Re: [linux-audio-user] [ot] Is DJ-ing commercial use of music tracks?

That's fine in principle, but in practice this requires either a high degree of automation, or a layer of bureauracy which will inevitably siphon off at least some of those resources. Ironically, being a member of the 'royalties police', supposedly defending the interests of musicians, is probably a more lucrative career than actually being the average musician. I'll bet it offers a regular salary, and you get to spend most of your working hours in bars... So let's work out some estimated figures. The bar pays 100 euros supposedly to compensate some (dead) jazz musicians, who during their lifetime were unable to even pay their own rent, because they had signed away their copyright to get a record deal, or were otherwise screwed. The guy from the royalty society gets 50 euros towards his salary, employer taxes and office expenses. That leaves 50 euros to compensate musicians, in theory - but the money actually goes to copyright holders, who may not be the original musicians who wrote the track, or may not be musicians at all. According to the statistical formula, this (jazz) bar must be playing Britney Spears at least once a night, all year round. So the rights holders on her music (whoever they are) get 1 euro. The royalty society works its way down the top 50 grossing acts, handing out euros. At number 47 in the chart is The Clash, so in theory they get a fraction of a euro because statistically, the bar must have played London Calling at some point. But Joe Strummer is dead, and Paul Simenon doesn't get anything either because he isn't listed as the rights holder for that track. (Bass players, along with drummers, rarely get writing credits). Frank's own compositions, along with everyone else's, are statistically insignificant in terms of gross revenue (sorry, Frank - mine too) so he doesn't get anything back from that 100 euro, despite the fact that he's the one doing the actual live music. So how is the rights society helping the musicians here? I'm talking about the musicians that actually need the money to go on making music, not dead people, ex-managers, or individuals like Elton John who can lose a few million dollars and not even notice. True enough. From a band's point of view, the answer we've come up with is that we don't play covers at all, and we don't play at venues which demand covers - or worse - tribute shows. It's harder, but it's better for your creativity... As far as DJ'ing goes, I think the answer will be automated collection of real-time statistics. A high position in a 'club chart' is likely to be far more significant to an artist than the small amount of money collected per artist. Perhaps not, but there are vested interests here. I predict that any royalty collection society will be extremely hostile to libre music licensing, as it represents a threat to their way of life. I've tried discussing licensing issues with an MCPS representative, and the response was like a brick wall. Cheers Daniel