DJ Licence?

[Blackbrook]

just wish that the terms of the licence were fairer.

Exactly!

Not to include downloaded music is ridiculous as I'm sure that more DJ's download their music than those who actually buy cd's!

As I do!

Also, the licence allowing for only 5000 tracks is much too restrictive.

It is more than ridicolous!

Where does this come from? Is it a governmental agency or something like that?

[KevMaverick]

It's the PRS (Performing Rights Society).

In the past, it was only the venues that had to have the licence.

[hemskoc]

Just seems like a licence on top of a licence to me. Total money grabbing, because it doesn't affect those who use original cd or vinyl; on which sometimes tracks are not available on these media. I totally agree on paying artists their rights, but really, this seems like a tax rather than a licence.
Cheers

[KevMaverick]

Just seems like a licence on top of a licence to me. Total money grabbing, because it doesn't affect those who use original cd or vinyl; on which sometimes tracks are not available on these media. I totally agree on paying artists their rights, but really, this seems like a tax rather than a licence.
Cheers

Oh you got this so right 'a tax'!

Scenario: A pub or club has an iTunes library playing all day without a problem, or they are playing MTV videos all day,then at 7.00 that night, a DJ comes in and has to pay to play the same music? It sucks!

[hemskoc]

good point Kev. I would think that they would have to pay the tax also; they make money from their business, they are use digital media to help run that business(atmosphere), so they shouldn't be exempt in my view. Apples for apples. So ludicrous.
Cheers

[KevMaverick]

And there's another thing (I can rant forever!) - we are actually PROMOTING THE MUSIC!!!! When we play something new, we are bringing it to the audience, and if they like it, they'll buy it! If we don't play it, that equals zero sales!

They should be paying us!

[hemskoc]

Yep. An endless rant this one, and with good reason.
Just not really fair.
Cheers

[daniel clark]

your not ranting ,just being vocal about something that not common sence proper,,through it all you will try to accept what nessary to accomplish your mission,, you are correct in the thought about DJ premoting the artist product, symbiotic relantionship,, some major artist have release tracks/albums to the internet royalty free to give thier talents for free,,aware that the idea of giving allows for them to recieve,,,,my thought is that the third party stepping in to get there hands on revenue is not proper since thease funds are not going fully to the benifit of the artist or the industry

[BennyB]

Oh you got this so right 'a tax'!

Scenario: A pub or club has an iTunes library playing all day without a problem, or they are playing MTV videos all day,then at 7.00 that night, a DJ comes in and has to pay to play the same music? It sucks!

Well, it is different, also in my country. Because mixing two tracks is defferent from just playing music one after an other in every copyright-law. Just look it up.

[KevMaverick]

I guess that, as DJ's, we'll never win this argument. In some way they'll try to get extra money from us, because WE are getting paid to play the music, the greedy record company executives whant their share of our money.

They say that it's for the recording artists, but I bet that their share is tiny compared to what the record companies get...

Typical of the British Government - if anyone is making money - they will do anything to get a piece of it! It doesn't matter that most DJ's pay their taxes like everyone else...