"Can I make a Request please PPL ?"

[Gary 0]

There are of course, several threads here on DJU about the Digital DJ Licence which is currently on sale for those using harddrive based music files, but still not meeting the needs of all DJs, nor matching DJs expectations of being usable throughout a night eg: Background music is not covered (mind you the laptop would probably appreciate the 20 minute cool down while the "Now thats what I call Buffet music" is loaded into a CD drawer.)

 

What new members of DJs United, including those DJU members who have arrived here via the newly formed and already successful "DJ Associates", is that the PPL did originally propose an original set of parameters for the licence, but then admirably consulted several hundred DJs and made significant changes to the licence parameters, where important suggestions were made, and the same suggestion supported/echo'd by a significant number of those consulted.

 

I've read elsewhere on-line the E-equivalent of a few DJs standing grumpily in a corner, E-arms folded across their E-chests, oozing testosterone and saliva, swiveling their baseball caps around 180 degrees and defiantly mumbling about not paying for the license ever, in any form, any revision, any price etc,etc... Lets rise above that here.

 

Have a read of the text below - its details from PPLs own website, which explains the changes that they've made to the original, proposed licence - into the improved (but still room for further improvement) version that became available for sale a 2/3 months ago.

 

Once you've read the PPL text below, and have a feel for the sort of suggestions that they've already implimented to improve the license, those suggestions that they've not taken up, and why etc, THEN post some realistic suggestions as to what improvements still need to be made. I trust that we'll be able to come up with a list of viable suggestions which could be submitted to PPL, without the negative e-footstamping as seen elsewhere, such as: "scrap it totally - leave us alone", or "make it free"

 

QUOTE

Digital DJ Licence The launch of the Digital DJ Licence follows a consultation exercise conducted by PPL to seek the views of the DJ industry on its licensing proposals. As part of this exercise, PPL sent a consultation document to several hundred recipients including DJs, venues, DJ equipment manufacturers, DJ shops, DJ associations and DJ magazines. This document summarises the key issues that came out of the consultation exercise and PPL’s response to them. PPL’s response to the consultation PPL’s aim is to have a simple but effective arrangement for the use of digital copies of sound recordings by DJs. Copying A number of respondents asked PPL to reconsider the proposed limit of 10,000 tracks.  After considering these requests, PPL has decided to double this limit to 20,000 tracks. Several respondents asked if they could make a back-up database. PPL has decided to allow the licensees to keep one spare copy of each track on a back-up database. PPL was asked whether the licensees would be able to create their own mixes. However, PPL does not have right to license the mixing or adaptation of the sound recordings of its members. Therefore PPL is unable to accede to this request. DJs remain free to contact the record companies directly for such permissions and, of course, to create mixes whilst performing (provided that these live mixes are not recorded). Similarly, PPL was asked if the licence could cover video mixing. However, PPL does not control any rights in music videos and therefore cannot consider this request any further. Reporting PPL was asked if DJs who only stored a small number of tracks still had to report to PPL.  PPL’s aim is to distribute its dubbing licence fee income as fairly as possible between the members whose tracks are dubbed. Therefore PPL wishes to obtain reports from as many licensees as possible. PPL does not anticipate that the reporting will be particularly onerous for the DJs (particularly as DJs will only have to provide reports if they receive a request from PPL to do so). Furthermore, the reports of the tracks stored by such DJs will be of great assistance in estimating what tracks are played as part of specially featured entertainment. Therefore PPL’s decision is that all licensees will have to provide dubbing returns to PPL (subject to receiving a request from PPL). Payment PPL has retained the proposed annual fee of £200. However, this fee will now cover the use of up to 20,000 tracks and the right to keep a back-up copy of each of these tracks. One suggestion from respondents was that the licence fee could be linked to the number of tracks dubbed and/or stored by the licensee. However, PPL has decided that there should be a single flat fee to make the licence easier to administer and in the absence of any evidence as to significant differences between the values of different DJ Databases. Some respondents suggested that the licence fee could be linked to revenue. However, it is difficult to establish the precise link between the value of the DJ Database and the revenues made by the DJ using that DJ Database. Furthermore, the licensee would need to make adjustments if actual revenues did not meet projected revenues, or would have to pay an advance, recoupable against royalty payments made in arrears. This approach would create more administration for both the DJ and PPL. Policing a licence with a fee based on the licensee’s revenue also is more costly for PPL. Respondents also asked whether the licence fee could be paid in instalments rather than in full and in advance. However, the annual licence fee is relatively low and PPL’s administration will be greatly increased if the payment is made by way of instalments.  Therefore for the time being the annual licence fee must be paid in a single instalment. PPL was asked whether there could be a one-off fee covering all future use. However, it would be difficult to evaluate such a fee, creating a substantial risk that licensees would either pay too much or too little. There will be a surcharge if the fees are not paid on time (or if the licensee copies sound recordings before taking up the licence). However, to allow DJs to become aware of the new licence, PPL has decided that the surcharge will not apply to the first year’s licence fee if the licence is taken up before 1 January 2006. Operation of the licence To make the administration of the licence as straightforward as possible, PPL has decided that the licence should operate on a rolling basis, avoiding the need for DJs to have to make fresh applications for a licence each year.

 

 

 

In an effort to keep the replies as on topic, and keeping suggestions in a positive format, can we try NUMBERING the suggestion please. I'll start with.

 

 

1) Allow each licence holders "DJ database" and "backup DJ database" to be on a selection of proven storage options eg: harddrive, CDR etc.

 

2) Allow the stored music files to be used during background music times eg: Coming in & sitting down, during meal etc, as well as "featured entertainment".

 

 

 

 

3)?

 

 

Over to you... http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/notworthy.gif

[KrazyKaz 0]

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

[Dukesy 0]

As CDs are also 'digital'...... then why should one not be allowed to back them up as one would 'digital media'........ http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/wacko.gif incidently, in Germany, users can back up a copy of a CD or DVD with no problem......DVD copiers are selling well in the UK and the PC market leaves us spoilt for choice in ripping, mixing, making music and using the internet.....crazy rules man!

 

Someone said to me today "Who runs the PPL - Sid James and the Carry-On Team?"

 

I wish someone would dig a pit - throw the PPL and MCPS in to see who comes out champion. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

When there is no clear winner....force them to work together and produce a license that covers EVERYTHING! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/laugh.gif

 

The current license does not serve the interests of DJs now or in the future.

 

3) Allow DJs to be as creative and unique in their presentation which makes others book them because of their act. If that means allowing the DJ to mix and record his or her music to CDR, hard drive, mp3 or other digital file format....stop being unfair and restraining the individuals ability.....if they want to use digital equipment off the shelf such as digital players, laptops or i-pods.....why stand in the way of evolution and expression. It's not the dark ages. Work out a better system.

Please listen to the DJs.

 

Daniel Bilham

Discodirect

[KrazyKaz 0]

here here!

[DJ Marky Marc 0]

I still think what they have done is good. and I am looking forward to them enforcing this digital DJ licence in venues near here soon http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (DJ Marky Marc @ Nov 2 2005, 05:26 PM)

I still think what they have done is good. and I am looking forward to them enforcing this digital DJ licence in venues near here soon http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

Oh oh... http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/hide.gif

 

 

4)? anyone.....quickly....

[Hugmaster 0]

4. Stop hitting DJs in the wallet simply because they choose to play music from the digitally based format, charge everyone regardless of the format, or no one at all.

 

 

[Andy Westcott 0]

"charge everyone regardless of the format, or no one at all."

 

That would actually be the fairest way of doing it, assuming the fees were reasonable, bearing in mind not every DJ can be considered to work full time.

 

Maybe a scale based on annual income?

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (Andy Westcott @ Nov 2 2005, 09:02 PM)

Maybe a scale based on annual income?

Ah they (PPL) mentioned in the text above that they've ruled out linking the license fee to income - too difficult to obtain and confirm accurate figures.

 

 

QUOTE (Andy Westcott @ Nov 2 2005, 09:02 PM)

"charge everyone regardless of the format, or no one at all." That would actually be the fairest way of doing it, assuming the fees were reasonable, bearing in mind not every DJ can be considered to work full time.

I'm wondering if harddrive based systems are the primary "catchment" for this licence due to the fact that the risk of piracy is infinitely more of a threat than from other media.

Edited November 2, 2005 by Gary

[Hugmaster 0]

Hi

 

Well according to PPL, the licence is to ensure that artists get their due fees, not t track piracy, so should the licence be non-format driven to ensure they get all fees due, not just fees from easy targets.

 

I'm more than happy to pay the licence based on all formats, I'm certainly not gonna pay a licence simply because I wanted to use an mp3 based system, I'll simply stop using it, then the artists won't get any fees at all.

 

I think a DJ whatever format he uses, or whether he/she's full or part time should hold a licence to do business as a DJ. To ensure that cowboys aren't getting hold of licences, part of the criteria for acceptance could be...

 

1. Minimum of £5 million PLI

2. Up to date PAT

3. Registered for income tax as a DJ

4. Fully active business bank account in DJ roadshows name

5. Letter of reference from an accountant/solicitor/bank manager.

 

I guess there's more, but I think that would weed out the tyre kickers.

 

I'd willing pay an annual fee of £500 for this licence if it were properly policed by venues, trading standards, PPL etc, it would force the beer money DJ out of business.

 

Darren

 

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (Hugmaster @ Nov 3 2005, 07:52 AM)

Well according to PPL, the licence is to ensure that artists get their due fees, not t track piracy, so should the licence be non-format driven to ensure they get all fees due, not just fees from easy targets.

Venue level PPL licences already feed PPLs pot for sharing amongst artists.

 

I agree that playing from certain formats shouldnt give two lots of royalty payments to artists.

 

QUOTE (Hugmaster @ Nov 3 2005, 07:52 AM)

I'm certainly not gonna pay a licence simply because I wanted to use an mp3 based system, I'll simply stop using it, then the artists won't get any fees at all.

You're not alone here - plenty of people that I've spoken to are now actively opting not to go for PC/laptop sidelines - and one of their reasons is the licence. After all, if we rolled up to a hall, where we had total choice of where to park (we got there early), and were told that we could park in any space for free - except space number 66 - we'd chose to park in 65 or 67, or any other space for that matter.

 

At this point I'd like to add.

 

5) Allow the DJ Database and/or Backup DJ Database to be used not only by the licence holder (current situation), but also by one other person - eg: Roadie, as long as that roadie is using that database at exactly the same function/party as the licence holder.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Gary

[Dukesy 0]

What would be a reasonable figure for us to pay for the privilidge of multi music format use?

 

Would anyone consider paying up to £1,825 for a multi format DJ license - no instalments, lump figure p/a?

 

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

[Hugmaster 0]

Hi

 

What I can see happening is this...

 

DJ takes full set up CDs laptop hard drive etc etc etc, any sign of management or PPI, just switch laptop off and discretely stow away in flightcase.

 

If venues already pay PPI for entertainment for funds to be distributed to artists, why the second charge is necessary is beyond me.

 

Either DJs should pay a licence for PPI regardless of whether a venue has one or not, or bleedin' well leave us to get on with our job.

 

Will venues check up on DJs...hmmm discuss but I very much doubt it, they have much more pressing things to worry about, like why someone got food poisoning from the buffet, the new barperson thieving from the tills etc.

 

But I've been over this one before.

 

Darren

[Gary 0]

6) ?

[Dukesy 0]

6) Extend the number of tracks to be stored up to 40,000

 

 

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (discodirect @ Nov 3 2005, 05:10 PM)

6) Extend the number of tracks to be stored up to 40,000

Interesting - and exactly the sort of hard, factual, adjustment that we need to compile and present to PPL. Cheers Dan. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/thumbup.gif

 

I'm going to start a poll (on another thread, to keep this thread on topic eg: numbered factual suggested adjustments) regarding track totals.

[Dukesy 0]

7) Accept audio CDs as a digital music format

 

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (discodirect @ Nov 3 2005, 05:54 PM)

7) Accept audio CDs as a digital music format

Do you mean for output of tracks onto CDR?

[Dukesy 0]

What I generally mean is that for starters, the license is called the Digital DJ License.

 

CDs should be included, whatever their format. (CDR/CDRW etc) as they are optical discs used to store digital data.

 

To your question - absolutely.

 

The current license only represents a minority of DJ users.

Any introduced license needs to represent the interests of ALL DJs and ALL music formats that the DJ uses.

 

8) DJs should be allowed to be creative with mp3 files as they would CD or vinyl.

Thus, if a DJ needs to pre-record a playlist for a particular function in a mixed format / track overlap, then he or she should not be discriminated against under creative ability.

 

9) The PPL need to discuss the license with the OTHER music collecting agencies in the UK to address the remit brief of the UK / other labels of music that UK DJs play in order to provide a license that serves a purpose.

 

10) The license should not just be aimed at Mobile DJs.....

 

That should stir it - All my own personal views BTW.

Edited November 3, 2005 by discodirect

[ChrisPointon 0]

I think a one off fee of £200 per 20,000 tracks that you convert is a fair figure. So if you convert 20,000 Cd tracks to MP3 you pay £200,

 

20,001 - 40,000 tracks mean you pay £400 etc.

 

The fee, should be a one off, after all you don't pay a licence fee every year (Unless you fall under PPL liability such as a venue) to play CD's, so why should the MP3 DJ be penalised.

 

Don't forget that at the end of the day we are paying for the facility to do what DJ's in a lot of other countries can do for nixt - i.e convert original CD's to MP3 http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/rolleyes.gif .

 

I still don't see how the artist is losing out, financially, by converting an original CD to another format, provided that only one is used at a time http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/533.gif, perhaps somebody could explain

 

You can bet that the day will soon come when we'll all be paying £250 per year, per 10,000 tracks whether they are on CD or MP3 or vinyl - this is just the start of the roll out and to a test to gauge reaction.

 

I can also see the retailers of computer equipment being charged a 'Tax' on CD / DVD Burners, and media to compensate for any loss of revenue to the artistes, after all, it's being done in the U.S.

 

I partly welcome the idea of a licence too. After all, it'll spell an end to all of those undercutting DJ's working cash in hand or claiming benefits and not paying tax, or declaring their 'hobby'.

[chrismk 0]

QUOTE (Chris_Pointon @ Nov 3 2005, 06:26 PM)

I partly welcome the idea of a licence too. After all, it'll spell an end to all of those undercutting DJ's working cash in hand or claiming benefits and not paying tax, or declaring their 'hobby'.

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/1106.gif So what about the Bedroom DJ.... could speel and end to the high sales figures were seeing in DJ equipment, I'll say this again, if a person has any sort of company he/her can run it without a problem but of course certain types of trading require regulation for obvious reasons of health and safety, what I read here is nothing short of nonsense of trying to make a very long well estabilished hobby/part time/full time career regulated for the cause of a select few who are struggling or should I add trying to become dominent, I have a full time job and I run my own little side line bike related bussiness along with my DJing, what I read here is to try and get people like me out, well it aint going to happen, around 8+ years back I had a full on bussiness making seriously good money, my cousin and I ran our DJing as a sideline bussiness cos we enjoyed it that much, not to mention seeing the enjoyment of other people bopping on the floor, all of a sudden here we are in 2005, some 10+ years later and every D:cense:k head decides they want to control the industry, 1) they couldnt be bothered to go and get possibly a 2nd job. 2) they see it as a easy benefit gravy train. 3) Tax evasion is so easy....shall I continue, here I sit, I work 5/7 I pay tax, I pay benefits.. go figiure who actually puts in more effort, sure if you run it full time and do kiddy parties and other corparate events during the week then good for you and it proves you are going for it but to try and regulate it this way is madness and it will fall flat, I wonder what the big knobs in Brussels will think of this one, Djing can be considred a hobby and has been for a very, very long time, its how it all starts in the 1st place.

 

Im not quoting Chris in what he said, Im just using it as its a example of what I've been reading here and elsewhere.

 

Guess I must give up the three proffession that I hold certificates for because I decided to go that bit further in life and saw the light before leaving school, oh and Im about to undergo further training next year in carpentary, go figure, lifes what you make of it, try and regulate Djing it and it will fall flat..

For example.

Cust: "Can I have a quote for a wedding please"

You: " How many people will be attending"

Cust: " About 300"

You: " That comes to £5000 woth all the regulatory fees"

Cust: " Oh hell, guess we'll just have to listen to Radio1/2"

 

I wonder how many companies, be it private or corparate will go bust

 

And so the cycles starts all over again.......

and I then read the rest of the world is watching us (yeah right)..... guess we'll have tons of music listening devices all over the place just like there are speed cameras.

 

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/188.gif Rant over, get on with life and enjoy yourself and let others do the same because they can and they will, license or no license, does anyone here also realise this has to go through parliment if its to become a regulation...I may be off target but I dont think so, I'll send Tony a e-mail and see what he has to say

 

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

 

Im off to have some fun with my sounds

[Andy Westcott 0]

I'm going to repeat what I've already said elsewhere:

This Digital DJ Licence must not become law.

 

I'm not sure what we can do to stop it if anything, as this is not, if you like, my 'area of learning'.

 

But to echo what's already been said here, the artists/record companies are not losing out by allowing DJs to transfer their paid-for material to another format, either for backup purposes or simply because that particular DJ prefers to work with that format.

 

A better approach would be to grant a licence to duplicate material to another format, but for an administration fee only. Won't happen, as this is seen as a good way to screw even more money out of us.

 

I'm in favour, in principal, of keeping tabs on the duplication of material, but I fail to see how this would prevent illegal duplication and selling of material. It's pretty much unenforcable.

 

And yes, this could possibly be paving the way to enforcing DJs to eventually pay for the right to use material, rather than, or in addition to, the venues.

 

It is a BAD omen, in my view. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/sad.gif

[Dukesy 0]

Let's face it, when a subject like this appears on the forum, how many switch off?

How many are sick and fed up with the bloody Digital DJ License and how legal it is, how much it costs and how is the PPL going to enforce the system?

 

Yep, it's F:cense:ing annoying and all that, but the truth is that PPL have introduced the darn thing... and DJs unclear of the legalities and implications are buying it because they have been told it makes them legal.......

 

The tactics employed by the PPL (put quite simply) are not daft, even if the license is!

 

The License will become 'a type of law' because as long as DJs buy the license (on that fact alone) in time, it can become the accepted norm.

If nobody challenges the license and a few examples are made of DJs......go figure.

 

 

[pareshj 0]

The way that I see this is,

 

If I buy all my music from DRM sites. I'm clear

If I have all my classic CD's - hence no need to really buy them all again as I can prove I have a shed load of CD's

Even though I do private parties only, I don't need to have the digital license but I still want to use my digital files in my set.

 

It would be difficult to prosecute me becuase I have legit purchases which can all be proved either from my itunes statements or credit card statements for CD's.

 

The Digital License is not ideal but surely it's better than nothing and as you say venues are becoming educated to this as this is what I'm hearing. I've spent far too long worrying about this. Just paying the yearly license would give me a honest feeling before attending the venue - am I wrong.