TheTurk
ok ok
you win wite devil
i clearly understand now
you win wite devil
i clearly understand now
Posted Wed 21 Dec 05 @ 12:18 am
dj maddsound
I personally think that DJs shouldn't have to pay this tax. If you are a legit DJ and are registered, then you should be exempt. Hey there were many times that people hear a song in a club and run out to a store and purchase the CD. I think that Record Labels should be grateful for the DJing industry. How many artists have mentioned about DJs playing thier song, turning it up, bring that beat back or in singing about being in da club?
What folks should be worried about are the child porn sites, the bomb making sites, selling drugs sites or watching people being murdered sites. But no, alot of emphasis is put on downloading music illegally and stealing from a damn industry that makes milliones off of the talents of others. Why because the only way that we pursue certain issues is for monetary reasons. Ask any civilized person about what is more important and disturbing about the internet...I bet that downloading will be at the end of the list.
As a species, we have our priorites wrong.
MS
What folks should be worried about are the child porn sites, the bomb making sites, selling drugs sites or watching people being murdered sites. But no, alot of emphasis is put on downloading music illegally and stealing from a damn industry that makes milliones off of the talents of others. Why because the only way that we pursue certain issues is for monetary reasons. Ask any civilized person about what is more important and disturbing about the internet...I bet that downloading will be at the end of the list.
As a species, we have our priorites wrong.
MS
Posted Wed 21 Dec 05 @ 2:17 am
TheTurk
I HOPE when we are talking about playing it to public we meen clubs pubs bars etc etc
because if you have to have a license to play music for a private party with all your friends
or DJ a party with only people you know then that would be messed!
because if you have to have a license to play music for a private party with all your friends
or DJ a party with only people you know then that would be messed!
Posted Wed 21 Dec 05 @ 2:34 am
DJ_whiteDVL
Well I strongly disagree with this law although I must obey them.
Turk the laws state that any public broadcasts (ie: weddings, parties, etc) The joys with bars and clubs is this...the bar is responsible to pay for these licences NOT the DJs.
There are a few nice things about this licencing thing although many things I disagree with but such is life unfortunatelly.
Turk the laws state that any public broadcasts (ie: weddings, parties, etc) The joys with bars and clubs is this...the bar is responsible to pay for these licences NOT the DJs.
There are a few nice things about this licencing thing although many things I disagree with but such is life unfortunatelly.
Posted Wed 21 Dec 05 @ 3:54 am
dj maddsound
It's a silly law but yes it must be obeyed unfortunately. If it were a law affecting a larger group of people, then they would, as voting taxpayers, influence the politicians to change it. But DJs are not a powerful group in any country. Just have to live with it.
MS
MS
Posted Wed 21 Dec 05 @ 4:19 am
Raw-Bear
Well, I'll say it again as I have in another post somewhere. Maybe its about time the DJ's at this site put their money where their mouth is and formed an INTERNATIONAL lobby group. I can see both sides of this discussion and both sides have valid points. But DJs as a group have absolutely no one representing or protecting them. Therefore lets do something and start up a group. One that will look after what WE want and not the record companys.
Posted Wed 21 Dec 05 @ 5:53 am
TheTurk
i like your idea Raw-Bear
but how do we do it?
and wait a minute so you need a license to play music say you went to a friends house where some more friends got together and you brought over some cds and a laptop with vdj on it
and you need a licence for this? because i understand that for club and bars they pay for the licence which is awesome but if you have to pay for a licence to do the friends get together thing then
i just give up>.
ok weddings hire djs so do parties what i meen is say for FRIENDS house or backyard or YOur own house and stuff
but how do we do it?
and wait a minute so you need a license to play music say you went to a friends house where some more friends got together and you brought over some cds and a laptop with vdj on it
and you need a licence for this? because i understand that for club and bars they pay for the licence which is awesome but if you have to pay for a licence to do the friends get together thing then
i just give up>.
ok weddings hire djs so do parties what i meen is say for FRIENDS house or backyard or YOur own house and stuff
Posted Wed 21 Dec 05 @ 8:10 am
DJ_whiteDVL
@ Turk
Your now starting to get confused about this law.
This law doesn't exist in all countries. Some countries prohibits the use of MP3s all together.
In Canada we are quite fortunate to have access to play such files. The canadian law states that it IS legal to download MP3s for your own personal use. No more then 5 people can listen to that song at the same time other wise you will need a licence.
Now please start thinking strongly about this. Do you really think they will knock on your door to go and check if more then 5 people are listening to an mp3 that you are playing? no
think they will check your CD and see how it's encripted and such when listening to a song on a bus? no
They would much rather go for a wedding DJ making 400-700$ a night. That's where it will be worth their money. Not a bedroom DJ who isn't making any money.
this law is built mostly to make sure that DJs making money from artists ARE paying the artists. As stupid as it maybe that WE are promoting these artists and making them stars they still want us to give them cash. That's all this licence does, I know some DJs that don't have these licences although if they get caught playing a burned CD they can get their music seized and that would surely ruin their business as well as the night in question.
As far as the organization goes I'm for it although How would we go about each country? Each country has their own laws which either allows entirely, allows with a licence, or allows encoding but now broadcasting and finally doesn't allow encoding at all nor broadcasting of encoded or copied music.
Best Regards
DJ White Devil
Your now starting to get confused about this law.
This law doesn't exist in all countries. Some countries prohibits the use of MP3s all together.
In Canada we are quite fortunate to have access to play such files. The canadian law states that it IS legal to download MP3s for your own personal use. No more then 5 people can listen to that song at the same time other wise you will need a licence.
Now please start thinking strongly about this. Do you really think they will knock on your door to go and check if more then 5 people are listening to an mp3 that you are playing? no
think they will check your CD and see how it's encripted and such when listening to a song on a bus? no
They would much rather go for a wedding DJ making 400-700$ a night. That's where it will be worth their money. Not a bedroom DJ who isn't making any money.
this law is built mostly to make sure that DJs making money from artists ARE paying the artists. As stupid as it maybe that WE are promoting these artists and making them stars they still want us to give them cash. That's all this licence does, I know some DJs that don't have these licences although if they get caught playing a burned CD they can get their music seized and that would surely ruin their business as well as the night in question.
As far as the organization goes I'm for it although How would we go about each country? Each country has their own laws which either allows entirely, allows with a licence, or allows encoding but now broadcasting and finally doesn't allow encoding at all nor broadcasting of encoded or copied music.
Best Regards
DJ White Devil
Posted Wed 21 Dec 05 @ 2:41 pm
DJ Raz
@DJ_whiteDVL
"Would you keep producing cds if people pirated your shit? "
Dude, it works like this.
If you're not known as an artist, you make nothing off of CD sales.
Even if the CDs sell, you make nothing because since you were not known you got a completely one-sided record deal where the suits make all the cash.
The only people that make money off of CD sales are the superstars, that only became superstars because of us.
And they make at least 9872 times more money off of merchandising (t-shirts, claendars, etc...), live gigs, and advertising deals (britney spears has a 400 million dollar contract with Pepsi...)
So yeah, if I were producing songs, I'd wish for people to pirate my stuff.
It's the best way for me to get known.
I wouldn't be forcing DJs to pay for both my music and for the right to play it.
I'd just be happy if they did.
And eitherway, all this is moot.
The tax is for the right to play music that we've already pruchased.
Anyone who pays that tax is hurting DJs all over the world, and making us into bigger doormats than we already are.
It's time to cut the crap and start standing up for ourselves.
"Would you keep producing cds if people pirated your shit? "
Dude, it works like this.
If you're not known as an artist, you make nothing off of CD sales.
Even if the CDs sell, you make nothing because since you were not known you got a completely one-sided record deal where the suits make all the cash.
The only people that make money off of CD sales are the superstars, that only became superstars because of us.
And they make at least 9872 times more money off of merchandising (t-shirts, claendars, etc...), live gigs, and advertising deals (britney spears has a 400 million dollar contract with Pepsi...)
So yeah, if I were producing songs, I'd wish for people to pirate my stuff.
It's the best way for me to get known.
I wouldn't be forcing DJs to pay for both my music and for the right to play it.
I'd just be happy if they did.
And eitherway, all this is moot.
The tax is for the right to play music that we've already pruchased.
Anyone who pays that tax is hurting DJs all over the world, and making us into bigger doormats than we already are.
It's time to cut the crap and start standing up for ourselves.
Posted Wed 21 Dec 05 @ 9:44 pm
PCGumshoe
So many of you are OFF topic... THIS IS NOT A LAW... this is a LICENSE to protect you from the laws in your country....
The laws in your country, so I understand them, do NOT allow you to play "burned" "downloaded" or other copies of songs that you don't play from an ORIGINALLY Licensed PROMOTIONAL copy of a CD.
Here are the facts for your country and mine (Do I agree with them, no).
If you go into your local CD/DVD retail store and buy a DVD/CD, you buy it for PRIVATE viewing. In fact, there should be some disclaimer at the beginning that says, "FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY, NOT FOR PUBLIC DISPLAY..." etc.
As DJs, you are a force that has an influence on what the public buys. Consequently, you can receive PROMOTIONAL material that the normal JOE BLOW can't. In the LP days, you could get a lot of this for free or a monthly subscription. You needed to prove you were a DJ, but after that, you'd get whatever you wanted and you would pick what you liked, play it and hopefully people would hear it and say, "Gee, Mr. DJ, what's that RECORD PLAYING..." and you'd tell them, and they'd go out and buy it....
Things haven't changed much, except that NOW we, as DJs, PAY for this service and usually on a monthly subscription and THEY pick what comes on the CDs because the industry has more control.
Unless you are dealing with an INDEPENDENT artist, you are required to have PUBLICALLY LICENSED music in order to EARN a living playing it... if you do NOT make money playing the music, then you are pretty much okay... however, if you earn ONE DRINK and play it publically, that is either someone has to pay to get in, or pay for something to enjoy what it is you are playing, then chances are YOU NEED A LICENSE.
In YOUR counrty, as I understand it, you cannot play "BURNED" copies of ANYTHING... NOT EVEN THE PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL. This license (or tax if you want to call it that) permits you to play "BURNED" material... perhaps even DOWNLOADED material LEGALLY.
In the US, we have ASCAP, BMI and a few other licenses that the establishment is required to pay. These licenses cover material for the intended audience... basically, if the bar has a capacity of 200 people, the license is designed to cover a performance for 200 people for 365 days a year. By further example, I owned a bar in Seattle that had a capacity of 175 people and my ASCAP license (to play material that is covered by ASCAP) was just over $1200 a year. This meant that any music played in my establishment between the hours of my reported operation and my reported legal capacity (even if performed by a live band, and yes, if you are in a band, you still have to pay to use someone elses material) was licensed to be played and the artist received a fee for each song performed. This fee is forumlated to pay each artist even if their song is not played.
Now, should we play burned material here, there is a legal snafu where is it licensed for public performance or not... stop for a moment and remove just simple audio... let's talk movies. If I were to play a movie in a club, and I charged a cover, and you wrote, starred in, and directed the movie, would you think that you got your percentage of the $8 to go the the movie theatre and watch it? No... however, if my establishment licensed the rights to show the movie so that you (as the artist) got your percentage of the $8 viewing fee per my setting capicity, then you'd be okay with that and I'd be in compliance.
This tax legitimizes YOUR performance of NON-LICENSED tracks... if you have a vendor like PROMO only who says, "Yes, you can use MP3 Versions of our CDs" then you would NOT need to have a special license to play a burned copy... however, if the company that produces your PROMOTIONAL CDs does NOT grant you this license, you need to be covered, this tax does that. Assumingly, it also covers any music you download and burn from NON PUBLIC PERFORMANCE LICENSED material.
If you don't understand the difference between PUBLIC LICENSED material and material for your private viewing/listening, then YOU should not be a DJ...
And BTW, Who The F**K is Tiesto???!!! I guarantee you that HE has payed a licensing fee to have the music he/she turns out REISSUED with his VERSIONS of the mix...
Anyway, if you don't understand... you have NOT been in the industry long enough OR you will always try to screw REAL artist and you deserve to have anything taken away from you for taking away from them.
The laws in your country, so I understand them, do NOT allow you to play "burned" "downloaded" or other copies of songs that you don't play from an ORIGINALLY Licensed PROMOTIONAL copy of a CD.
Here are the facts for your country and mine (Do I agree with them, no).
If you go into your local CD/DVD retail store and buy a DVD/CD, you buy it for PRIVATE viewing. In fact, there should be some disclaimer at the beginning that says, "FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY, NOT FOR PUBLIC DISPLAY..." etc.
As DJs, you are a force that has an influence on what the public buys. Consequently, you can receive PROMOTIONAL material that the normal JOE BLOW can't. In the LP days, you could get a lot of this for free or a monthly subscription. You needed to prove you were a DJ, but after that, you'd get whatever you wanted and you would pick what you liked, play it and hopefully people would hear it and say, "Gee, Mr. DJ, what's that RECORD PLAYING..." and you'd tell them, and they'd go out and buy it....
Things haven't changed much, except that NOW we, as DJs, PAY for this service and usually on a monthly subscription and THEY pick what comes on the CDs because the industry has more control.
Unless you are dealing with an INDEPENDENT artist, you are required to have PUBLICALLY LICENSED music in order to EARN a living playing it... if you do NOT make money playing the music, then you are pretty much okay... however, if you earn ONE DRINK and play it publically, that is either someone has to pay to get in, or pay for something to enjoy what it is you are playing, then chances are YOU NEED A LICENSE.
In YOUR counrty, as I understand it, you cannot play "BURNED" copies of ANYTHING... NOT EVEN THE PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL. This license (or tax if you want to call it that) permits you to play "BURNED" material... perhaps even DOWNLOADED material LEGALLY.
In the US, we have ASCAP, BMI and a few other licenses that the establishment is required to pay. These licenses cover material for the intended audience... basically, if the bar has a capacity of 200 people, the license is designed to cover a performance for 200 people for 365 days a year. By further example, I owned a bar in Seattle that had a capacity of 175 people and my ASCAP license (to play material that is covered by ASCAP) was just over $1200 a year. This meant that any music played in my establishment between the hours of my reported operation and my reported legal capacity (even if performed by a live band, and yes, if you are in a band, you still have to pay to use someone elses material) was licensed to be played and the artist received a fee for each song performed. This fee is forumlated to pay each artist even if their song is not played.
Now, should we play burned material here, there is a legal snafu where is it licensed for public performance or not... stop for a moment and remove just simple audio... let's talk movies. If I were to play a movie in a club, and I charged a cover, and you wrote, starred in, and directed the movie, would you think that you got your percentage of the $8 to go the the movie theatre and watch it? No... however, if my establishment licensed the rights to show the movie so that you (as the artist) got your percentage of the $8 viewing fee per my setting capicity, then you'd be okay with that and I'd be in compliance.
This tax legitimizes YOUR performance of NON-LICENSED tracks... if you have a vendor like PROMO only who says, "Yes, you can use MP3 Versions of our CDs" then you would NOT need to have a special license to play a burned copy... however, if the company that produces your PROMOTIONAL CDs does NOT grant you this license, you need to be covered, this tax does that. Assumingly, it also covers any music you download and burn from NON PUBLIC PERFORMANCE LICENSED material.
If you don't understand the difference between PUBLIC LICENSED material and material for your private viewing/listening, then YOU should not be a DJ...
And BTW, Who The F**K is Tiesto???!!! I guarantee you that HE has payed a licensing fee to have the music he/she turns out REISSUED with his VERSIONS of the mix...
Anyway, if you don't understand... you have NOT been in the industry long enough OR you will always try to screw REAL artist and you deserve to have anything taken away from you for taking away from them.
Posted Thu 22 Dec 05 @ 6:35 am
dj seany69
I personaly believe that we as Dj should not have to pay some super tax, primarily becuase the music industry rely on Djs to 'advertise' their music. If i hear a song i like while at a party etc, i would most often go and buy that cd or single.
A lot of you have some good points, and even though this tax doesn't effect Australia (as far as i know), if it goes well in the country it is being started in, why wouldn't companies in other countries say "well if we can make a huge profit by selling them the music, and then charging them to use it, why not?" and so it would spread.
Im all for getting some sort of internation group together so that WE don' get screwed by the music industry. Perhaps we should ask other dj software groups, someone who uses traktor or similar could discuss it in the forum, see what we can organise.
Becuase most other things have national and/or international groups.. for example i do pistol shooting, i am a member of my local gun club, and i am a member of Sporting Shooters Asocitation of Australia (SSAA). which not only represents the needs of shooters across Australia, but it also protects us from the government creating laws which would cripple the sport.
I know that shooting is not exactly the same as DJing, but we are bound by numerous laws and by laws, just like DJing.
btw Tiesto is a trance(?) Dj who is currently ranked #2 on some charts (2nd to Paul Van Dyk) and 1st on others, with Pual Van Dyk second. though i believe PVD is a better dj by far, PVD all the way!! ;)
Sean
A lot of you have some good points, and even though this tax doesn't effect Australia (as far as i know), if it goes well in the country it is being started in, why wouldn't companies in other countries say "well if we can make a huge profit by selling them the music, and then charging them to use it, why not?" and so it would spread.
Im all for getting some sort of internation group together so that WE don' get screwed by the music industry. Perhaps we should ask other dj software groups, someone who uses traktor or similar could discuss it in the forum, see what we can organise.
Becuase most other things have national and/or international groups.. for example i do pistol shooting, i am a member of my local gun club, and i am a member of Sporting Shooters Asocitation of Australia (SSAA). which not only represents the needs of shooters across Australia, but it also protects us from the government creating laws which would cripple the sport.
I know that shooting is not exactly the same as DJing, but we are bound by numerous laws and by laws, just like DJing.
btw Tiesto is a trance(?) Dj who is currently ranked #2 on some charts (2nd to Paul Van Dyk) and 1st on others, with Pual Van Dyk second. though i believe PVD is a better dj by far, PVD all the way!! ;)
Sean
Posted Thu 22 Dec 05 @ 10:23 am
steve_djdawson
hehe, I just took a look on the PPL site, and um.. anyone who can afford their 200 pound, plus VAT, so its now just gone £235 at the same time as christmas, then its a bonus for them, since.. for some unbeknown reason, their gunna start charging a "50% Surcharge" after 1 January 2006 (in certain circumstances, whatever they may be), so working that out, it will then be £352! to be honest, I feel thats a little on the expensive side......
I'm not against any of this idea really, it's just a bit expensive.. :)
I'm not against any of this idea really, it's just a bit expensive.. :)
Posted Thu 22 Dec 05 @ 6:41 pm
Pionara
Wow man, heavy discussions going on here. I would like to say a couple of minor things. Firstly, @DJ Raz...
I was very surprised to hear that you would be quite happy for someone to pirate your material if it was a way of getting you heard in the industry. Ok, let's say you produce an excellent track that you decide to launch as a debut 'single'.
So, you've already spent countless hours in your studio at home mixing, patching, producing, making the music. Now, this is COUNTLESS hours. I did this in a proper big fancy studio once and it took about 20 hours to get 1 cd of 4 tracks made. It cost me I think about 6 pounds (about €8.72, $11.45 (usd), $12.16 (cad) - you get the idea!) per hour so straight away, you have spent £120 (i'm sure you can work out the maths!).
On top of that, you have the price of the cd itself. Let's say £1. Then, you want to distribute this new cd to 10 music stores up and down the country. Ok, how many cd's do you provide each location for your first single? Hmmm...let's say 100.
So, 100 x £1 = £100 x 10 shops = £1000 (Again, you can do the maths!)
You sell your singles for £3 each. You're due to make £3000 for your first single. You EXPECT to make £3000 if you sell them all.
So let's say that you sell ONE cd. You make £3. After paying any outstanding dues to whoever, you're left with say, £1.75. One person, however, has bought your cd. They put that cd on their computer and share it among other users. Let's say 500 people download your single from the buyer's computer. 501 people now have your song, but you've only made £3!!! 501 people have your great work, that cost you alot of money to make, press and distribute and all you have is a measly £1.75 to show for it. While they think you're material is the best thing they've ever heard doesn't mean anything. Countless hours of grafting on your part with nothing to show for it. I put it to you, my friend, that you would rather not have people downloading your material from the net (or wherever) and I would challenge anyone on this forum who disagrees with that.
It's very easy to simply download music from the net. It's (potentially) free, fast and very easy to get your hands on almost anything. But you think about the big artists who make a load of money. They make a load of money because they are (generally) good at what they do. At the end of the day, if you are good at your job, you get paid a salary based on your performance. If you're good at it, the chances are you'll get paid more and it's the same all over the world. The better you are, the more you get rewarded for it. As for merchandising, yeah, true, but that's the job. It's all relative.
I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but at the end of the day, I'm going to have to go and buy a licence whether I want to or not. There's not a lot I can do about it. Most of us here make money playing other people's songs. Some stuff we've downloaded, some we've bought. At the end of the day, if there were 501 people playing your song, when only 1 person paid for it after all the work you had done producing your first masterpiece, how would you feel? You'd probably feel like alot of these big artists who lost money when this whole downloading MP3's thing started.
You'd no doubt be happy that your material was being listened to, but how are you going to pay for your next release when you've not made any profit from the first to pay for it?
Just a thought...:o)
P
I was very surprised to hear that you would be quite happy for someone to pirate your material if it was a way of getting you heard in the industry. Ok, let's say you produce an excellent track that you decide to launch as a debut 'single'.
So, you've already spent countless hours in your studio at home mixing, patching, producing, making the music. Now, this is COUNTLESS hours. I did this in a proper big fancy studio once and it took about 20 hours to get 1 cd of 4 tracks made. It cost me I think about 6 pounds (about €8.72, $11.45 (usd), $12.16 (cad) - you get the idea!) per hour so straight away, you have spent £120 (i'm sure you can work out the maths!).
On top of that, you have the price of the cd itself. Let's say £1. Then, you want to distribute this new cd to 10 music stores up and down the country. Ok, how many cd's do you provide each location for your first single? Hmmm...let's say 100.
So, 100 x £1 = £100 x 10 shops = £1000 (Again, you can do the maths!)
You sell your singles for £3 each. You're due to make £3000 for your first single. You EXPECT to make £3000 if you sell them all.
So let's say that you sell ONE cd. You make £3. After paying any outstanding dues to whoever, you're left with say, £1.75. One person, however, has bought your cd. They put that cd on their computer and share it among other users. Let's say 500 people download your single from the buyer's computer. 501 people now have your song, but you've only made £3!!! 501 people have your great work, that cost you alot of money to make, press and distribute and all you have is a measly £1.75 to show for it. While they think you're material is the best thing they've ever heard doesn't mean anything. Countless hours of grafting on your part with nothing to show for it. I put it to you, my friend, that you would rather not have people downloading your material from the net (or wherever) and I would challenge anyone on this forum who disagrees with that.
It's very easy to simply download music from the net. It's (potentially) free, fast and very easy to get your hands on almost anything. But you think about the big artists who make a load of money. They make a load of money because they are (generally) good at what they do. At the end of the day, if you are good at your job, you get paid a salary based on your performance. If you're good at it, the chances are you'll get paid more and it's the same all over the world. The better you are, the more you get rewarded for it. As for merchandising, yeah, true, but that's the job. It's all relative.
I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but at the end of the day, I'm going to have to go and buy a licence whether I want to or not. There's not a lot I can do about it. Most of us here make money playing other people's songs. Some stuff we've downloaded, some we've bought. At the end of the day, if there were 501 people playing your song, when only 1 person paid for it after all the work you had done producing your first masterpiece, how would you feel? You'd probably feel like alot of these big artists who lost money when this whole downloading MP3's thing started.
You'd no doubt be happy that your material was being listened to, but how are you going to pay for your next release when you've not made any profit from the first to pay for it?
Just a thought...:o)
P
Posted Thu 22 Dec 05 @ 7:06 pm
DJ Raz
@pionara
If 500 people pirate your song and you only make 1$ out of it, you still have 500 new fans.
And if your stuff was any good to begin with, these 500 will become 5000, and these 5000 will become 10000, etc...
So you're out a few hundred bucks for producing your first song.
So what?
You now have a massive fan base.
You'll make lots of money off of live gigs, merchandising and advertising deals.
Look at Linux.
It's 100% FREE and you can even copy their code.
Do you think the people that created it are currently poor and begging for money, or do you think they arer pretty well off?
Sure, a good part of the artists who make the big bucks are very taleneted.
But they are only making the big bucks because they are known.
They got known because off a massive marketing effort behind them.
This marketing effort was either some major label spending tons of cash for radio stations and mtv to play their songs or it was DJs all over the world playing their songs.
You can make the greatest song in the world, but if no one ever hears it, then its all pretty pointless.
They need us to get known, and they want us to pay for the right to help them get known.
Wake up guys.
If 500 people pirate your song and you only make 1$ out of it, you still have 500 new fans.
And if your stuff was any good to begin with, these 500 will become 5000, and these 5000 will become 10000, etc...
So you're out a few hundred bucks for producing your first song.
So what?
You now have a massive fan base.
You'll make lots of money off of live gigs, merchandising and advertising deals.
Look at Linux.
It's 100% FREE and you can even copy their code.
Do you think the people that created it are currently poor and begging for money, or do you think they arer pretty well off?
Sure, a good part of the artists who make the big bucks are very taleneted.
But they are only making the big bucks because they are known.
They got known because off a massive marketing effort behind them.
This marketing effort was either some major label spending tons of cash for radio stations and mtv to play their songs or it was DJs all over the world playing their songs.
You can make the greatest song in the world, but if no one ever hears it, then its all pretty pointless.
They need us to get known, and they want us to pay for the right to help them get known.
Wake up guys.
Posted Thu 22 Dec 05 @ 10:23 pm
whoa this looks like a trial in a courtroom with laywers and no judges personally i think this is a stupid idea but whats the point in arguing about it to ourselves when we know that its not going to solve anything...
if someone is going to stand up they have to stand up to the people who made this super tax..
and there should be a group of us stepping up or something...
the djs who buy this licence are just following the rules although they dont like it either and its getting expensive they follow the rules but they make more money than tax they pay but they still dont like the tax and think that its wrong...
if someone is going to stand up they have to stand up to the people who made this super tax..
and there should be a group of us stepping up or something...
the djs who buy this licence are just following the rules although they dont like it either and its getting expensive they follow the rules but they make more money than tax they pay but they still dont like the tax and think that its wrong...
Posted Fri 23 Dec 05 @ 12:32 am
PCGumshoe
I'd say an organization to rally our to causes and defend our postion would be great... I'd spend my first X amount of dollars to support that group, and then if I had any left overrather spend X amount of dollars to support THAT group, then if I had anything left over after buying new music, paying for my high speed internet ( ;-) ) then I'd pay a TAX or Licensing fee...
Who knows where this will lead.
P.S. Maybe this post (or where the original poster got this) was to "test the waters" to see how we would react.
Who knows where this will lead.
P.S. Maybe this post (or where the original poster got this) was to "test the waters" to see how we would react.
Posted Fri 23 Dec 05 @ 8:44 am