[linux-audio-user] [ot] Is DJ-ing commercial use of music tracks?
tech at glastonburymusic.org.uk
Mon Jan 26 08:13:54 EST 2004
Whee! let's OT!
On Saturday 24 January 2004 11:59 am, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> But I will only get, I guess, below 50 Euro for a night there. :( And
> of course free drinks. Free as in beer. But I know, non-commercial or
> not doesn't depend on the amount of money you "make".
> When dj-ing vinyl it was interesting to note, that several of the
> german electronic 12-inch labels intentionally asked their artists,
> that they released their music "GEMA-free". GEMA is a German
> copyright asociation for music, which collects money
> from DJs, radios, dance bands etc. and distributes it to musicans and
That sounds like a bit of a 'blag' on the part of the labels IMnsHO.
On Saturday 24 January 2004 12:09 pm, Mark Constable wrote:
> But in this case Frank is not _necessarilly_ getting paid for the music
> itself but for his services as a DJ, so to me, this kind of usage is a
> lighter shade of grey and certainly not black or white commercial usage.
I don't agree. A DJ with no tracks to play is an unemployed sound engineer.
Part of a DJ's service is selecting the tracks.
On Saturday 24 January 2004 3:18 pm, Mark Constable wrote:
> These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that it's more of a
> priviledge for the artist to get their music exposed, at all,
Mark, you must live in a world where composer, artist and producer are all
one. Usually what happens is that the production industry gets all the money,
spends the artist's portion on hotel bills and advertising and juggles the
composer's part between different factions of lawyers. Royalty collection
agencies exist to try and make sure composers don't die in poverty.
I know I should be grateful for every little crumb I get, every little crap
floorspot I'm allowed. This month I managed to save up enough (out of a
windfall royalty payment, I might add) to buy a CD burner so now, for the
first time in my life I own my own means of production, although the covers
won't be up to much until I can afford a new printer. go figure.
Uh, someone said maybe now we can all be musicians. Yes, of course we can all
be musicians, artists, writers, designers, programmers whatever we want. I'd
like to live rent-free, grow all my own food and use natural power supplies
too as well as be able to buy my kid cool christmas presents. Unfortunately
I've spent the last 23 years of my life obsessed with music and my skills in
other areas aren't so well developed.
Frank, I guess it's up to the artist to license their recordings appropriately
according to how they want them to be released. Unfortunately most artists
probably aren't that aware of the issues. I know that my understanding is
fairly sketchy :-). In this case, getting in touch with the labels and asking
to be licensed for what you do is probably the right thing to do. In practice
that's going to be a rather time-consuming thing for you to do.
On Sunday 25 January 2004 11:47 am, Edward Barrow wrote:
> I would have
> thought that it should be possible to make a CC-type licence that was
> compatible with the collective management of the performance rights,
> while leaving the door open for adaptation/evolution/derivation of new
> works inspired by/based on/copied from the original.
>From the POV of an artist, if you're making lotsa money from playing my stuff
(e.g.) then I'd want a cut. If you're just getting free beer I still want you
to play my stuff. My current strategy is to release what would have been
'singles' for 'free' (as in I still hold the copyright & I'm still entitled
to royalties, but I'm not charging _you_ for it). I don't know if GEMA works
the same as PRS, here it's the Venue that coughs up the Royalties based on
the playlists that the artists *always* give them :-] The artists get paid to
perform (sometimes). All the above is, of course, hypothetical ;-).
On Monday 26 January 2004 8:58 am, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
> GEMA is preventing us from
> paying musical dues to the jazz giants by collecting totally
> out-of-proportion financial ones. and these are flat rates, i.e. they
> don't reach the original artist, but are collected and then distributed
> by a very opaque scheme *after* the gema administration has fed from it.
Hmm, maybe PRS does this a little better. I kow composers & musicians who do
receive regular (if not large) payments from them.
Other stuff I release on CD and it costs money. And I'm not averse to
receiving royalties either :-).
There's a considerable grey-area between the wording and enforcement of any
license/contract, which in practice means that many things are in fact
possible so long as you don't take the piss.
Frank, If you did limit yourself to only playing 'libre' music, perhaps it
would force artists into licensing their music appropriately. (?)
just my 0.02 of a euro
More information about the Linux-audio-user