Ableton Forum

hambone1 wrote:

robin wrote:And as for DRM, if people are honest then DRM isn't necessary.

And if my auntie had a dick, she'd be my uncle...

Well yeah but I'm going on morally what is right and I know I have never ripped anyone off. I don't really care what all these organisations say.

"...to live outside the law, you must be honest" - Bob Dylan

drm...interesting viewpoint.

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/08/22/DRM

What happens if you don't use cd's? I buy all my tracks from www.beatport.com, so I'm not making copies of them, my hard disk is the original. And performance rights get paid by venues, so their thinking is a bit flawed.

Yes their argument is VERY flawed.

They tell us in the FAQ section that with respect to legal digital downloads the law states that you have a limited right to keep your downloaded copy for the purpose of domestic listening. For any purpose other than that you need permission of the copyright owner (in fact it says this in the smallprint of digital download sites).

However, I believe this is almost exactly what it says around the middle of a cd or record. The venue's music license circumvents this. So why not for bleedin downloads goddammit?!?

Splashmas wrote:Yes their argument is VERY flawed.

They tell us in the FAQ section that with respect to legal digital downloads the law states that you have a limited right to keep your downloaded copy for the purpose of domestic listening. For any purpose other than that you need permission of the copyright own (in fact it says this in the smallprint of digital download sites).

However, I believe this is almost exactly what it says around the middle of a cd or record. The venue's music license circumvents this. So why not for bleedin downloads goddammit?!?

indeed....they can go and spin, as far as i'm concerned. this is just the thrashings of a dying business model.

do they honestly believe that anyone is going to comply with this?

that made up story of the "famous Italian DJ" that had that million dollar fine that was designed to induce FEAR hasn't had the effect they intended.

Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't part with my hard-earned £200 so fast...

So if the venue has a PPL licence, any performer doesn't need one? My partner is a fitness instructor, and insists that she has to have a PPL for her kick-boxing and step music, even though the gym has a licence.

Is she wrong?

hambone1 wrote:Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't part with my hard-earned £200 so fast...

So if the venue has a PPL licence, any performer doesn't need one? My partner is a fitness instructor, and insists that she has to have a PPL for her kick-boxing and step music, even though the gym has a licence.

Is she wrong?

to be honest i'd hold off any kind of personal licensing until someone official nudges you to do so. quoting exactly the above when they do get in touch.

what exactly is the difference between a cd and a hard drive....just semantics.

If you are a DJ and you are playing in a licensed venue then the fact that the venue is paying their license means that performers are allowed to play copyrighted music (which is by default "for domestic purposes only") to their patrons. This is because their license fee is distributed back to the artist as royalties.

If you (like yourself) are a mobile dj then you are likely to play unlicensed venues, hence the responsibility of having a license to reproduce this music to an audience lies on your head.

I think the problem people have here is the arbitrary distinction between people playing music off laptops whereby they are obliged to carry their own license ON TOP of the license already carried by the venue for the public reproduction of such music.

Stupid is what stupid does.

Luckily there is more talent and originality in the netlabel scene than in the commercial scene these days anyways. Wrd to the Creative Commons. I dont dj these days but if I did it would be all Creative Commons tracks since that is what my personal playlists consists of almost entirely.

£235 per year to be able to DJ with a program you bought ( Live) , to play tracks you bought (CDs & vinyls) but that have to be converted into wavs or aiff in order to benefit from the technical innovation of computing, in a place that pay expensive fees to have music played.

WTF ?

Im glad im not a DJ.

But just the wording of a lot of the literature, seems quite illegitimate to me.

but then I dont live in the UK.

Dont ever pay to perform...we arent killing animals...we're performing music.

actually, artists should pay DJ's, for promoting their music!

hambone1 wrote: one else will be able to record this mix."

Regarding DRM - I think it's fantastic. Everyone should own the tracks they play. IMHO, bootlegging is the primary factor in the downward spiralling quality of today's music. If artists didn't have their livelihoods diluted by the likes of Limewire, Kazaa, etc, maybe more talent would be encouraged.

Hmmm, tell that to beethoven and and mozart, they did great before copyright came along. it came to my attention recently, that you can not in fact copyright a recipe, that a collection of flavors is to general a concept to own, i don't see how this has prevented any number of talented chefs from making a great living.

Seems lame and overly stiff to me....I dj a lot in Canada and it seems to be much more casual over here....I have never worried about any of the legal ramifications of djing and thank god for that! Yes, support artists who you enjoy, but don't let a lawyer tell you how to mix or remix or what is allowable...We are very lucky that all those great old skool hip hop albums were made before samples were consumed by red tape....long live the bootleg and unliscenced mix....take your mind where the music moves you, NOT where the regulations demand...

viva sample freedom

Orion