The Answer

[Dukesy 0]

I agree. Let's wait and see. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/smile.gif

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (rdj104 @ Jun 12 2005, 07:19 PM)

As I understand it, PPL only applies to public venues ie Clubs, pubs etc. // So this would render all these laptops etc. useless at private functions as you can't store any non PPL licensed files on it, and you can't play your PPL files as they won't have a licence.

By way of a guess, rather than a confirmed answer to your question...

 

PPL as an organisation are already "geared up" to gather all the licence fees which they obtain from the types of PPL licenced venues that you mention eg: Pubs, clubs etc, and PPL then distribute those funds evenly around the PPL registered record companies.... its sort of like them saying "we've got £1 of license fee here, so thats 1p for Sony, 1p for EMI, 1p for Mercury Records, 1p for Parlophone....etc,etc,etc.

 

Which this financial structure already in-place, PPL as an organisation are in an ideal position to collect funds from professional music users who themselves profit from copyrighted music, be they pubs, clubs, DJ's, musical step-aerobic instructors or restaurants with background music etc, etc,etc, and evenly distribute the funds back to the music industr fairly.

 

As for the proposed DJ dubbing license, today is the last day on which they're looking for DJ's ideas, constructive critisisms and suggestions about the proposed license, so...if you wanted to have your say, and possibly shape what looks to be a requirement of some DJ's futures, todays your last day for emailing them.

 

I've sent my thoughts in, who else did?.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Gary

[jackcu 0]

I did - with several points that I thought would make the licence more workable.

[pareshj 0]

Maybe it takes an article on the BBC to now get some heads really looking into this and coming up with the answer - finally.

Digital Jockey

 

[jackcu 0]

Interesting article - if there are going to be "open nights" at clubs with the public playing music from their iPods they will be breaking the existing law - let's hope the new licence comes in soon.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

[ian 0]

QUOTE (RobbieD @ Jun 7 2005, 02:45 PM)

1) I have recently started using Nero Wave editor, and the "mute" function to make clean versions of tracks when only the uncensored version is on the CD single. This clause would still make this illegal. 2) I have made a few of my own mixes/medleys that I like to use from time to time. This are made from CD's I own and paid for, and only one copy exsists that is only played by me. Under this clause, this would still be illegal.

I can see why both these would be excluded. With your first point, the record company would most probably want to sell you both the clean and the unedited version, so they wouldn't be keen on you making the clean version yourself (and halving their revenue).

 

For your second point, using pre-mixed tracks is part of a slippery slope. When does it cease to be a medley of two tracks and become a new track in its own right? To try to legislate this would be a nightmare, drawing up a set of rules of how tracks can be mixed. So, they opt for the easy route, which is to ban all pre-mixing of tracks.

 

It's a strange situation, where if you mix it live it's okay but if you mix it at home, record it and play that recording, it's illegal. I'd also think it will get even more fuzzy legally, with all the new technology. For example, if you legally copy the two tracks onto your laptop and then your laptop mixes them "live" then that would be okay too, I'd presume, whereas if your laptop mixes them in exactly the same way, but does it before your gig, then it would be illegal.

 

I guess it's a problem with technology moving on so fast and the music industry struggling to keep up.

 

I mean, my CD decks will sample a chunk of the CD which is playing and keep looping it, after I eject the CD. So that must be taking a digital copy (even if it's only a fraction of a track and only keeping it for a matter of a minute or so) and wording a licence so that's still okay would be difficult, I'd imagine (in that the licence would have to have exclusion clauses to cover such things).

[Gary 0]

Just a quick update, things are moving along on this proposed DJ/Dubbing license.

 

Only a very small step at the moment, but I've just received an emailed reply back from PPL saying (abridged)...

 

"Thanks for your input //

 

When we've finished considering all the responses we received, we will publicise our final version of the arrangement. Should any of the points you have raised in your email not be addressed in the consultation response document that we will publish at the same time, please do not hesitate to contact us"

 

Oh well, no timescales given, of fees confirmed (remember that PPL have already said that if you're buying the licence to cover EXISTING dubbing/ripping there's a surcharge of 50% of the finalised license fee. eg: If license is made available for £200, but I start copying my vinyl over to CDR/Harddrive now before buying the license - I'll have to pay £200 + (50% of £200) = £300, for the first license.

 

So, basically, we're still in the waiting game for weeks/months/years(?!) to find out exactly what the license will cover, wont cover, and at what annual cost.

 

Whatever comes of it (within reason) its a huge step in the right direction, so long as certain considerations are taken into account - eg: The proposed "no backup can be made" situation, the "5000 tracks" limit and so on.

[jackcu 0]

Thanks for the update Gary :)

 

We live in hope,

 

Jack.