Music and your rights, part 3
Jan. 20th, 2006 07:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greatbear(My third installment of an ongoing series of articles where I have been exploring the changing nature of the music business, your ability to enjoy music without restrictions and how the former has been increasingly chipping away at the latter.)
Your Friend - A Dying Breed
It's been an interesting couple weeks since my last installment. A couple articles have come out regarding the UK law that prohibits DJs from playing digital tracks from portable music devices (iPods, laptops, PDAs, etc, as opposed from CD-based players) without a special license (£200 per year). This law applies not only to download only-based music, say a collection of tunes obtained from iTunes or other 'no physical medium'-based source, but also to tracks taken from CDs or other media owned by the DJs themselves.
Think about this for a minute. I'll let it sink in a bit.
You read correctly. A distinction has been made between the delivery method of the music. In other words, in addition to the license fees already being paid to be able to play recorded music in a public setting (which is nothing new), and additional fee must be paid if that music comes from a non-traditional analog- or digital-based player. Most DJs virtually spinning their digital mixes are completely unaware of this law. Sting operations (minus Gordon Sumner) have even taken place to catch these unwitting heinous criminals doing their dirty deeds in front of their blissfully unaware audiences. Those caught face fines and other legal actions regarding breach of copyright, licensing and who knows what.
Stacks And Stacks Of Red Hot... Megabytes
The advent of portable, hard drive-based music players such as the iPod have made it possible to carry nearly every track owned by a DJ in their pocket, rather than lug often hundred of pounds of media to their gigs (no pun intended). Many disc jockeys will compile their setlist on a computer and burn the mix onto a CD or transfer it to a portable player to keep from having to carry with them all the media they would ordinarily need. Now, why should it matter even one rat's ass if the music is coming from the original CDs or vinyl or from an iPod? This music is coming from the actual media owned by person ostensibly licensed to play said music in a public venue. Granted, many disc jockeys will continue to ply their trade using traditional media (and what turntablist worth his Stantons would rely solely on an iPod?). But why should one be taxed for a simple format change? The convenience factor of having one's entire collection of music in an 'electronic' format is undeniable. Again in the case of the working DJs, not having to lug around the majority of their discs is a huge plus. Another potentially controversial advantage is that it saves wear and tear on the media. No more scratched, worn or lost media. This is where some music companies see a loss of a revenue stream that would normally be from media replacement. This begs the question, however: If indeed the industry is moving to a pure licensing scheme for music, would the owner of of a CD be entitled to a replacement at a nominal cost of the media itself if the disc would become unplayable due to wear or damage? Of course not. If you are even lucky enough to find a certain CD still in print, you would have to pay full price for it. The same goes for format migration. I was not entitled to a CD of every vinyl album I owned in the past, unless I paid for it in full.
Show Me Your License And Registration
Licensing is a sticky business in these respects. After all, someone has to own their original work, and in many cases, be compensated for it. This article, for example, is mine, yet it only 'exists' as a bit pattern on my little thumb drive before I uploaded to the Livejournal servers. It's value up to this point is more or less plainly understood if not somewhat fleeting. It's no different, yet vastly different than if I were to have chiselled these same words onto a stone tablet or even typed them directly to paper. I could have placed these words onto a piece of paper (or stone tablet for that matter) that belonged to someone else, but the words and the thoughts they convey would still be mine. By posting this article on the web I have essentially published my work to be used (read) by the general public. If someone wanted to copy this article and post it, print it out or otherwise disseminate my article in their own fashion, my 'copyright' requires that I be asked permission for them to do so. This makes sense and is how publishing has worked for countless years. What is also quite clear here is what format my article could take once published and licensed for another's use. Whether someone wants to write a song using these words, print them in a newspaper, flash it on a billboard, make snowglobes with these words inside or what have you, I still 'own' the original words, regardless of the format.
We Dont Need No Steenking Format
I can't help but ponder the implications of the UK law. Apparently, no case is made for making a mix CD compiled from several unrelated CDs and playing it in public as long as you have a "DJ License". Nor does it consider making compact disc recordings of vinyl recordings or any other sort of format shifting. The distinction is given solely to those instances where the music is stored digitally on a hard drive or other 'computerized' means and played from there instead of from 'traditional' media. I could see this making a case if someone was using an mp3 player to play music taken from one of the 'music rental' subscription services like Rhapsody, Yahoo Music or similar service in a public setting. Undoubtedly, those services prohibit this music from being played as such and do not extend licensing to do so. Makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is why a special case has been made to exclude music taken from the very same media that a DJ would be playing at a public venue from being played electronically by that DJ. I see this as an unfair tax in the least, and an insidious form of extortion as being more likely.
It's No Happy Birthday
Music publishing organizations have been playing strongarm tactics for years, this is nothing new. It's only in recent years that it's reaching a fevered pitch. Most people are aware of the "Happy Birthday" restrictions placed on restaurants. This is the reason why the hapless birthday boy or girl is subjected to a spectacle of adlibbed singing and clapping by the waitstaff when being presented with the stale little slice of cake with the sparkler instead of the more familiar tune of "Happy Birthday". That song has been held under an ever-extended copyright by a music publishing firm who restricts it's public performance unless paid a yearly license to do so. Hence, the restaurants and other public gathering places have had to come up with their own version with wildly varying results. Unless they pay up.
Lame, isn't it?
When it all comes down to it, the only people truly reaping the profit of these licensing schemes are the various publishing organizations themselves, who may or may not decide to give the artist a cut of the take. Now they have leveraged the licensing process into an extortion tool. With music being available practically on demand, the Holy Grail of pay-for-play grows ever closer for the music industry cabals as long as the listening public, the music consumers themselves, and even the artists keep allowing them the means to do so.
£200 per year extra to play from iPods. Fuck that. I'd rather have 50 Pound Note.
Your Friend - A Dying Breed
It's been an interesting couple weeks since my last installment. A couple articles have come out regarding the UK law that prohibits DJs from playing digital tracks from portable music devices (iPods, laptops, PDAs, etc, as opposed from CD-based players) without a special license (£200 per year). This law applies not only to download only-based music, say a collection of tunes obtained from iTunes or other 'no physical medium'-based source, but also to tracks taken from CDs or other media owned by the DJs themselves.
Think about this for a minute. I'll let it sink in a bit.
You read correctly. A distinction has been made between the delivery method of the music. In other words, in addition to the license fees already being paid to be able to play recorded music in a public setting (which is nothing new), and additional fee must be paid if that music comes from a non-traditional analog- or digital-based player. Most DJs virtually spinning their digital mixes are completely unaware of this law. Sting operations (minus Gordon Sumner) have even taken place to catch these unwitting heinous criminals doing their dirty deeds in front of their blissfully unaware audiences. Those caught face fines and other legal actions regarding breach of copyright, licensing and who knows what.
The advent of portable, hard drive-based music players such as the iPod have made it possible to carry nearly every track owned by a DJ in their pocket, rather than lug often hundred of pounds of media to their gigs (no pun intended). Many disc jockeys will compile their setlist on a computer and burn the mix onto a CD or transfer it to a portable player to keep from having to carry with them all the media they would ordinarily need. Now, why should it matter even one rat's ass if the music is coming from the original CDs or vinyl or from an iPod? This music is coming from the actual media owned by person ostensibly licensed to play said music in a public venue. Granted, many disc jockeys will continue to ply their trade using traditional media (and what turntablist worth his Stantons would rely solely on an iPod?). But why should one be taxed for a simple format change? The convenience factor of having one's entire collection of music in an 'electronic' format is undeniable. Again in the case of the working DJs, not having to lug around the majority of their discs is a huge plus. Another potentially controversial advantage is that it saves wear and tear on the media. No more scratched, worn or lost media. This is where some music companies see a loss of a revenue stream that would normally be from media replacement. This begs the question, however: If indeed the industry is moving to a pure licensing scheme for music, would the owner of of a CD be entitled to a replacement at a nominal cost of the media itself if the disc would become unplayable due to wear or damage? Of course not. If you are even lucky enough to find a certain CD still in print, you would have to pay full price for it. The same goes for format migration. I was not entitled to a CD of every vinyl album I owned in the past, unless I paid for it in full.
Licensing is a sticky business in these respects. After all, someone has to own their original work, and in many cases, be compensated for it. This article, for example, is mine, yet it only 'exists' as a bit pattern on my little thumb drive before I uploaded to the Livejournal servers. It's value up to this point is more or less plainly understood if not somewhat fleeting. It's no different, yet vastly different than if I were to have chiselled these same words onto a stone tablet or even typed them directly to paper. I could have placed these words onto a piece of paper (or stone tablet for that matter) that belonged to someone else, but the words and the thoughts they convey would still be mine. By posting this article on the web I have essentially published my work to be used (read) by the general public. If someone wanted to copy this article and post it, print it out or otherwise disseminate my article in their own fashion, my 'copyright' requires that I be asked permission for them to do so. This makes sense and is how publishing has worked for countless years. What is also quite clear here is what format my article could take once published and licensed for another's use. Whether someone wants to write a song using these words, print them in a newspaper, flash it on a billboard, make snowglobes with these words inside or what have you, I still 'own' the original words, regardless of the format.
I can't help but ponder the implications of the UK law. Apparently, no case is made for making a mix CD compiled from several unrelated CDs and playing it in public as long as you have a "DJ License". Nor does it consider making compact disc recordings of vinyl recordings or any other sort of format shifting. The distinction is given solely to those instances where the music is stored digitally on a hard drive or other 'computerized' means and played from there instead of from 'traditional' media. I could see this making a case if someone was using an mp3 player to play music taken from one of the 'music rental' subscription services like Rhapsody, Yahoo Music or similar service in a public setting. Undoubtedly, those services prohibit this music from being played as such and do not extend licensing to do so. Makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is why a special case has been made to exclude music taken from the very same media that a DJ would be playing at a public venue from being played electronically by that DJ. I see this as an unfair tax in the least, and an insidious form of extortion as being more likely.
Music publishing organizations have been playing strongarm tactics for years, this is nothing new. It's only in recent years that it's reaching a fevered pitch. Most people are aware of the "Happy Birthday" restrictions placed on restaurants. This is the reason why the hapless birthday boy or girl is subjected to a spectacle of adlibbed singing and clapping by the waitstaff when being presented with the stale little slice of cake with the sparkler instead of the more familiar tune of "Happy Birthday". That song has been held under an ever-extended copyright by a music publishing firm who restricts it's public performance unless paid a yearly license to do so. Hence, the restaurants and other public gathering places have had to come up with their own version with wildly varying results. Unless they pay up.
Lame, isn't it?
When it all comes down to it, the only people truly reaping the profit of these licensing schemes are the various publishing organizations themselves, who may or may not decide to give the artist a cut of the take. Now they have leveraged the licensing process into an extortion tool. With music being available practically on demand, the Holy Grail of pay-for-play grows ever closer for the music industry cabals as long as the listening public, the music consumers themselves, and even the artists keep allowing them the means to do so.
£200 per year extra to play from iPods. Fuck that. I'd rather have 50 Pound Note.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-21 12:41 pm (UTC)