Digital DJ Licence

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (jackcu @ Aug 17 2005, 03:28 PM)

That's also a bit worrying - what's to stop them prosecuting the poor DJ who has had the stuff stolen, thinking he sold it?

Well, if by stolen you mean the hardrive device was physically picked up and wandered off with, then the unfortunate DJ would/should have a crime reference number from the police - which should quell any problems and in fact could actually help to re-unite the DJ with his gear.

 

Self-DRM'ing software would be the software equivilant of UV postcoding your amps, lighting etc. Time for some stickers by the USB ports perhaps "Hands off - my files are all tracable back to me..." (maybe such stickers will be in the Mastermix value-added pack in a future year http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/rolleyes.gif )

 

If, however, you mean "Stolen" as in someone wanders up to the unattended laptop and is able to gain access to the music files and "lifts them" - eg: Drags and drops em onto a USB memory stick/pen drive, or ext harddrive - then in theory, the would-be thief wouldnt be able to play them as his PC's DRM master code (machine Identity) would differ from that of the machine that was left vunerable.

 

Passwording, and other basic PC/Windows security would counter-act such events anyway. - Someone probably does a lockable USB cover by now - just like the ones that they used to sell for floppy drives. Alternatively, you should be able to disable a PC/Laptops USB ports via the Control Panel/System options - easily switchable for you, when you want to backup the system yourself etc, but a deterent for the would-be tea-leaf.

[ChrisPointon 0]

 

I think that there is a lot of assumption regarding Software Writers and Hard Drive based Audio Equipment manufacturers to fall in with the UK Laws and DRM.

 

Of course, It would also depend on what country and Jurisdiction the main software writer and Equipment Manufacturer was based. For example...

 

OTSDJ is based on the other side of the World, either New Zealand or Australia (I can't remember which and don't have the time to research it, but its one of the two). I have no idea what the copyright laws are in their country but i'll wager they are slightly more flexible than here.

 

The same applies to Hard Drive based equipment manufacturers, some of the countries of origin of these units don't recognise or subscribe to copyright laws.

 

Let's assume that the biggest market share of DJ Software and MP3 Hard Disc based equipment users was the U.S. Here it is NOT ILLEGAL to back up original discs to MP3 Format under their own copyright laws, as it is not illegal to do so in Spain and several other countries worldwide.

 

Given this, are we really expecting for large electronics manufacturers and Software writers to implement licences and protection on it's entire range of products just to reflect the new UK laws?. If so, why?

 

 

[Gary 0]

I was also reading through the small print on the new digitaldj (duff name ... how about digital dj-ING) license... its the human doing the DJ work - or at least it used to be...anyway, there appears to be several stipulations about not adjusting the fade in/fade outs on the stored tracks.

 

More worryingly (and it SIMPLY CANT mean this) but theres a section that seems to suggest that long running mixes (more than 2 seconds) are NOT to be performed under the license.

 

That section reads...

 

QUOTE

3.1 The Licensee hereby warrants, represents and undertakes that it shall: (1) Dub each Track in its entirety provided that the Fade-down Section of any Track may be subject to the use of premature fade and cross-faded or overlapped with the Track following immediately thereafter provided that the period of audible cross fade or overlap does not exceed 2 (two) seconds;

 

 

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/huh.gif But it cant mean that, can it?

[DJ Marky Marc 0]

Some old boy at the MCPS dont want you to be able to mix it seems...

 

 

next they will be banning music over 120BPM http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

[cj_65 0]

I think this is great - it will simplify everyone's life if

we cant mix any more - I'm all for it 8)

[jackcu 0]

QUOTE (Gary @ Aug 18 2005, 01:03 PM)

But it cant mean that, can it?

I read that to mean that you can't create a mixed mp3 with a crossfade of longer than 2 seconds, that is, you can't have a single mp3 which is a clever 10 track mix so you can stick it on while you go and have a few pints at the bar. This would appear to be a slight compromise for the people that wanted to create a single mp3 containing a mix of songs (which was not allowed under the original proposed licence). I think Richard said he does this from time to time (not that this licence has any effect on him).

 

If you simply create a load of single mp3 files you can do what you want with them in a live situation - at least that's the way I'm interpreting it.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

[Dukesy 0]

I suppose Kenwood's are banned too? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ian 0]

QUOTE (jackcu @ Aug 18 2005, 01:36 PM)

QUOTE (Gary @ Aug 18 2005, 01:03 PM) But it cant mean that, can it? I read that to mean that you can't create a mixed mp3 with a crossfade of longer than 2 seconds. This would appear to be a slight compromise for the people that wanted to create a single mp3 containing a mix of songs (which was not allowed under the original proposed licence).   If you simply create a load of single mp3 files you can do what you want with them in a live situation - at least that's the way I'm interpreting it.   Cheers,   Jack. That's my interpretation too. It's in the section about dubbing, so I think it only refers to the transfer of stuff from vinyl/CD to laptop and doesn't say anything about what you actually do with the tracks when you are playing live.   What it means is that if you want to mix, you have to do it live and you can't record one of your mixes and then play the "pre-mixed" version live. So it seems to be a pro-mixing thing rather than an anti-mixing thing! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (DJ Marky Marc @ Aug 18 2005, 02:28 PM)

next they will be banning music over 120BPM  http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

I thought that Radio1 already had... http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/kid.gif

 

QUOTE (jackcu @ Aug 18 2005, 02:36 PM)

QUOTE (Gary @ Aug 18 2005, 01:03 PM) But it cant mean that, can it? I read that to mean that you can't create a mixed mp3 with a crossfade of longer than 2 seconds, that is, you can't have a single mp3 which is a clever 10 track mix so you can stick it on while you go and have a few pints at the bar. This would appear to be a slight compromise for the people that wanted to create a single mp3 containing a mix of songs (which was not allowed under the original proposed licence). I think Richard said he does this from time to time (not that this licence has any effect on him).   If you simply create a load of single mp3 files you can do what you want with them in a live situation - at least that's the way I'm interpreting it.   Cheers,   Jack. Well, I wondered that too... eg: Maybe you can create a mix/medley of existing tunes, but sort of blend of segue them together into one track, just so long as the tract-to-track blends were no longer than 2 seconds.   I wondered that...that is...until, I came across the small print in section 3 of the PPL Digital DJ(ing) license, which reads: "The licencee shall...:"   QUOTE (4) not mix, remix, Segue, edit, change or otherwise manipulate the sounds of any Sound Recording so that the sounds on the Dubbed copy of the Sound Recording are different from those on the original Sound Recording     Chop mix anybody... http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/wallbash.gif     Digital DJing Checklist:   Harddrive PPL license Pipe Slippers Mug of Ovaltine http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/sleep1.gif

Edited August 18, 2005 by Gary

[RobbieD 0]

QUOTE (Gary @ Aug 18 2005, 03:02 PM)

QUOTE (jackcu @ Aug 18 2005, 02:36 PM) QUOTE (Gary @ Aug 18 2005, 01:03 PM) But it cant mean that, can it? I read that to mean that you can't create a mixed mp3 with a crossfade of longer than 2 seconds, that is, you can't have a single mp3 which is a clever 10 track mix so you can stick it on while you go and have a few pints at the bar. This would appear to be a slight compromise for the people that wanted to create a single mp3 containing a mix of songs (which was not allowed under the original proposed licence). I think Richard said he does this from time to time (not that this licence has any effect on him). Well, I wondered that too... eg: Maybe you can create a mix/medley of existing tunes, but sort of blend of segue them together into one track, just so long as the tract-to-track blends were no longer than 2 seconds. So why 2 seconds and not 4 or 8? Why didn't they say >1 second or no overlap? It seems very odd to just choose a figure like that.   QUOTE (4) not mix, remix, Segue, edit, change or otherwise manipulate the sounds of any Sound Recording so that the sounds on the Dubbed copy of the Sound Recording are different from those on the original Sound Recording I want be able to create clean versions when they are not available to purchase. A simple mute here and there on the sound file, but there is obviously some important reason why they want it to be illegal to do this. (This is where Gary mentions the dump feature on the Denon's. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/tongue.gif )

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (RobbieD @ Aug 18 2005, 03:23 PM)

So why 2 seconds and not 4 or 8? Why didn't they say >1 second or no overlap? It seems very odd to just choose a figure like that.

Its possible that they plucked the figure out of the air of course, however... its more probably been chosen as 2 seconds because thats the standard silence gap between tracks on a CD. ("red book" specifications, or something like that).

 

But why PPL would have applied a CD gap standard to this, without clarifying it... http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/533.gif dunno! Thats the only "2 seconds" measurement that I can think of re: music.

 

 

[jackcu 0]

Those 2 sections seem to contradict each other - on the one hand, you can mix the track with a 2 second fade, on the other, you can't change it in any way - weird.

 

It doesn't really bother me either way as I never muck around with tracks - just a straight conversion to mp3 is fine for me. If I don't want to offend when playing Eminem I just buy the radio edit, do a quick fade or don't play it at all. Putting together a mix isn't something I'd ever do.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

[Dukesy 0]

I think we need a reply to the emails that Gary is waiting for.....ASAP.

 

We need complete clarification.

The finer details of the license are important for the DJs - yes.

 

But on another note, whilst it is considered fair and 'unfair' in parts, something else is important to remember, remember, remember:

 

Venues who book the £50+ disco are not going to lose their licence or have it revoked....nor are they going to allow private clients to book a £50+ disco to play at the venue if the same 'consequence' could happen to their license on potential 'inspection'.

 

Clients are going to be very upset if the DJ is turned away, asked to de-rig or leave the venue if they are considerably 'laptop dependant'.

 

The £50+ disco is unlikely to fork-out for the new digital license just because they use a laptop......

 

So I suggest that (in plain English and for quick reference) we need to know exactly what type of venues can have their 'license' revoked that we work in:

 

Pubs

Night Clubs

Golf Club Function Rooms

Hotel Function Rooms

Sports Club Function Rooms

Local Community Members Club

CIU Private Members Clubs

etc, etc, etc

 

I see no reason why we can't draft a universal DJ disclaimer that we can pass on to our clients and venues worked (agreed DJ disclaimer information) that not only educates clients but strengthens any argument for individual prices charged to clients as a result of such licenses and exisiting licenses / certificates held.

 

Clients want to see plain english and transparency (I know I do!).

 

If the 'disclaimer information' is worded in a friendly but informative way to include on our websites and client literature, then perhaps another small milestone has been reached on improving the public perception of our profession which I believe we all would welcome.

 

I can see advantages for both users and non-users of laptops / digital media in working together towards this.

 

Gary! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/whistling.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jackcu 0]

Good points,

 

I'm going to draft another email to PPL as well, just to ask for clarification of the various points mentioned.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (discodirect @ Aug 18 2005, 04:20 PM)

Gary! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/whistling.gif

 

ME!? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/014.gif

 

 

Yes... I'll chase my emails with PPL if I've not heard from them by Monday.

 

Also...I've read a bit further down the PPL licence terms and conditions and come across the bit that we already knew was going to be in their somewhere but werent 100% sure about...

 

 

Now then... you know that the license (if bought without the Mastermix value add-on package) is £200...yes? right.

 

And you know that we've previously read that PPL always apply a surcharge to any license fee if its applied for AFTER it was needed - eg: if you're already doing the thing that you wanted/needed the license for...

 

Well... that £200 DigitalDJ license is going be £300 (200+50%=300) if you leave it until after January 1st 2006 to buy yours.

 

Heres the bit from the PPL text...

 

 

QUOTE

10. Surcharge 10.1 A surcharge of 50% (fifty percent) shall be applied to the Fee in Clause 9.1(1) if the Licensee either: (1) Dubbed Sound Recordings onto the DJ Database (save for Sound Recordings that were the subject of lawful downloads onto the DJ Database) or Back-up Database, or  (2) used Sound Recordings on the DJ Database or Back-up Database for public performances; and at all material times the Licensee did so without a licence for the Dubbing of Sound Recordings for the purpose of subsequent public performance of those Sound Recordings.   10.2 The surcharge in Clause 10.1 shall not apply if this Licence was signed by the Licensee and the Fee in Clause 9.1 was paid by the Licensee before 1 January 2006.

Edited August 18, 2005 by Gary

[RobbieD 0]

QUOTE

10. Surcharge 10.1 A surcharge of 50% (fifty percent) shall be applied to the Fee in Clause 9.1(1) if the Licensee either: (1) Dubbed Sound Recordings onto the DJ Database (save for Sound Recordings that were the subject of lawful downloads onto the DJ Database) or Back-up Database, or  (2) used Sound Recordings on the DJ Database or Back-up Database for public performances; and at all material times the Licensee did so without a licence for the Dubbing of Sound Recordings for the purpose of subsequent public performance of those Sound Recordings.   10.2 The surcharge in Clause 10.1 shall not apply if this Licence was signed by the Licensee and the Fee in Clause 9.1 was paid by the Licensee before 1 January 2006.

Hmmmmm....

 

As the process of dubbing 1000's of 12" singles and 100's of CD's to hard disc could take me several months of spare time, I was thinking of buying an external hard disc and starting soon, even though I am not completely sure that I will go down the PCDJ or "hard disc for rarely played tracks" route yet. That way, when I do decide, I can buy a dedicated laptop, and be up and running immediately.

 

My thought was that I need not buy the licence until I decide to actually play the tracks from hard disc.

 

Reading the above, it looks like I shouldn't even start to dub tracks to hard disc until I have a licence, otherwise I will get the 50% surcharge.

 

Can any of us contact PPL with our comments? Are they still open to feedback, or are the terms of this licence now set in stone? (If we can, do you have the contact details.)

[Dukesy 0]

Reading the 'Digital DJ' info.....I wonder where this leaves the karaoke DJ users who have purchased expensive digital systems with virtual rack mount software http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/rolleyes.gif

 

Recent Comment on my blog page:

 

Reflecting on this blanket £200 proposal, it seems to me that it would be more logical to have a sliding scale of charge up to the maximum of £200 based on the number of people attending as is done with the normal PPL licence.

 

This would benefit the smaller folk dance and line dance instructor with just one or two classes a week, and encourage a greater take up of the licence.

 

Or this only a scheme for DJ's only and not intended for dance instructors.

 

Loop hole??? Change our titles from DJs to dance instructors then?! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/laugh.gif

Edited August 18, 2005 by discodirect

[ian 0]

QUOTE (discodirect @ Aug 18 2005, 05:51 PM)

Reflecting on this blanket £200 proposal, it seems to me that it would be more logical to have a sliding scale of charge up to the maximum of £200 based on the number of people attending as is done with the normal PPL licence. This would benefit the smaller folk dance and line dance instructor with just one or two classes a week, and encourage a greater take up of the licence. Or this only a scheme for DJ's only and not intended for dance instructors. Loop hole??? Change our titles from DJs to dance instructors then?! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/laugh.gif

With dance instructors, just like DJ's, it's often down to the venue how strictly the rules are applied. There are plenty of dance instructors who supplement their normal income by running dance classes - and plenty do it without the proper licences.

 

On the other hand, a friend of mine started teaching dance classes recently at a local gym and had to produce a PLI and a PRS licence before they would sign a contract with him.

 

QUOTE (RobbieD @ Aug 18 2005, 04:01 PM)

My thought was that I need not buy the licence until I decide to actually play the tracks from hard disc.

 

Reading the above, it looks like I shouldn't even start to dub tracks to hard disc until I have a licence, otherwise I will get the 50% surcharge.

 

 

I can see the logic of what they are saying (after all, the licence is for dubbing rather than for playing), but it does seem a bit heavy handing and seems a bit like "pressure selling".

 

It also seems slightly unfair in that it can be perceived to target people who are attempting to comply with the law. For example, you sign up for the £200 licence and you are then in their database and they may decide to then check up on the dates of when you started transferring your music. Meanwhile, Mr Cowboy DJ hasn't bought the licence at all and isn't even on their radar. If they have targets to hit (with revenue or prosecutions) it will be easier (in terms of time and effort) to investigate people who have bought the £200 licence than find people who haven't bought any licence at all. Or maybe my paranoia is getting the better of me again.

Edited August 19, 2005 by Gary

[Dukesy 0]

I'm still 'confused' LOL! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

 

QUOTE

Why do I need an extra licence if I have obtained the tracks lawfully?       When you purchase a vinyl record, tape or CD you only can use that record for domestic purposes. You do not acquire any rights to copy that record or to play that record in public. So if you want to copy a sound recording on that record onto your computer, you must obtain the permission of the owner of the copyright in that sound recording. The position in respect of lawful downloads is very similar, save that you are given a limited right to keep a copy of the downloaded sound recording for your domestic listening. If you want to keep that copy for other purposes, then the law requires you to obtain the permission of the copyright owner.

 

This line:

When you purchase a vinyl record, tape or CD you only can use that record for domestic purposes.

So we are all breaking a 'law' when we play a Now CD Album, etc, at a gig.

 

And this line:

The position in respect of lawful downloads is very similar, save that you are given a limited right to keep a copy of the downloaded sound recording for your domestic listening.

If we pay for a download, we have to adhere to the same 'copyright' as if we purchased a CD off the shelf, no?

 

MCPS have said that playing a lawfully downloaded song is as legal as playing a lawfully paid for CD in a venue as long as:

1 The venue has the correct license in place / blanket cover music license

2 That the music being played is original in format

3 That the lawfully paid-for downloaded music is on the device it was downloaded to.

Has this now changed? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/533.gif

 

If you want to keep that copy for other purposes, then the law requires you to obtain the permission of the copyright owner.

So, a similar / same right as applied to a CD?

How many DJs ask permission of the copyright owner to play original CDs?

 

I'm beginning to think that 'this license' IS a forerunner to something totally different to come....given time.

 

QUOTE

What if I don’t get a Digital DJ Licence?       You will be unable to use digital copies of sound recordings in PPL’s repertoire for your DJ-ing. As well as infringing PPL’s rights in its sound recordings by copying and storing sound recordings in digital form, venues may refuse to let you play if you can not demonstrate that your digital files are properly licensed.

 

So a 'receipt' printout of a Tesco or Woolworths legally paid for download is not acceptable to show the venue?

What about the PROMO downloads like DJ In The Mix supply????

 

 

QUOTE

What is Digital Rights Management?       Digital Rights Management means technical systems designed to control or restrict the use of digital content. The ease of transferring sound recordings and films in digital form, and the quality of the copies, mean that it is important to copyright owners to ensure that their legal rights are protected by appropriate technology.

 

Bio-metric technology? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/rolleyes.gif

 

At the end of the day, is a Private Function such as a Wedding or Birthday Function, etc, in a hire venue - not private anymore?

In other words, will the venue insist that the entertainment hired by the client must have a digital license if they use digital media?

I see this as the most important question at the moment because long-term, there is going to be a lot of bother and grief for clients, DJs and venues who are not well informed.

Edited August 20, 2005 by discodirect

[Hugmaster 0]

Hi

 

And I can really see venue Managers asking you to produce your licence when they're not even bothered whether you have pat or pli.

 

I've had several occasions recently where the hotel have told the client that the DJ they intend to hire must have a prove that they have pat and pli, was I asked to produce my documents before or on the night, was I hell!

 

Venues couldn't give a stuff as long as the DJ turns up and the client is happy.

 

This licence is totally unenforceable if you only play private functions like Birthdays/Weddings etc, PRS or MCPS wouldn't be allowed in the building without a Warrent that proves you're breaking the law.

 

What do venue managers care about most, whether it's a pub, club, hotel etc, getting punters in and taking money over the bar, everything else goes right over their heads.

 

Darren

[Dukesy 0]

This is what needs 'clarification'.

 

A lot of thought has gone into this license development....especially on the side of recovering fees and enforcement based on existing terms / current ruling.

 

I read / interpret the licence and venue 'new rules' that:

if the venue allows a DJ (or any other entertainer for that matter) to perform without the correct / required license, then upon random 'inspection' from the PRS/PPL rep (who is usually NEVER refused entry on to premises and can verify that all venue paperwork is correct) can have their venue entertainment license suspended, revoked or even cancelled with additional fines (scale)

 

The enforceable side of things is neither here or there because the 'rules' have existed for a very long time and work. I doubt if anyone has heard of a venue refusing the license providers entry to verify that venue paperwork is in order. It would not be in the venue's intrest to demand a warrent, the police or the SAS?!

 

No-one member of staff would be 'above' the venue policy of 'bums on seats' and ''making money'. Therefore, management / staff will have to comply with these new rules....or it's P45 to the member of staff in question if the venue loses the entertainment license!

 

I agree that venue requests for DJ PLI and PAT cover are pretty poor, but come an accident or claim and the 'boot' will be on the other foot!

Because a client is asked to ensure that a DJ has all the cover doesn't mean that the client will bear the brunt of a claim, more the pity!

 

Yes, an 'inspector' can be declined entry into a 'private function' by the venue hirer / appointed person, however, due to the terms and conditions of the new digital license, DJs have to allow inspection of their digital playback device. Inpractable for the digital user, yes, but why would a DJ decline inspection on the spot if they too could have their new license revoked, fines, etc.

 

The DJ who declines inspection either has no license, is breaking the 'new rule' or is unaware it exists.

 

In addition to all this, DJ license holders will have to provide a 'list' of what venues are covered.

We may not know all the 'ins and outs' of the rules at the present time but I also doubt that a DJ will not provide such info if they want to obtain this license.

 

January is also an important date (not only for the new digital license) for new legislation due to 'come into effect', apparently.

We can only wait and see, eh?

 

[Paul Forsyth 0]

QUOTE (discodirect @ Aug 21 2005, 12:36 PM)

In addition to all this, DJ license holders will have to provide a 'list' of what venues are covered. We may not know all the 'ins and outs' of the rules at the present time but I also doubt that a DJ will not provide such info if they want to obtain this license.

Sitting on the sidelines watching it all go on.

 

But this stinks of the CSA soft target approach - the guys that want to be legit and do the right thing give their details and are immediately on a data base to check up on and chase.

 

We then do our venues a big favour by supplying their details for scrutiny (or am I being harsh and they intend to eliminate our venues and go after the ones not listed)

 

I hate these big brother tactics and becomming an unpaid information provider by supplying BB with other peoples details goes against the grain for me.

 

This might be the biggest stumbling block for me signing up, or have I read this wrong?

 

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/533.gif

 

Vinnie

[robbiedj 0]

How can we pass on information of venues covered?

 

Surely it's a breech of our clients privacy to reveal details of addresses etc without permission?

Do we add a paragraph to contracts saying that these details will be made public to a third party?

If not, it's against the law.

 

And how can you provide a list of venues for the coming year when you may have last minute bookings? Do you only take a year's notice for ALL bookings, losing out to unregistered "cowboys" who don't bother?

 

Seems a bit stupid to me.

[Gary 0]

Ok, heres a cut'n'paste of the email which I've sent to PPL

 

QUOTE

Questions relating to the digital DJ dubbing license.  (original sections of the license quoted in bold for clarification. Relating to: 1.  Definitions and Interpretation 1.1 The following definitions apply in this Licence: “DJ Database” means copies of one or more Sound Recordings in digital form which are stored solely on a single computer or hard disk unit (or such other Record or Records as may be agreed in writing between PPL and the Licensee). “the Back-up Database” means a single computer or hard disk unit (or such other Record or Records as may be agreed in writing between PPL and the Licensee) storing back-up copies in digital form of the Sound Recordings on the DJ Database. Both the definitions of “DJ database” and “Back-up Database”  indicate the use of a hard disk drive.  I want to use the license to transfer my sizable collection of vinyl records and LP’s onto reliable recordable CD discs (CDR) at home, and take just those CDR’s to discos with me. – The backup database (at home) would be either a hard disc drive, or just an additional set of CDR’s.  Can you confirm that this  variation is acceptable as both “DJ Database” and “Backup database” under terms of the license.   To my mind, the transferring of music track between original source eg: vinyl LP onto a different digital medium, is still taking place –its merely the type of digital storage medium that is being used.  2.2 For the avoidance of doubt no rights in respect of the following acts are granted under this Licence: (1) the public performance of Sound Recordings; (3) the Dubbing of Sound Recordings for the purpose of the public performance of those Sound Recordings as background music; and (4) the transfer of Sound Recordings to third parties (including other DJs). With regards to 2.2  (1) “the public performance of Sound Recordings”   it is my understanding that there has been no need for a specific PPL type license if a mobile DJ is booked privately to play music at a private party, eg: A Dad books a disco for his daughters wedding reception, where family and friends will be invited to attend free of charge.  If the DJ in this “family event” example were to be using tunes recorded onto a hardrive or CDR’s (from existing vinyl) etc, would the DJ still need this dubbing license, even though the event was private/family? With regards to 2.2 (3).  Part of many family events include a certain amount of background music, for example mobile DJ’s are often asked to set up their equipment before a wedding breakfast and provide quiet background music during the meal, or whilst people wish to converse prior to the evening buffet etc. all of this being prior to the music being elevated to the main source of entertainment, eg: music to dance to.    Would 2.2(3) restrict music tracks stored on a DJs DJ database from being used for background music, as described in my example above, necessitating  a non-database method of background music being played prior to the main disco music? 2.3 states that “The DJ Database and the Back-up Database are for the sole use of the Licensee”.   Often the named DJ will have an assistant with them to assist with the moving, setting up and running of the equipment.  This assistant (“roadie”) may, on rare occasion, be required to select and play music whilst the DJ is otherwise engaged – eg: working away from the equipment at front-of-stage, Interacting with the crowd, for example.   Would this licence restriction prevent such occasional uses of “the database” by a DJs assistant – where both DJ and their assistant are attending the same function/disco. 3. Dubbing obligations 3.1 The Licensee hereby warrants, represents and undertakes that it shall: (1) Dub each Track in its entirety provided that the Fade-down Section of any Track may be subject to the use of premature fade and cross-faded or overlapped with the Track following immediately thereafter provided that the period of audible cross fade or overlap does not exceed 2 (two) seconds; Does this mean that when played out to an audience, two different, single tracks must not be mixed/blended together for more than 2 seconds overlap?  Or, does it mean that at the point of dubbing tracks onto the DJ database, that no automatic overlap is utilised DURING the dubbing process.  Eg: All tracks must be dubbed as single recordings eg:  2 different 3 minute tracks must not be blended into 1 x 6 minute track stored on the DJ database.   Or, does it mean that 2 different 3 minute tracks CAN be blended together with a 2 second crossfade, making 1 x long track of 5minutes and 58seconds on the DJ database – but that say, a 10 second crossfade between the 2  tracks, creating 1 x long track of 5 minutes 50 seconds, is not permitted to be stored as a single track on the DJ database.   Section (4) states “not mix, remix, Segue, edit, change or otherwise manipulate the sounds of any Sound Recording so that the sounds on the Dubbed copy of the Sound Recording are different from those on the original Sound Recording”. It is regrettably quite common nowadays, for several music tracks per year to feature swear words and other verbal profanities within the lyrics of a track.  Several DJ’s I know would be keen to blank-out (with a fraction of a seconds silence) such profanities from the track stored on their DJ database (if they were to go ahead with a database playback solution), thereby making the track more socially acceptable, and therefore playable to a wider range of audiences (surely beneficial, in terms of media exposure, to the artists involved).  Would this minor adjustment be permissible under the digital dj license, or forbidden?. Section 4.1 states “(j) download copies of Sound Recordings from unauthorized websites or from unlicensed peer-to-peer networks.   Can you advise whether there is a recognized list of “authorized” websites, or is it simply ANY of the “household name” pay-to-download type sites eg: Woolworths downloads, HMV downloads etc. Many thanks in advance for your attentions in this matter. Thank you

 

 

 

I'll let you know what they say when they reply - hopefully prior to the 50% surcharge deadline of January 2006.

Edited August 22, 2005 by Gary

[RobbieD 0]

Great work Gary.

 

It will be interesting to see the reply.