contributions could be a possible way of 'submission'.......don't know the outcome of this, but you can appreciate that if they did/now accept such format submission - then it could help pave the way forward to release their 'encoded mix' tracks via mp3??!!

 

Any mastermix members know the current 'stance'?

 

 

[ChrisPointon 0]

From the Mastermix point of view, I suppose the decision is out of their hands. After all they have to seek permission of the copyright holder and pay royalties for each track they use on their Cd's / Mixes. If one artiste / label objected then it would have to be left off the compilation, should several decline then it's pointless releasing the CD for Download at all.

 

So I think that the decision to MP3-friendly their material wouldn't just be their call.

[mikeee 0]

Dan, do you remember the aggro during the late 80's and 90's where "bands" sampled 1 second of somebody elses song, and then got done - 1) they didn't get permission, and 2) didn't play the royalties.

 

Our friends the "Mix" DJ's are more likely to have the book thrown at them.

 

I've been saying for years that it is illegal to copy music in any format, the fined is / used to be, £1,000 per track.

 

I did mention last year that radio stations have a licence called an SG6, it costs £500 up front and that allows you to make one legal copy, then every three months you get a form, list everything you have copied in the last three months send it back with a cheque to the value of 10p per track.

 

Now I have a long list of things to do, this subject is in the top twenty, but I doubt whether I can start on it this year.

I want, on behalf of the NADJ to approach all relevant parties, and try to obtain a DJ licence that would cover PPL and one legal copy etc.

 

More later

 

 

[transeurope 0]

Kingy, I have studied law as part of a business degree. According to my notes common law is " the body of law, based upon judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases". I am not sure where you get the idea of it being mostly about murder, treason etc. I would go so far as to say that a judge tends to have less discretion in matters such as murder than he does in matters such as copyright.

 

You are correct in saying that a judge has discretion to not apply a penalty. A judge also has discretion to not even convict, ie even when an offence has blatantly been committed he can just literally ignore it. You often hear of a judge "directing a jury" not to convict.

 

These matters are still different to common law, which is the rewriting of the law by a judge. This has been done in the UK by a judge who a) refused to convict a man for copying his legally owned vinyl record to tape for use in a car cassette b) furthermore deliberately developed the law to say that statute law as it stood was ridiculous.

 

Even though subsequent statute law has repeated the framing of the offence as absolute, to my knowledge no judge has gone against precedent and used statute law to convict someone of possessing what may be called "a backup copy" for convenience.

 

As I was at pains to point out in my original post, this does not mean that no judge ever will.

 

In traffic courts throughout the land judges frequently develop on statute law. It is a matter of complete tension between the judiciary and the executive. If you don't believe me sit in a lengthy session of a traffic court and you will see them do it, quoting the reasons why they do it, referring to ancient legal concepts in Latin and quoting previous decisions by other judges.

 

I don't believe that in the UK a policeman has the right to break a speed limit under statute law ever. I know that common law allows him to do so.

 

I am very sure that at some stage, some judge is going to break from the pack and use a "floodgates" argument in some most unexpected fashion. He will probably not side completly with the record industry either. I believe that one of the reasons this has not been done already is because of the complication of EU law having a very tolerant attitude not only to backup copies, but also to file sharing.

 

I believe that by discussing these matters now, we are informing ourselves to follow the reports of a court case yet to come. I believe this is important as the UK media reports of the European Union's copyright act are downright misleading. It is STILL legal in Germany to fileshare. This has been guaranteed by the EU itself.

As the UK media is largely owned by the same commercial interests as make money from copyright it is important to take steps to inform oneself independently.

 

As I have pointed out already the BPI's struggle is not ours and ultimately I believe their preferred solution is to have DJ kiosks licensed to a venue with the DJ either cut out of the equation or paying to use it. The music industry is not DJ friendly, as they prefer to be the arbiters of what the public hear. I fear that we are being railroaded into a situation where we will all be dependent on digital formats the content and charging of which will be beyond our control.

 

Kind Regards....

 

 

[Dukesy 0]

QUOTE

Dan, do you remember the aggro during the late 80's and 90's where "bands" sampled 1 second of somebody elses song, and then got done - 1) they didn't get permission, and 2) didn't play the royalties. Our friends the "Mix" DJ's are more likely to have the book thrown at them.

 

Yes I do remember - those were the days, eh?!

Here's a point:

 

These days, and similar to a radio stations policy for 'Buy Out Music', a 'mix DJ' or 'bedroom mixer DJ' or 'DJ Producer' can use legal samples from library discs (royalty free) that even the stage acts of today can purchase/use and layer into music production tracks.

With these 'sample discs', you buy out the mechanical copyright at time of purchase / lease.

Therefore, every time someone uses the 'sample disc' for production, there is no need to make payment to the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS).

When a production is aired, the PRS are paid by the the broadcaster as a blanket licence, and does not usually involve any extra payments!

 

However, remixing is a different kettle of fish!

Sampling - the remix market would be nowhere without it! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

 

Here is a very good read on sampling, the digital age and copyright plus the odd case study. Enjoy!

 

http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/00-1/mckenna.html

Edited October 18, 2004 by discodirect

[Gary 0]

I've just sent a chaser email to the BPI asking for a reply to my email question to them a few months ago.. ok, it might just yield the same cut'n'paste response, but...you never know.

[brianmole 0]

QUOTE

Now I have a long list of things to do, this subject is in the top twenty, but I doubt whether I can start on it this year. I want, on behalf of the NADJ to approach all relevant parties, and try to obtain a DJ licence that would cover PPL and one legal copy etc. More later

 

Brilliant thread..... This is where we ALL need to join a national association with the power to lobby the right organisations for our cause. My 'local' association I fear have not enough resource/membership for this to happen.

 

I am taking a guess here, but I imagine that about 70% of mobiles use MP3 technology, so the resolution is urgent is it not???