Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ARIA Sells a Licence for DJs to Format Shift Music

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the next-up-a-whistling-tax dept.

Music 239

lucas writes "The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has set up a new licence to let DJs format shift their music to use at gigs. DJs will need to pay a licence fee to copy music they already own legally from one format to another for ease of use, and as a back-up in case originals get lost or stolen. Criminal penalties for DJs involved in "music piracy" are up to sixty thousand dollars and 5 years imprisonment. There are also on-the-spot fines of over one thousand dollars."

cancel ×

239 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No "fair use" in Australia (1, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948684)

Copyright.. copy right.

The owner has the exclusive right to make copies and sells "licenses" which permit you to make copies for specific purposes.

Why is this surprising?

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948752)

I curse the ARIA with a plague of Rolf Harrises! And may they never guess what it is!

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (4, Insightful)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948764)

Because certain types of copies are allowed. For instance, you're allowed to have a copy of a program on your hard drive and in RAM. You can have a copy sitting in a hard drive cache. The intent behind copyright is that you purchase it for a purpose (and likely the DJs had to purchase a more expensive version that allows public performance) and you can use it for that purpose.

I've always thought the music industry should have to pick. Either they can sell you a physical media with which you can do whatever you want (public performances or personal use) or sell you a license to use the music in a certain way (private use only, but you have the right to the music in any format you want for that purpose).

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (5, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948920)

They should also have to choose between legal and technological protection. If they want to use DRM to enforce policies that aren't based in copyright law (and there's no way for a piece of software to distinguish what's legal fair use), then I see no reason to grant them copyright protection. The purpose of copyright is to promote creation and enrich society. Fair use is a necessary part of that, as is the ability to use the work after the copyright period expires. They should not be allowed to renege on half of the bargain and expect the other half to continue to hold.

If they want DRM, fine. But pick one. They shouldn't be allowed to lock up our culture and expect legal assistance in doing so.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949492)

They should also have to choose between legal and technological protection.


That's right. And burglary should be legal if the house is locked.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (4, Insightful)

mrvan (973822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949522)

The analogy is flawed: they block off something I have the right do do.

To extend your analogy: suppose you own property next to mine and I have legal right-of-way. Now, you're not allowed to build a gate and not give me the key, since I have the right to pass over your property to mine. That is what DRM is trying to do: they 'guard' their property in a way that also blocks my legal rights (ie fair use copying, distribution after copyright ends).

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (5, Insightful)

sahonen (680948) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948914)

Because a DJ is ALREADY paying royalties to ARIA for the right to spin those songs at a gig. ARIA is proposing to make DJs pay an *additional* fee on top of what they're already paying in order to format shift their music for convenience (i.e. playing tunes as MP3s out of a laptop, or creating compilation CDs to reduce the number of CDs that need to be taken to a gig). This is wrong because it makes absolutely no difference to the listeners. They just hear music coming out of the speakers regardless of what format it's in on the DJ's side.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948944)

With logic like that, you should be a lawyer.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (4, Informative)

sahonen (680948) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949022)

What's wrong with my logic? I'm starting to suspect a troll here but I'll keep going just in case...

A DJ, as part of spinning songs for a crowd, is already paying royalties to ARIA for the right to play those songs in public. I want you to explain to me exactly why he should be required to pay additional royalties on top of what he is already paying for the right to play those songs out of a laptop or off a compilation CD instead of the original CD.

Bear in mind that copyright does not make it illegal to copy *any* music. It only makes it illegal to copy to music that you do not have a license to copy. DJs have that license because they pay royalties.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949058)

What makes you think they are not allowed to charge you twice?

A license to publicly perform does not imply a license to copy.. if it did everyone who ever got a license to perform would be buying a CD press.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (4, Insightful)

sahonen (680948) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949108)

Pressing a bunch of copies of a CD and selling them/giving them away is a completely different matter than format shifting music for your own personal convenience and not giving anything away except as part of a performance for which you are paying royalties.

You also failed to answer the question I specifically asked. Tell me why, in a fair and just world, should ARIA be allowed to charge extra for the convenience of format shifting when no sales are lost and no person hears the music except the DJ who purchased it and his audience who are covered by the peformance royalty that the DJ is paying. No copyright holder is in any way harmed by allowing DJs for format shift. Charging DJs an extra royalty harms the DJs by forcing them to haul their entire physical CD collection to gigs (and risk them getting lost, stolen, or damaged) instead of a hard drive or compilation CDs.

Your argument seems to be based on the "letter of the law." Tell me why that law should be interpreted in that way instead of in a way that allows DJs more convenience without harming copyright holders in any way.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949132)

Dude, in a fair and just world there wouldn't be copyright, period. If you frequent this site, you've probably seen me rant about this before.

We're not having a discussion about how great the world would be without copyright, we're having a discussion about what ARIA is doing in the real world.

In the real world the license granted by a copyright owner can be as strict or as lax as they like. It can authorize the public performance of a work but not the time shifting of a work. It can say that you're only allowed to play any song an album or just the acoustic ones.

Is this absurd? Yes.

Does this put too much power into the hands over the copyright owners? Yes.

That's the way the copyright system is.. fucked..

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (3, Insightful)

sahonen (680948) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949232)

Ahh, I see where you're getting at. You could have made your position a little more clear. As a musician who owns a few copyrights of my own, I disagree that copyright shouldn't exist. Someone who creates a work should be allowed to have a say in how it can be distributed, and nobody should be allowed to make money off of somebody else's work without compensating them. I license my work under a Creative Commons license that allows it to be freely distributed, but if someone wants to make money off it they have to make their own licensing deal with me, which would involve compensating me. I believe that this is perfectly fair, and this could only happen with some sort of copyright law in place.

I do agree, however, that copyright law should be significantly overhauled. For starters, durations should be shortened (20 years or less), and copyright ownership should not be transferable.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949450)

Someone who creates a work should be allowed to have a say in how it can be distributed, and nobody should be allowed to make money off of somebody else's work without compensating them.

durations should be shortened (20 years or less), and copyright ownership should not be transferable.
Contradict yourself much? Either people should have these rights or they shouldn't. You can't say people should have some right for 20 years and then it should magically go away. How exactly do you justify these rights you think people should have? Just cause you feel it benefits you? The traditional justification for copyright law is that it benefits society, but no-one ever bothers to evaluate whether or not it actually does.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949506)

Contradict yourself much? ... You can't say people should have some right for 20 years and then it should magically go away.
You can, and it makes sense. YOU ARE contradicting yourself:

The traditional justification for copyright law is that it benefits society
And that's just what these time-limited copyrights are all about! You want to give the creator a chance to make money off his work, but you want to limit it in order to benefit society. If you want to argue that's a bad system, go ahead, I'm actually interested in hearing that, but don't just imply it is a bad system without explaining why.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949118)

They're not giving away those CDs, they are just making sure their original CD doesn't get damaged by using a digital version (from laptop, burned CD in different format, whatever.) They aren't giving that away to anyone.

Their license to copy ends when it involves other people. As they were given a license to distribute aurally the music in question, then does it matter whether or not the exact, same, identical bits of data came from one CD or another? Heck, if you never saw the CD that the DJ used, how do you have -any proof at all- that it isn't the original? You don't. You -can't-. What's more, it doesn't matter.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (0)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949140)

Just to make it clear, I don't agree with copyright law, I don't like copyright law, but what you are saying is just non-sense. There's no provision in law to make backup copies of CDs for commercial use. You need a license or you are in violation of copyright law. Sucks, but that's the way it is. Burying your head in the sand will not change it. If you want to change it, go become a politician.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949156)

If you have to go the length of equating format shift (where nothing is distributed to third parties) to distribution (the CD press) for your argument to stand, the argument is over already.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (2, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949520)

The law in Australia makes no distinction..

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949114)

You don't 'get it' do you?

Music industry - Check

Brainstorming meeting at Music Industry meeting - Check

Pathetic way to screw more money out of music-playing customers in the guise of a 'benefit' - Check

There's nothing wrong with your logic - you are just incorrect in assuming that logic and common sense applies at the corporate level of the music sector.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (2)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949468)

I know a few DJs, and have often helped them set up for gigs...
Having to carry around trunks full of CDs, and having to flick through them manually to find the song you want is a huge pain in the backside. Also having to keep popping them in and out of the players is a pain... You have to carry a large selection, because listeners will request songs to be played, and you have no control over what they might want to hear.
The idea of taking a large hard drive containing thousands of songs that can be electronically searched makes a LOT of sense. Also having all the songs available at once lets you queue up a larger set of songs in advance, some DJs want to go and dance with some of the girls that show up!

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (2, Interesting)

daBass (56811) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949138)

They do? In most countries, the venue pays. DJs just show up and play what they've got, without direct payment from them to the record companies.

The same goes for live music, on which royalties are payable too.

The way this is done is by fixed fee. The royalties agency determining what songs generally statistically get played and divides the revenue.

Of course that mean that lesser known artists get nothing and 90% of royalties paid goes to 10% of the artists. Nice.

Re:No "fair use" in Australia (1)

gnoshi (314933) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949534)

Regardless of whether the venue pays or the D.J. plays, the point remains valid. The D.J. has already paid for a license to the music in purchasing the original media, and *someone* is paying for the right to have the music played publicly.

License violation = CIVIL issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949250)

and you have to prove harm.

Is that so difficult?

To ARIIA and you, yes.

In other news... (3, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948688)

The AIRA declared all Australians to be DJs, and that converting from optical media to an electronic signal in a player (and then from the electronic signal to an audible one) were conversions requiring a license. Botany Bay is to be used to house all juveniles who fail to pay the double licenses.

Re:In other news... (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948706)

Botany Bay is to be used to house all juveniles who fail to pay the double licenses.

Botany Bay is actually quite a nice place now. The people we really don't like get sent to Woomera, Christmas Island and Naru.

Re:In other news... (5, Funny)

Slimee (1246598) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948762)

Botany Bay is to be used to house all Botany Bay is actually quite a nice place now. The people we really don't like get sent to Woomera, Christmas Island and Naru.
I seem to remember a country that sent people it didn't like to another island too a long time ago...hmmmmm

Re:In other news... (3, Funny)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949146)

yes, yes, we're all aware of that. Our last government was keen to show us that our British Overlords were right to send us here, for a myriad of reasons.

this latest lot.. well, they haven't really shown a position on it yet, afaik.

Re:In other news... (2, Informative)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949210)

They're closing down the Nauru and Manus Island detention centers. Although all I can find of actual action are a few articles saying it will close in about a month. All about a month apart, and it hasn't happened yet, so who knows how long it will take.

Re:In other news... (1)

Yoozer (1055188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949242)

I seem to remember a country that sent people it didn't like to another island too a long time ago...hmmmmm
from Bill Hicks:

Let me get this straight... You keep the shitty food and the shitty weather and we get the Great Barrier Reef and lobsters the size of canoes?

...I'm Jack the Ripper!"

"No, I'M Jack the Ripper!"

Re:In other news... (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948768)

Ah! And the ones you hate, loath and despise, you exile to Canberra.

Re:In other news... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22948844)

Ah! And the ones you hate, loath and despise, you exile to Canberra.
Amnesty are currently investigating this as being excessively cruel.

Re:In other news... (2, Funny)

bemo56 (1251034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948888)

Well we have a rather bad immigration system, but we are not cruel enough to force immigrants to put up with our politicians :P

Re:In other news... (1)

BadOPCode (1187615) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949186)

You think Australian Parliament would be interested in some Chinese internet technology too? They could have a 1000 dollar fine for anyone posting a blog saying ARIA sucks.

Re:In other news... (1)

MadMidnightBomber (894759) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949134)

Ah, memories of AusCERT. Could be quite a nice conference if you banned the breathtakingly dull contingent from the federal government.

Re:In other news... (2, Funny)

AstrumPreliator (708436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949082)

You forgot Ceti Alpha V.

Re:In other news... (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949128)

These days, everybody wants to be a DJ..... I just want to be a drummer.

Re:In other news... (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949192)

Botany Bay is to be used to house all juveniles who fail to pay the double licenses.
But only when referring to formatting shit music. Like, when you have hard-drive full of shit music, you might just decide to format it instead of backing it up, since you never listen to the crud any more.

Dumb and dumber (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22948696)

Beam me up scotty, no intellegent life here...

This is actually ok (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22948722)

DJs are actually making money by playing other people's music, and their use at a gig does not really fall under 'fair use' as we know it as consumers.

Re:This is actually ok (1)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948806)

This is NOT Ok. A DJ (or more likely the venue he performs at) already pays royalties for publicly performing canned music. This new rule specifically covers for example ripping a CD to mp3 to be used with computer based DJing software. Doing that is solely for convenience of the DJ and does not make anonyone more money. Except now of course for the ARIA.

Re:This is actually ok (-1, Flamebait)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948828)

DJs are actually making money by playing other people's music, and their use at a gig does not really fall under 'fair use' as we know it as consumers.
"consumers"? "we"? Nice bit of astroturfing there, me thinks.

Re:This is actually ok (1)

Beastmouth (1144447) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948878)

Oh, come on now. This is just as much a load of crap as the RIAA going after barbershops that keep a radio turned up!

Does this match up with other Australian laws? (1)

dafrazzman (1246706) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948736)

Is it legal to record a TV show on a home VCR in Australia? Is it legal to save a .jpg to .gif or .png? Is it legal to move the sandwich you bought from the deli from a plastic bag to a brown paper bag? If such a law is to be, they should at least be consistent. Right now it's a just a way of squeezing money out of people in a way that makes no sense. If there's no prior basis for this, such a law should by no means be permitted.

Re:Does this match up with other Australian laws? (3, Interesting)

dns_server (696283) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948818)

There is a "time shifting" exception that allows you to make a recording of tv recordings for your own purposes.

There is also a "format shifting" making it legal to rip a cd and place the music on your portable player.

The problem with these exceptions are that they are for non commercial uses. it is fine for YOU as a citizen to do it for yourself but not as a PUBLIC performance which has always been a separate part of the law. If you are getting paid to do it in public you have always been required to pay a licence like this, perhaps the only difference is the industry body is now doing this. It seems just another way of clearing this public use of music which you would have ether gone to the record company itself or another agent to do this.

Re:Does this match up with other Australian laws? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948848)

it is fine for YOU as a citizen to do it for yourself but not as a PUBLIC performance which has always been a separate part of the law. If you are getting paid to do it in public you have always been required to pay a licence like this, perhaps the only difference is the industry body is now doing this.

Read the relevant condition more carefully. It doesn't have anything to do with actually playing the songs publically, just literally copying them from a collection of CDs to the editing computer. If the DJ instead kept swapping the CDs out of his computer, he wouldn't have to pay this fee (oh, and did not make any backups of his music either).

A DJ wanting to put sound recordings from his various albums on to a single source (computer hardware) for ease of use, and as a back-up in case originals get lost or stolen.

Re:Does this match up with other Australian laws? (2, Interesting)

bakes (87194) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949222)

Remember too that the 'time-shifting' exception was only recently legislated - less than two years if memory serves correctly. Prior to that time recording TV shows on a VCR/PVR, even for private viewing, was technically illegal.

I'm not certain that format shifting is formally recognised as a legitimate exception to the copyright law (maybe it is, I don't know) but even if it isn't nobody is going to be jailed for that, just as nobody was jailed for using their VCR to record Neighbours.

Re:Does this match up with other Australian laws? (2, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948820)

Ignoring for a moment that you're trying to use common sense to figure out copyright law and that is always a big fat waste of time, you're probably not away that only last year did it become legal to tape something off TV in Australia.

For almost every case, Copyright in Australia is worse for the consumer than it is in the US. Almost. [quantumg.net]

Re:Does this match up with other Australian laws? (2, Interesting)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948858)

Although the silver lining is that Australian Police and Courts generally dont give a shit about personal and small time piracy.

They go after the big fish: the ones which cause actual damage.

Just when we thought RIAA was bad... (2, Insightful)

ulash (1266140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948740)

we have this... or... wait... My bad. I guess nothing another organization can do can actually make RIAA look any better.

public performance. (0, Offtopic)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948744)

this is a public performance for which these DJ's are paid.

fair use and consumer law does not apply.

Re:public performance. (2, Informative)

upside (574799) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948854)

Why are you trying to change the meaning of the article? It says they specifically pay for format shifting, as does the frikkin ARIA website.

From TFA:

Yep, they need to pay a licence fee to copy music they already own legally to their iPods, laptops, or compilation CDs.

From the FAQ on the ARIA website [aria.com.au] :

What sort of sound recording reproductions can ARIA license? ... A DJ wanting to put sound recordings from his various albums on to a single source (computer hardware) for ease of use, and as a back-up in case originals get lost or stolen.

And regarding fair use, it does exist for private persons:

Under legislation passed in late 2006, you no longer need permission, under limited circumstances, to make a copy of a CD or a digital download that you own for your private and domestic use for use on a different device.

Re:public performance. (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948880)

i'm sorry did you miss the blindingly obvious part where it says "under limited circumstances"?

This licensing is aimed at DJ's copying stuff off their ipods and using it for PUBLIC PERFORMANCES. if this was just making backups of stuff they already had a license for to play publicly or for personal use, then you might actually have a point.

Re:public performance. (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948996)

The ARIA can impose fees on the public performance. But format shifting isn't public performance, it's something that's done prior to public performance, and separately.

oops (1)

upside (574799) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949016)

I misinterpreted your post as meaning this was a payment for the public performance itself. Silly. You're right that a professional DJ's format shifting is not done in the capacity of a private individual.

However, the DJ must have either permission from the rights holder to use the original material in the first place, or the right to do so by law. ARIA's case seems pretty contrived.

I wonder what ARIA's position in on music purchased in digital format that doesn't involve an original physical copy.

Re:public performance. (2, Insightful)

Omestes (471991) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949104)

I know I'm trying to be logical when it comes to the various recording industries, but...

If I got this right, the DJ has to buy, and pay royalties towards music purchased in format X, and potentially the venue also must pay royalties. So music X is bought and paid for, correct?

Now if the DJ decided to shift X into Y he must pay AGAIN, noticing that X was already completely paid up and legit.

I don't see where this is different from me doing the same, even if my use is not commercial. The main similarity, of course, is that X is completely legal, legit, and paid for. What the difference from me playing the CD containing a song, and me playing an mp3 of the same song, ripped from the same album. Where does the industry lose money? Is there something in the process of encoding and ripping that takes back all the money I paid in the first place?

Off topic, but relevant: WTF is up with the new comment boxes and format? The comments make me feel like I'm using a ghetto version of Reddit, and the actual page format is just UGLY. The huge gray buttons are... well... And the new way of displaying threads is more moronic than the last version...

Who taught the monkey to play with code?

Re:public performance. (1)

Mushdot (943219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949376)

I was about to say a similar thing and noticed your comment. A lot of DJ's now use laptops/ipods meaning they can now use music sourced from anywhere and I guess the record companies are seeing potential revenue streams going down the drain, not to mention the fact that a couple of torrent downloads could provide a DJ with several days worth of digital music for free.

nope (4, Insightful)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948982)

A recording industry association can't arbitrarily define themselves what's legal and what isn't under copyright law. They are bound by copyright law as much as everybody else.

Format shifting is not a public performance. Therefore, it should be covered under standard copyright law and not require separate licensing.

Public performance of the music can, of course, be subject to licensing fees. But the recording industry shouldn't be able to set licensing fees based on which media or equipment the DJ happens to use.

Don't buy into this... (5, Insightful)

elynnia (815633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948782)

Speaking as an Australian, I encourage DJs to not purchase this license. What the ARIA are doing is legally questionable, and shelling out for this only justifies their actions and legitimizes it in their eyes.

With the number of DJs here, I would not expect all of them to even know of this rule or for the ARIA to suddenly take all "offenders" to court. Don't feed the hands that bite you!

-Aly.

Re:Don't buy into this... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22948912)

Why would DJ's want to use this? Perhaps we're using two incompatible versions of the term DJ here, but to me a DJ is someone who you go to see play live because they have a reputation for playing new and interesting music. It's already been established in the 1990s dance culture that DJs replaced the function of the record company as a selective taste filter. Indeed some would say that the DJ became *too* powerful in the UK with people like Tong, Cox, Rampling, Cook, Grooverider &c becoming the leaders of mass culture. Okay, so that scene is dead (and I'm showing my age :), but the DJ
surely lives on as the avant garde of whatever the kids are listening to today? Why would DJs even be thinking about playing music that is already signed and licensed? It's likely mainstream pap rather than independent new productions.

If anything the DJ's should be pioneering selective filtering of the Creative Commons and underground music scene, completely bypassing the established order. And FWIW, speaking as as an ex-musician, I'd have no problem with them using CC licensed work to make money if it's promoting my music and drawing people to my site.

In my understanding the DJ's tell the record companies what to do, not the other way about. Record companies only sell safe MOR products and haven't invested in A&R for over a decade.

I think they must be talking about another kind of DJ, the sort you hire for wedding and birthday parties who plays Abba tunes so the oldies can dance ;)

Re:Don't buy into this... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949130)

It's already been established in the 1990s dance culture that DJs replaced the function of the record company as a selective taste filter. Indeed some would say that the DJ became *too* powerful in the UK with people like Tong, Cox, Rampling, Cook, Grooverider &c becoming the leaders of mass culture.

You missed out John Peel. How could you?

Re:Don't buy into this... (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949428)

You missed out John Peel. How could you?
John Peel is not enough.

Re:Don't buy into this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22948928)

I know this is an Ausie affair. But I wonder why yanks don't use the RICO as a tag to this kind of story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO [wikipedia.org]

Re:Don't buy into this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949188)

Don't feed the hands that bite you!
Hands with teeth?

Australia... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22948784)

Australia is great let's all move there! All hail the Empire of Australia. Heil heil heil!

Not even a speed bump. (-1, Troll)

scum-e-bag (211846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948786)

Most DJs deal drugs as well. This issue with ARIA won't even register as a speed bump on their radar (no pun intended). Business as usual.

ARIA to be charged for musician advertising? (3, Insightful)

Zey (592528) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948794)

Sounds like a fair deal, presuming DJs are free to charge a similar fee back for all that previously free advertising of ARIA's recording artists. Without their music played in venues, their sales plummet and music loses mind-share as a passtime to other forms of entertainment such as the Internet, video games, cinema tickets, etc.

Has the world gone bonkers? (5, Interesting)

uuxququex (1175981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948802)

The music distributing companies should make their minds up.

You either:

1. Buy (and subsequently own) the music on the physical media. Then you are legally allowed to do whatever you want with it, including selling.

or

2. Buy a license to listen to the music. Then you can media-shift all you want, as you are licensing the music. You never have to rebuy it either, if your disk breaks, just download the music, you already have a license.

This thievery has to stop. It is insane.

Imagine a world where the people weren't such meek sheep.

Re:Has the world gone bonkers? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22948954)

> 2. Buy a license to listen to the music. Then you can media-shift all you want, as you are licensing the music. You never have to rebuy it either, if your disk breaks, just download the music, you already have a license.

They can simply say that you have the license to listen to the music on THAT media you purchased.

mod parent up (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948998)

even if he is capt'n obvious, his point is correct.

Generally, if you don't like the power that copyright owners have over us then don't give them so much bloody power.

Re:Has the world gone bonkers? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949358)

2. Buy a license to listen to the music. Then you can media-shift all you want, as you are licensing the music. You never have to rebuy it either, if your disk breaks, just download the music, you already have a license.
Says who? If you have a license, you're bound by whatever the license stipulates. Since you don't own anything, you don't have any ownsership rights like first sale or fair use or anything like that. You're thinking of one possible license which grants you everything you want, but there's no more reason a media-bound content license should be any more invalid than a computer-bound OEM software license. Licensing does away with pretty much all the pesky problems of selling anything, because you can agree to pretty much anything by contract. What's needed is to create a "buffer zone" around sales, that if it acts, talks and walks like a sale then it's a sale. It shouldn't be possible to make a license that is "just like a sale, minus all the consumer rights granted by a sale". That's an end-run around everything those consumer protection laws are meant to protect.

Re:Has the world gone bonkers? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949408)

Sure, but you need to bear in mind that if you buy a licence (which would be the option they'd invariably go for, because it's what's on the that's of most value) and physical implementations come gratis or at cost, the price will go up. The prices as they are now rely on increased profit margins from people who are careless enough to break or lose their media, and as people realise they can get cheap copies for themselves and friends, there's going to be increased piracy rates and production costs, which will further drive the price of music up.

But otherwise, if we're prepared to pay the extra for unlimited licenses, it sounds like a great idea. Next time I see media for sale with such a license attached, and it's not horrifically expensive, I'll buy it, just to support them.

Australian DJs are funding terrorism! (0, Troll)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948838)

Australia has to be invaded before they release all they terrorist, pirate, and probably also ninja DJs to kill us all.

What about scratching? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22948846)

Does this mean that scratch DJs have to pay a format shifting fee for each scratch?

Re:What about scratching? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949042)

Does this mean that scratch DJs have to pay a format shifting fee for each scratch?

That comes under License Extensions for Time Delta Shifting, Recursive Shifting and Spanish Inquisition Sketch Shifting, all of which must be paid for individually. Remember, every time you scratch a record without paying, an angel gets its wings and legs ripped off.

2006 copyright law changes (5, Informative)

Michael Wardle (50363) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948868)

In 2006, the government passed a law making format shift legal. In particular, it would be legal to copy from a CD to an iPod.

It turns out this is only for "private, domestic use", which wouldn't apply to DJs on commercial premises.
Format shifting fact sheet [copyright.org.au]

Re:2006 copyright law changes (4, Interesting)

invader_vim (1243902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948936)

From the fact sheet:

You may download and print one copy of this information sheet from our website for your reference...

Heh! Can't even distribute it to your family members...

I can see the 'A' slowly shifting... ARIA becomes RIAA. Give it six months and the malicious law suits will begin...

Since the venues are already paying a licensing fee for public performance, maybe DJs should 'sell' their music (in all its formats) to the venue for the duration of the gig. I know it doesn't get around the 'private use' element of the act, but I'm sure there will be some creative workarounds.

tar and feather (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949392)

If the ARIA guy shows up at the DJ's home, how can he prove which songs are owned by the DJ for personal use? And if he shows up at the gig... Well the DJ just says "thanks ARIA guy!" over the Mic and the loyal party-goers should make sure the ARIA guy doesn't make it more than a block from the establishment whilst retaining his memory of the DJs name, or his own for that matter. Thats a lot of power to the DJ, so equal punishment should await DJs who abuse it.

When you don't like the laws, enforce your own. There is nothing immoral about that, but there can be consequences.

It IS private! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949310)

The DJ's aren't mixing in public (that would be a boring gig...) and they aren't selling the mixes. The format shift is done in private. The public part is PLAYING THE MUSIC.

And if playing a format shifted version of a song is different from playing the song unshifted, then sharing MP3's is NOT sharing the original song (and so no lost sale since you can't BUY that version...).

Re:2006 copyright law changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949440)

It looks like they attempted to be reasonable, unfortunately they totally failed. Why can't the public copy DVDs? There's no copy protection in the world that defeats a bit for bit copy. Why can't the Australian public rip a DVD image to a home media server?

I'd want to use different formats for listening at home and streaming over the net or listening on a portable (eg: vorbis/Flac). The "one copy" limitation is arbitrary and stupid.

Australians don't stand for bullshit, so I've gotta wonder how come they let so many backwards tech policies (filtering etc) get through?

You did get the tag updated for that stolen car? (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948874)

Wow, a license just to copy to your iPod. Sounds like marijuana tax stamps to me.

I bet there aren't many DJs in Australia (3, Insightful)

sahonen (680948) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948898)

Wait wait wait, how the hell does that work? Let's say a DJ works on a laptop as opposed to spinning vinyl or CDs... He buys a CD, rips it to MP3 and loads it into his software. Even if he's paying ASCAP fees for the use of the music (or whatever the equivalent organization is in Australia), he gets fined $60k unless he pays a SEPARATE fee for the ability to work from MP3s instead of the original CDs? My mind just exploded. As long as he's paying his ASCAP (or whatever) fees, who gives a shit whether he's working off a CD or an MP3?

Some people will argue you just buy a license (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948910)

That is you don't really own the music, you just buy the right to use it from the CD. Not that it makes any sense and why should they pay twice or more because they want to change format to something more convenient than fucking CDs? Retarded. But then I don't buy music so not much of a problem for me.

So when are they going to stop calling it buying? (4, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948952)

It surely seems like you don't buy a song from ITunes, and you don't buy a movie from Blockbuster, etc. At the very least they should stop using the term buy.

Re:So when are they going to stop calling it buyin (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949026)

About the same time they stop calling it "theft".

Re:So when are they going to stop calling it buyin (1)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949426)

It surely seems like you don't buy a song from ITunes, and you don't buy a movie from Blockbuster, etc. At the very least they should stop using the term buy.

They don't call it "buying" - They call it "stealing". If the recording industry had its way, we'd have to fork over $16 for a "license" in the form of a shiny plastic disc (non-transferrable and corporeally-bound, of course - Don't go thinking that just because you "license" their content you have some silly rights to either resell it or to keep using it in the event you lose/break your plastic disc). Then we'd pay separate format-shift licenses for converting the contents of that disc to a stream of bits; then for converting those bits to 16- or 24-bit words (perhaps on a "per-bit" basis, just for fairness to the industry); then for converting those words to analog signals sent to the speakers (this may require a separate broadcasting license, as it leaves the vicinity of the CD player itself); then for converting those analog levels to waves of sound pressure; then finally for converting those waves of sound pressure into neural impulses in the cochlea.

You greedy pirate bastards think you can just have all that for free, just because you plunked down $16 for a plastic disc? What, you want Cary Sherman's kids to have to go to public school???

Don't DJs promote music? (1)

MadJo (674225) | more than 6 years ago | (#22948984)

Are the record labels so scared of promotion that they want to kill it? That they want nothing to do with it?

Yes, copyright infringement is illegal, but paying to shift formats (from disc to any more portable format) should fall under fair use. And DJs already pay royalties to be allowed to play the music. So why should they have to pay twice?

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949000)

Sounds logical, since they do that for commercial purposes -aka "earning money".

It's not like copying for private use...

The realities on the ground for Pro DJ's (5, Interesting)

zuki (845560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949062)

What are professional DJ's supposed to do?

As a rule, when speaking of bigger names, not only do the record labels definitely give them the
music for free, actually they beg them to play it. Now suddenly the same DJ's who were GIVEN
all of these songs from the record labels, the producers or specialized promotion companies for free
would have to pay for the use of them?

A while back, a little known organization in the UK named the PPL managed to get similar laws enacted [bbc.co.uk]
To my knowledge, no one has ever gotten busted for not complying with their arcane rules
which border on extortion pure and simple, and are impossible to comply with.

What's happening pure and simple is that many of the people who make up the voting boards of these
entities are totally overwhelmed by technology they just do not understand, and are passing measures
which they believe in earnest are going to help stem the tides of something they feel they can still control.
As someone posted above, paying such tax is only helping legitimize something which is patently
unfair at best, and not ever going to be a solution to anything other than yet another desperate attempt
at trying to put the proverbial cat back in the box, when the box itself has all but disappeared.
Let's not even go into details on who is going to get the money collected (probably pop artists
whose songs never get played once in the clubs, but who have enough airplay stats to register
on the radar of performing rights societies... LOL)

Who thought the dying throes of an entire industry were going to be that much fun?

Z.

Re:The realities on the ground for Pro DJ's (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949272)

Well, with everybody breaking this law, the music industry can now cherry pick which DJs to sue. For instance the DJs that do not play the right kind of music!!

Fix all THE MISSPELLINGS in the article!! (1)

rubypossum (693765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949074)

Maybe I'm just stoned, but I read the article heading as:

RIAA Sells a License for DJs to Format Shit Music

Which seems to make more sense.

Performance fees are also going up (4, Informative)

Zouden (232738) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949076)

Performance fees for dance music in Australian nightclubs are changing [thewest.com.au] from $0.07/patron to $1.05/patron, a 1500% increase!

Re:Performance fees are also going up (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949292)

A PPCA spokeswoman said clubs should be more than capable of absorbing the cost. They had to see music as an overhead and pay a fair rate for it, which 7Â was not.
Some people really don't fucking think about things fully do they!!

As an Australian this appals and disgusts me, I am not looking forward to the day where my local pub can't play a bit of music and I'm stuck signing without the music (Because I guarantee that will be the last time I'm allowed in the pub :P)

Re:Performance fees are also going up (5, Interesting)

caffeine_high (974351) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949356)

About 15 years ago one of my first dance coaches in Australia was approached by APRA to pay a fee to play music. He was about 70 at the time and was not happy with paying them a fee. He asked if they only represent Australian music. It seems that they did not really have the right to collect 'royalties' on behalf of overseas artists. He told them he only plays German dance music and they just left him alone. I'm not sure if this is still correct or even if it was the full story. However, it would be sad if Australian clubs could avoid apra fees by not playing Australian music.

Re:Performance fees are also going up (2, Interesting)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949422)

So you're telling me that it's going to be cheaper for everyone to buy a take-home copy of the song being played from iTunes than it will be to hear it once on a night out?

Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949110)

Was it not Apple that originally came up with the concept of format-shifting in some patent not too long back (it was certainly the first I time I read the phrase). This is where Apple truly innovate - in new ways of screwing money out of consumers

Is this not already enforced in the UK? (3, Informative)

ma0sm (944420) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949206)

Or something similar, at least:
http://www.djlicence.org.uk/faq.html [djlicence.org.uk]

"I only use original CDs in my performance, do I need these licences?
No, these licences are for copying or dubbing music tracks to pc or mp3 player.
These licences also DO NOT allow you to copy from CD to CD-R.
To understand more about which licences apply where download the NADJ Licensing Grid [djlicence.org.uk] ."

DJs pay far more for a single already! (2, Informative)

hardcoredreamer (551324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949218)

These days you have to be prepared in case you show up and the venue has either vinyl turntables, or a digital setup. They could say that they have turntables, and they turn out to not have needles or better yet - they haven't been used in years and end up not working. Of course, with this you would have to buy your music twice, and 12" electronica vinyl records have 1-3 songs for $12-25 EACH. How much can one pay for one song they will actually play?!

Feh!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22949300)

Given that we have to pay APRA and ARIA licenses already just to "broadcast" their music (as we operate like the UK were simply playing in a public place is considered "broadcasting") and that all the venues we played at pay the SAME license fees this is just outright bloody money skimming greed.

In fact over 10 years ago I questioned APRA and ARIA about transferring legally bought or supplied (given both the big 4 and the minor labels would dump free vinyl and CD's on us) to self made compilation CDs and the response from both of them was pretty much along the lines of:

"Sony gave you it? why should we care if you copied it to CD, go ahead we're not going to come at you"
"you want to copy the music you have on Vinyl to CD? you bought the record? yes? go ahead, we couldn't care less"

update to 6 years ago and substitute MP3 for CD for and CD for Vinyl and I got pretty much exactly the same answer from both ARIA .

now they want more money to do this?

so glad I got out of the business when I did (3 years ago)

About time DJ's (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 6 years ago | (#22949362)

started charging record companies for "promoting their music in public venue's". TV stations charge record companies why can't DJ's.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?