Re: [microsound] mix cd's pt 2

[devslashnull <dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2004, at 10:03 PM, Rob wrote:

> devslashnull wrote:
>
>> My point is that the DJ's don't HAVE to have permission. The burden 
>> and liability is on the club-owner, whether they pay the licensing or 
>> not. So IF the RIAA were to enforce, the DJ is fine, the club-owner 
>> is the one who would get popped with fines
>
> I realize DJs don't have permission, although I'd be a whole lot 
> happier if they could get permission, I'm talking about possibilities 
> for the future.  DJs are more at risk when they make mix tapes, which 
> is becoming a problem now.

I'll try one more time: DJ's do not need permission to play other 
peoples music in a club.


>
> I licensing scheme for DJ music that wasn't as top heavy as ASCAP or 
> BMI would be nice, but seems far less realistic.  The club owners I've 
> known can barely stay afloat, it's not that they don't want to do the 
> right thing and pay, it's that they can't.

I don't know what you mean by top-heavy really. I don't know the 
specifics for club-owners but radio stations pay a percentage of 
revenues, so if you don't make any money all you have to pay is the 
minimum which is like $264 a year (could be a little more now) for each 
of the PRO's. The RIAA thing was certainly a bit heavy-handed for radio 
stations, but they have no provence in a club because no "ephemeral 
copies" (or real ones for that matter) are being made, and being the 
mechanical copyright holders, this is the only violation they can 
actually enforce.


>
> Going after club owners that play underground/alternative/whatever 
> music isn't good either.

Actually, if one works for a PRO (Performing Rights Organization) and 
you can catch a club-owner with deep pockets (and they certainly do 
exist) that is not paying his license fees, then it works just great :)


> We need all the parts, the producers, the DJs, and the place to play 
> to make it work.  Advance licencing of music would be the easiest of 
> these schemes because of the low complexity and overhead (transaction 
> costs are the economics model).

I don't see that this would not be complex. Seems like what you propose 
would be a DJ pays a license fee for public performance and (perhaps) 
for making mechanical reproductions for his mix CD. Does the Dj pay 
some flat fee regardless of how many times he "spins" that record? Is 
it the same if he is making copies for his mix CD? How does the money 
get split between the label (mechanical copyright owner usually) and 
the artist(s) (performance rights holder)? Would the DJ be cool with 
paying the same amount for the license if he ended up only playing it 
once cause it did not get the reaction he was after? Think of the 
nightmare this would be for record shops... figuring out who to send 
the money to (distributors/labels/artists etc). If you tack another 
percentage onto the cost of the vinyl or Cd, (cause you know the labels 
and distributors and record shops will not want the licensing fee to 
come out of their share) this makes it more expensive to buy music. The 
collection of performance fees should naturally be done at the places 
of _performance_.

>
>
> Labels under my idea can license straight to the DJ, no additional 
> overhead or third party is required.  Club owners can be happy and 
> safe, especially if the hire DJs who spin pre-licensed music.  DJs can 
> also promo themselves and the music they play with small run mix 
> tapes, everybody is happy.

The labels actually do not own the performance rights in most cases; 
the "writer(s)" or "composer(s)" do. Playing other peoples records in a 
venue is a whole different thing than making a mix tape. The label in 
many cases does not have the authority to transfer the license to a DJ 
who wants to make a mix CD anyway. Connecting the mechanical 
reproduction rights and the performance rights is a mistake. Under this 
scenario a DJ could pay some small license fee at the time of purchase, 
and then go press and sell 100,000 copies and keep the money? Would 
different artists (big name producers, etc) have different fees?

>
> See license ahead of time, everybody knows how they stand.  Wait until 
> the music cops bust a club, and people are going to be unhappy because 
> broke club owners will try and risk-it by not paying fees.

I agree. Performace venues should pay the performance licenses ahead of 
time. That way they know they are covered. Factoring those fees into 
the cost of doing business ahead of time is surely prudent business 
practice.


>
> Also, licensing ahead of time allows you to get paid!  Work out how 
> much the permission to make mix-tapes with your music and play at 
> clubs is worth and simply factor it into the cost.
>


I agree here too. Making a mix-tape or CD legally just means making 
sure all the copyright holders get paid. Your idea just seems to shift 
the burden of accountability: In the case of mechanical copyright 
holders you would have the labels responsible for tracking all 
"licensed" sales and making sure each artist gets paid as well as 
distributing performance fees to the writers and composers? Sounds like 
a lot of extra work.


Under the current system as I said before it does not cost the DJ 
anything to spin at a club, and they have no liability either. Making 
mix-tapes for promotion is probably still safe as well as long as one 
is not selling them in shops (ie. sending to venues to get gigs; 
selling them at your shows, etc).

>
CommTom
Communications of Tomorrow
"it's only a day away"

unique electronic music for the adventurous ear.

http://www.commtom.com