dj fined for copyrighted music and video

[freakowen]

"The DJ must pay a record ?1.4m ($1.8m)"

........

"During the investigation, officers seized over 2,000 MP3 files and 500 music videos"

could have some interesting ramifications....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/17/dj_record_mp3_fine/

[TheBoyCalledWonder]

A friend of mine who used to organize parties, contacted BUMA (dutch equivalent I think of RIAA), and they told him, that they needed a complete playlist of what the DJ's were going to play, so he (or the DJ, I dunno) could pay for every record played, so BUMA could pay the artists.
Appearantly, paying for a record isn't enough, you also have to pay for everytime you play it in public.
Officially, even the tracks the "live" artist played (tracks he actually composed himself) should be payed for, so BUMA can send him the money he earned, because his tracks were played in pucblic...

Now I wonder.. should a live artist also pay for every sample used in his set (whether he created it himself or not)?

[Rovastar]

As a general rule in the free for all Internet world of file sharing authorities come down harder on those making money from these activities. ANd VJ'ing would be classed as working no doubt.

[sleepytom]

there are 2 separate issues here
1 performance rights - with music these are covered by the PRS fee that is paid by all public venues that play music - you do not have to list what records have been played. (there is no direct equivalent of the PRS for video - the VPL covers music video licensing but they don't have any interest in film or other non music video images)

2 mechanical copyright - this is the bit which outlaws P2P filesharing (and also cd / dvd ripping, tape to tape copying etc etc) it makes no difference if you are just copying music for your own use of if you are playing it out in a club, its the act of copying that is illegal.

there is also an offence of distributing illegally copied material - this is what the riaa and there cronies are most bothered about - people running FTP sites or having thousands of tunes shared on their P2P machines

usual disclaimer - this info is for uk only - if you need legal advice ask a lawyer

[evomedia]

The law is pretty clear, using music or video samples in chargeable work is breaking the law. And yes if a live band was using sampes then they too would need to clear them first and pay for the rights generlly, if they where producing sale CD's etc. It's breaking the owners copyright, and essentially its the media's creators that would pursue breach of copyright.

A DJ just needs to pay his PRS indeed

People can argue their rights to be able to express themselves but that doesn't hold water in a legal battle. its pretty simple really you have to clear all your samples to be safe from prosecution. Because when a company feels their work has been essentially stolen they will always try to claim damages.

I would if people stole my hard work and passed it off as there own and were making money off my back without even asking.

[sleepytom]

it is almost impossable to clear a video sample from a film - there is no system to do it and there is no legal precedent regarding video sampling.

its impossable to say wether an argument about freedom of expression would hold any weight in a legal battle as nobody has ever used that argument (or indeed had that legal battle)

there is a clear distinction between sampling and stealing work and passing it off as your own - this distinction is even clearer with video as a video sample will be recognisable by the viewer.

in most cases of film / animation the rights are not owned by the people who did the hard work anyway! i have no moral issue with "stealing" from the likes of time warner

[evomedia]

Tom its not an anti sampling thread, just stating the law, sampling films and any copyrighted video material is breaking copyright pure and simple, wasn't saying anything other than the truth.

I didn't write the law, the fact there is no law to enable sampling of films doesn't alter the fact its the law.

Even music sampling requires the samples be cleared for use, no one samples and sells cd's without clearing the samples and buying rights.

If musicians steal samples and sell albums, they get taken to court.

Don't see why you know that the music industry works that way but you think because video doesn't have the same way to clear samples it makes using them justified. You know its illegal no point arguing its not.

The point the people who made it don't own the rights is rubbish the people who pay for the work own it, or in smaller studios the production company do, if a film studio spends 100 million on a film and you use it regardless then they will view it as theft, whatever your arguement. The fact you can't get samples cleared is the owner of the materials right. Thats to protect any media producer.

[evomedia]

Case and point- this is for music industry case where they could have tried to obtain rights

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1490830/20040908/index.jhtml?headlines=true

What did the legal system say:

"Get a license or do not sample," the court said Tuesday. "We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way."

And this

http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/archive/TAFSimpleSamplingRules.aspx

The music industry uses clearing houses to clear samples, I know for the VJ clearing and buying rights isn't finacially viable, but from a legal standpoint copyright infringment doesn't make exceptions.

By the way I work run the design department in a media studio, the owner here has taken 2 seperate people to court over copyright theft of video material, just because you havent heard the cases tom doesn't mean that the world isn't full of copyright cases.

If someone takes offense that their work is being used without permission and they pursue the case then they are within there rights, and the owner of the media will always win.

[robotfunk]

how can they fine an artist / DJ for this? isnt PRS the responsibility of the venue owner/promotor?

[evomedia]

PRS only allows playing of music in public, so the artists make money from venues who are essentially using their music in a saleable product, same as TV, radio.

If you use part of a track in your own track then you need clearance not PRS, thats UK law anyhow

[evomedia]

UK law states Copyright lasts for the following lengths of time:

Films

Any medium from which a moving image may be reproduced.

70 years from death of whoever is the last to survive from: principle director, author of dialogue, composer of film music.

Broadcasts Transmissions

via wireless telegraphy through the air (not via cable or wires), includes satellite transmissions

50 years from when broadcast first made.

Cable Programmes Services via cable. 50 years from when broadcast first made

If you sample material before that time and do not clear the samples, Clearing houses do clear video by the way Tom, then regardless of arguements its classed as theft.

[evomedia]

Literary Works Written works.

Includes lyrics, tables, compilations, computer programmes, letters, memoranda, e-mail and WWW pages. Authors life plus 70 years after death. Anonymous/corporation authors: 70 years from year of publication. Special rules for unpublished works.
Dramatic Works Plays, works of dance and mime, and also the libretto of an opera. Authors life plus 70 years after death.
Crown Copyright All works made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his or her duties Published work:
50 years from the end of the year when first published.

Unpublished work:
125 years beyond the year it was created Parliamentary Copyright All works made by or under the direction or control of the House of Commons or House of Lords Mostly 50 years beyond year it was created. Exceptions include bills of parliament.
Musical Works Musical scores
Authors life plus 70 years after death.

Artistic Works
Graphic works (painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut), Photographs (not part of a moving film), sculpture, collage, works of architecture (buildings and models for buildings), and artistic craftsmanship (e.g. jewelry).
Authors/creators life plus 70 years after death.

Computer Generated Works
Literary, dramatic and musical works
50 years from first creation or 50 years from creation if unpublished during that time.

Databases Collections
of independent works, data or other materials which (a) are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, or (b) are individually accessible by electronic or other means.
Full term of other relevant copyrights in the material. protected. In addition, there is a database right for 15 years (this can roll forward)

Sound Recordings
Regardless of medium or the device on which they are played 50 years from first publication.

[holly]

Originally posted by evomedia
no one samples and sells cd's without clearing the samples and buying rights. Then why did everyone have a copy of that stupid "Grey Album" where JayZ committed acts of sampling and atonal remixing on those Saint Beatles? Ugh, I had like 3 different people try to give me that disc. It stank. Sounded completely random. Did monkeys make this shit? Next thing you know he's at the top of the tabloids and mashing it up with other lame hasbeen white bands.

At least he got a bangra track played on american radio. That's a first. It wasn't very good either, but he's made a career from illegal (oooh, maybe we should say outlaw) sampling, or at least the publicity generated from outlaw sampling.

[sleepytom]

the law is not black and white - it relies on a combination of legislation and precedents set by past cases - in the case of a VJ sampling a film there is some legislation BUT NO LEGAL PRECEDENT ie we cannot say how the courts will interpret the law in the case of a VJ sampling a film.

VJing usage is specifically different from the usual usage of film / TV "samples" by broadcast TV production companies - it is also specifically different to the usage by musicians of audio samples.
until somebody is taken to court for video sampling in the context of a VJ performance we simply cannot tell how the law will be interpreted.

there are a lot of possible arguments that could be used in a case of a VJ being sued for sampling and without these arguments having been used in a court we simply cannot evaluate them.

all we can say at the moment is that the only way to be certain that you will not be prosecuted is by using 100% self created or licensed footage.

to pass comment on the likely outcome of any hypothetical video sampling trial is foolish as there is no specific legal precedent - it is an extremely complex area of law and there are many possible defences so it is not advisable to second guess the outcome of a non existent case.

[LEVLHED]

grey album is actually done by DJ DangerMouse or somethin...its an unauthorized remix of Beatles White album and JayZ Black album (get it?)

and yes, it did stink.

[robotfunk]

Originally posted by TheBoyCalledWonder
they told him, that they needed a complete playlist of what the DJ's were going to play, so he (or the DJ, I dunno) could pay for every record played, so BUMA could pay the artists.


when did this happen? AFAIK the performing rights are paid per square meter of dance floor in the netherlands.
keeping track of the tunes played would only be necessary if the recordings would get published or perhaps broadcasted on radio live.

actually it would be great if this were true, dance artists would finally get a piece of the pie. All but a few (underground/indie) dance labels operate at marginal profit margins. For instance it costs over 1 euro a piece to pay for mechanical copyrights to press up vinyl, even if you made the music yourself. this is about 1/3rd of gross profit on 1 12" vinyl a label makes (before tax, copyrights and paying artist royalties..

Normally this money would end up being handed to artists based on top 40 position and radio airplay, so small labels would only and big labels profit.

back onto the main subject, 1.4m is a crazy fine for owning 2000 illegal mp3 files, esp in itally where copyright laws have been so loose that every other bootleg is pressed there.

if it really is a big name dj then the itallian RIAA have no clue how the dance industry works.

[dansmachine]

In the Netherlands:
IF the dj hands over his playlist to BUMA, and the artists whosre records were played by that dj, take initiative to subscribe to BUMA, they will get paid.

And now reality: dj's don't want to reveal their playlists because they think it's their secret. Second most producers are absolutely not aware of the dutch system.

Conclusion: Most money goes straight to the major companies.

For video it's a complete different story which I tried to sort out a little but so far no results. It's a mess.

...

[famouswhendead]

http://www.beeldrecht.nl/

[sakamoto]

back onto the main subject, 1.4m is a crazy fine for owning 2000 illegal mp3 files, esp in itally where copyright laws have been so loose that every other bootleg is pressed there.

if it really is a big name dj then the itallian RIAA have no clue how the dance industry works. [/B]

What do you know about the Italian music industry?

[phunkyguy]

don't forget codec and format violations.

mp3 is copyrighted.

i have yet to hear whether this guy was fined for copyright music, codecs, or what.

[robotfunk]

Originally posted by sakamoto
What do you know about the Italian music industry?

it won't be that different from the rest of the world. if it really is a big name dj, producers will be in line to give free white labels/test pressings/cd-r/mp3s to get played by him. the best promotion a dance tune can get is being played by a top dj.

[sketchyj]

i think that because VJ's are using the clips for live performances, the usage of copyrighted footage in a performance has gone unnoticed mainly because VJ performances are not recorded, marketed and distributed the way a DJ set often is. Unless you are selling DVD copies of your sets or publishing copyrighted stuff to the internet, nobody apparently notices. Also, the recording industry has a hard on for prosecuting people because they are really the ones taking any kind of substantial loss due to piracy. Nobody is buying CD's anymore and the industry is flailing. Movies too can be pirated, but for the most part it's easier to just pay $10 for most people to buy the dvd than it is to go through all the trouble it takes to download and burn a full length DVD. Hollywood really only cares about the few out there that are running bootleg operations for profit. I can't imagine someone associated with the movie industry going to all the trouble of going to clubs or raves looking for someone to show a copyrighted clip, then to prove it happened they would have to videotape the performance, right? And then what? Prove to a court of law that DVD sales of the movie suffered because this guy showed some clip to a bunch of kids on ecstacy at a dance party? It's like, OK here in America it is illegal for a woman to sunbathe topless. If she goes camping with a bunch of friends and decides to sunbathe topless amongst them, yes it's illegal, but no one is going to care, most likely not even a park ranger who would happen to see it. The law is designed so that people aren't doing it at public beaches etc. Of course, the law is the law is the law, but sometimes in certain situations people ignore the law because they are not really violating the spirit of what the law was written for. A lot of it also depends on how successful a VJ becomes and the type of venue the material is used for. A lot of people won't tear the "do not remove under penalty of law" tag off of their mattresses either. Personally, if I were doing any type of corporate sponsored event or really large venue, I would probably not use any ripped clips, if for no other reason than because someone who may be anal about copyrights is probably watching, and it could be construed to be not professional.

[visualove]

In the US the nightclub gets ASCAP and BMI licenses to play as much music as they want - that covers the DJ. (Probably a grey area on whether where the DJ got the music) They have ASCAP enforcers who go out from time to time to threaten (usually successfully) clubs and retail stores that play commercial music that aren't licensed. Think it costs a few hundred US dollars a year.

The artist or owner of the music registers with ASCAP or BMI and then gets money when the song is played in a club, on the radio etc. In practice the average artist gets nothing and Sir Paul McCartney is getting a lot.

In the US there is some similar (to ASCAP) corporation for movies if you want to show them in a bar, even if you don't charge admission. A friend of mine pays it to show commercial films. He isn't allowed to advertize the movies either.

When you buy the DVD, there is a little contract attached which generally says you are allowed to show it at home and that's it. But there is also something called "fair use" which could relate to sampling. Every few years the lobbyists try to narrow down fair use in the law - they are totally in bed with the government these days.

The film industry is getting more agitated about movie pirating, but in the US you need a few court cases - arrest the VJ/ club owner or sue them before anyone knows exactly how the law works in practice.

Here is the important part: we need to move visual sampling into the area where VJ's are considered to be promoting the material they sample and maybe are paid to do so (that would be payola...!) Probably would also be a good idea to ban camcorders in the club (so there is no evidence...) If all else fails, claim fair use and collect a large amount of cash for lawyers. Some people like the book about U2 and fair use - The Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2. If you are making material, the Creative Commons approach may be useful. I think there are a few more years of flying under the radar on visuals, but not many.

[sketchyj]

wouldn't the opposite be true? if lots of VJ's use copyrighted material then the ones creating original content would be even more in demand as opposed to being devalued. If you are in a competitive industry, do you want your competition to have better product than you, or would you prefer the competition to all be using recycled stuff that makes yours look all that much better. Personally, I think the ones complaining the loudest about other VJ's use of movie clips are the people whose own work can't compete with it. I don't buy the argument that VJ's can't produce clips as good as Hollywood studios with multimillion dollar budgets. I've seen some awesome content created by VJ's that works so much better in the context of a VJ performance than any movie clip could. In reality, I don't hope that my fellow VJ's produce shoddy work so that mine will look better, but at the same time, why should it bother me if their work sucks? Either way, it's not really hurting me. Looking at great work does have the effect of inspiring others to take their work up to another level, so in that regards it's a good thing.

[dansmachine]

Originally posted by joeproper
its about respect for the artform, if you obviously know the material is stolen its not respectable,its regarded as easy. that sets the price point.

Disagree.

In fact, when original footage is found and treated in an original way, thus changing meaning and building a different story and atmosphere, sampling is an artform.

[dansmachine]

Originally posted by joeproper
but thats besides the point ,its what the person forking out the money thinks. example surfing, unless you do it you really have no idea why surfers are cult like about it.

Huh?

I really don't understand what you mean. Can you please rephrase?

[sketchyj]

often times, music we hear on the radio is built upon hooks and beats from other songs....i prefer to call this remixing or sampling. Stealing is when you take something from someone else and they are deprived of the benefit of owning it anymore. As far as music piracy or the use of copyrighted clips goes, "stealing" is a term i would use only in the context of someone who uses others work and blatantly misrepresents it to be his own. When clips or beats are remixed into new creations, it can often be done in ways that evolve into something that surpasses the original and pays tribute. The beastie boys use samples this way, are they thieves? No, ask them and they will surely tell you which old school beat they got something from and go on about why so and so was cool. On the other hand, when Vanilla Ice was asked if his hook from Ice Ice baby was a particular sample, which it so obviously was, he stood there and lied his ass off and said it wasn't. He is a thief. When a VJ does a set, it's pretty obvious what is original and what is not, therefore in order to use the term "thief" about a VJ, for me it would have to be if he used other VJ's work and claimed it as his own. These blanket terms like "stealing" are propegated by giant corporations desperate to hold on to their millions, and i'm really surprised that VJ's on these forums would defend them. We're us. We should be on our side. Why would you adopt a rhetoric that the powers that be want to use against us? Anyways, as of right now, everyone involved with VJing knows about what the laws are, but i think everyone agrees that these laws are not being used against VJ's (anyone have a news article to the contrary?). Maybe there's a reason that nobody in the industry cares enough to make examples of people. Our use of such material differs somewhat from what's happening with MP3's or the problem of counterfeit movies. Seems to me the only people bitching about it are the other VJ's, and it seems to stem from an insecure attitude that someone might make something really cool that was less difficult to make than their own mediocre graphic that took them forever to produce. Worrying about things like that is wasted energy. Straight up clips that are just stitched together look like shit, the only real cool rips are ones that have something creatively added to them. Those VJ's who rely on plain old movie clips will never make it, it still takes talent and creativity to make those clips into something new and your own. It's pointless to argue philisophically about such things, in order to pass judgement on something it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis before you can say that the use of such clips are "unoriginal", "stealing", or whatever.

[dansmachine]

Originally posted by joeproper
the question isnt whether or not sampling is an artform, what im referring to is usually the person paying has no insight into what artistic ability went into recomposing the copyrighted material. all they know is that the artist used readily available well known material that everyone has access to, thus lowering the value of the artwork and the artist from their perspective.

Hmmm interesting point of view. Thanks for explaining.

But why should I bother about ignorant spectators in this case? It's like telling a painter he should stop his abstract work because the avarage man thinks his 4 year old son can do the same.

You should evaluate your own works by own measures, and not by opinions you think the other people might have. That would be suffocating in the end, always worrying 'what other people might think'.

My 2 cents.

[sakamoto]

Originally posted by robotfunk
it won't be that different from the rest of the world. if it really is a big name dj, producers will be in line to give free white labels/test pressings/cd-r/mp3s to get played by him. the best promotion a dance tune can get is being played by a top dj.

I was referring to your previous statements about bootlegs and the Italian RIIA, anyway, the news has been distorted by the medias in order to be used as a sort of warning against piracy and to me it sounds quite far from truth for a series of reasons:

1 as you noticed a "well known" dj can ofter rely on promos/whitelabels, no need to use thousands of illegal mp3s
2 the "well known" djs here rarely use a pc for mixing
3 most clubs already have thousands of vinyls for the djs to use
4 the big clubs where the "well knows" djs have daily/weekly controls by the RIIA inspectors
5 the djs before starting working have to fill a form with the tracks they intend to play during the night
6 the original news said that the files were in the dj's PC but it doesn't say that he was using them for working

I guess he was just an amateur dj with some mp3s ripped from his collection, moreover I wonder if the financial police can actually recognize an illegal mp3 from a legal one or from something downloaded through a netlabel/personal artists page.