• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

DJ sets & copyright

green_souljah

TRIBE Member
With all this sueing mumbo jumbo going on these days, what kind of copyright, if any, do our beloved DJ sets contain.

For example:

An Adam Freeland Essential Mix on my hard drive

OR

Mickey Finn from 1993

I have about 50 gigs of MP3's, and of that I would say 45 gigs fall into the electronic music, mostly live sets, category.

I am sure I am not the only one on this board in the same boat here either.

So can the CRIA lick my balls?
 

Eclectic

TRIBE Member
My belief is if it's never been sold commercially, then your good to go.

Most mixes are labelled "promotional material" and would never be sold for any monetary value so they should be safe.
 

bombthreat23

TRIBE Member
if you live in canada they can't do SHIT to you... we passed a bill protecting our asses..nice eh?
g.

Canada deems P2P downloading legal, levies MP3 players

By John Borland, Special to ZDNet
15 December 2003




Downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, although uploading files is not, Canadian copyright regulators said in a ruling released Friday.





In the same decision, the Copyright Board of Canada imposed a government fee of as much as US$25 on iPod-like MP3 players, putting the devices in the same category as audio tapes and blank CDs. The money collected from levies on "recording mediums" goes into a fund to pay musicians and songwriters for revenues lost from consumers' personal copying. Manufacturers are responsible for paying the fees and often pass the cost on to consumers.

In Australia different sectors of the music industry are arguing over the appropriateness of a levy on blank recordable media, with organisations representing artists lobbying for a levy to be imposed while the record companies are opposing the introduction of a levy. Although the Australian record companies claim downloading music over p2p networks is illegal, the managing director of Music Industry Piracy Investigations Michael Speck has stated they have no interest in going after downloaders at this time.

The peer-to-peer component of the Canadian decision was prompted by questions from consumer and entertainment groups about ambiguous elements of Canadian law. Previously, most analysts had said uploading was illegal but that downloading for personal use might be allowed.

"As far as computer hard drives are concerned, we say that for the time being, it is still legal," said Claude Majeau, secretary general of the Copyright Board.

The decision is likely to ruffle feathers on many sides, from consumer-electronics sellers worried about declining sales to international entertainment companies worried about the spread of peer-to-peer networks.

Copyright holder groups such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) had already been critical of Canada's copyright laws, in large part because the country has not instituted provisions similar to those found in the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One portion of that law makes it illegal to break, or to distribute tools for breaking, digital copy protection mechanisms, such as the technology used to protect DVDs from piracy.

A lawyer for the Canadian record industry's trade association said the group still believed downloading was illegal, despite the decision.

"Our position is that under Canadian law, downloading is also prohibited," said Richard Pfohl, general counsel for the Canadian Recording Industry Association. "This is the opinion of the Copyright Board, but Canadian courts will decide this issue."

In its decision Friday, the Copyright Board said uploading or distributing copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited under current Canadian law.

However, the country's copyright law does allow making a copy for personal use and does not address the source of that copy or whether the original has to be an authorised or non-infringing version, the board said.

Under those laws, certain media are designated as appropriate for making personal copies of music, and producers pay a per-unit fee into a pool designed to compensate musicians and songwriters. Most audio tapes and CDs, and now MP3 players, are included in that category. Other mediums, such as DVDs, are not deemed appropriate for personal copying.

Computer hard drives have never been reviewed under that provision, however. In its decision Friday, the board decided to allow personal copies on a hard drive until a fee ruling is made specifically on that medium or until the courts or legislature tell regulators to rule otherwise.

"Until such time, as a decision is made on hard drives, for the time being, (we are ruling) in favour of consumers," Majeau said.

Legal analysts said that courts would likely rule on the file-swapping issue later, despite Friday's opinion.

"I think it is pretty significant," Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said. "It's not that the issue is resolved...I think that sooner or later, courts will sound off on the issue. But one thing they will take into consideration is the Copyright Board ruling."

Friday's decision will also impose a substantial surcharge on hard drive-based music players such as Apple Computer's iPod or the new Samsung Napster player for the first time. MP3 players with up to 10GB of memory will have an added levy of US$15 added to their price, while larger players will see US$25 added on top of the wholesale price.

MP3 players with less than 1GB of memory will have only a US$2 surcharge added to their cost.

With a population of about 31 million people, Canada is approximately one-tenth the size of the United States. But Canadians are relatively heavy users of high-speed Internet connections, which make it easy to download music files. About 4.1 million Canadians were using a broadband connection at home as of the end of June 2003, according to U.K.-based research firm Point Topic. By comparison, U.S. cable and DSL (digital subscriber line) subscribers totaled 22.7 million at the end of September, according to Leichtman Research Group.

Canada has already raised the hackles of some copyright holders through its reluctance to enact measures that significantly expand digital copyright protection, as the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has done in the United States. As a result, Canada could become a model for countries seeking to find a balance between protecting copyright holders' rights and providing consumers with more liberal rights to copyrighted works. For now, it remains unclear how other countries might be influenced by Friday's ruling.

Geist said he believes the tariff decision could be just the tip of the iceberg for hardware makers, as Canadian regulators grapple with the full implications of the policy. Other devices, including PCs, may eventually be brought under the tariff scheme, he predicted.

"Given that they've made a strong stand on (peer-to-peer matters), if the policy remains the same, there's little choice but to move ahead on personal computers," Geist said.

However, a representative of the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC), the group of music copyright holders that typically petitions for new media types to be added to the list, said computers were not on its agenda.

"We have never sought a levy on computer hard drives and do not intend to do so in the future," Lucie Beaucheni, vice chair of the CPCC, said.

James Pearce contributed to this report
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

DSV

TRIBE Promoter
Technically speaking, ANY unauthorised use, promotional or otherwise of somebody's music constitutes copyright infringement. Having said that, usually underground artists aren't going to complain if their track appears on an underground mix tape.

In the case of Freeland, those are usually licensed mixes where he's paid for all the music. This is the case for most mix-sets you'd get at a store lke Hmv or whatever.

Remember, when you hear music in a club, that club is paying a yearly royalty to a publishing organization (in Canada it's SOCAN) and they in turn distribute those royalties to various artists based on a sampling of playlists submitted by clubs and DJs. The same thing applies to radoio programming. Any 'legitimate' business is paying for the rights to distribute or perform music. Period.
 

AshG

Member
Originally posted by DSV
Technically speaking, ANY unauthorised use, promotional or otherwise of somebody's music constitutes copyright infringement. Having said that, usually underground artists aren't going to complain if their track appears on an underground mix tape.

In the case of Freeland, those are usually licensed mixes where he's paid for all the music. This is the case for most mix-sets you'd get at a store lke Hmv or whatever.

Remember, when you hear music in a club, that club is paying a yearly royalty to a publishing organization (in Canada it's SOCAN) and they in turn distribute those royalties to various artists based on a sampling of playlists submitted by clubs and DJs. The same thing applies to radoio programming. Any 'legitimate' business is paying for the rights to distribute or perform music. Period.
yup, and all that biz about "promotional use only" cracks me up.
it don't mean shit.
 

Spikey

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by green_souljah
With all this sueing mumbo jumbo going on these days, what kind of copyright, if any, do our beloved DJ sets contain.

For example:

An Adam Freeland Essential Mix on my hard drive
technically who ever produced and originally distributed the mix owns the copyright laws for it, meaning if this is Adam Freeland on BBC Radio 1's Essential Mix, BBC owns the copyright laws to it and you can not copy or distribute it without their permission. Somehow I don't think they'd mind if you did though.
 

loopdokter

TRIBE Promoter
Remember, when you hear music in a club, that club is paying a yearly royalty to a publishing organization (in Canada it's SOCAN) and they in turn distribute those royalties to various artists based on a sampling of playlists submitted by clubs and DJs. The same thing applies to radoio programming. Any 'legitimate' business is paying for the rights to distribute or perform music. Period.
Haha. Yeah, in *theory*, that's how it works. The reality is that most clubs don't pay SOCAN jack shit. They're supposed to, but there's no real law against them doing so. Also, there's a really bad system in place for distributing royalties equally.

Theoretically (sp?), each artist is supposed to get a royalty for everytime their tracks are aired in a club or on the radio. However, this is not the case. Instead, SOCAN takes a 'sampling' of radio station playlists. If you're the small artist like myself (who happens to be a SOCAN member), your chances of being in that playlist are quite small because they might have only played your track once in the day while they played Sarah McLachlan 10 times. So the rich artist gets even more rich. It's a flawed system.

The problem is that SOCAN doesn't have the time, money and resources to track every single thing that gets aired. As a result, this is the best system they have come up with.

Also, it would help if DJs submitted their playlists to groups like SOCAN, the PRS, BMI and so on. This way, at least if the track is a club hit the artist is seeing a royalty off of his tunes being played. Most DJs aren't even aware of how this can help the artists they're playing in clubs.

Lastly, for what it's worth, the CRTC sees DJ mixing as CanCon and you can get away with mixing records the entire night without playing one single Canadian artist because it's deemed live entertainment!

As for copyright on DJ mixes, the DJ owns none of it. All copyright is either held by the labels or artists. If the mix is aired on the radio like Essential Mixes, the artist then usually has to submit something saying it has been played on air and then the appropriate performance rights society (in this case the PRS or BMI) will issue a royalty for it being played that is in turn covered by a fee BBC Radio 1 pays every the PRS and BMI every year.

Essentially, it's up to the artist (if they're smaller in name) to track radio play and copyright infringements... Unless of course you have a publisher working for you.

Regardless, it's all a very complicated issue!

Cheers,
JK
 
Top