bagpuss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4609378.stm
some relevent news, especially to those of you in the UK.
More BBC: "From disc jockey to digital jockey"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4637575.stm
some relevent news, especially to those of you in the UK.
More BBC: "From disc jockey to digital jockey"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4637575.stm
Posted Sat 14 Jan 06 @ 3:41 am
djsalim
plyz i need help how do u get the full version of virtualdj
Posted Sat 14 Jan 06 @ 9:55 am
NikkiN16
@ Djsalim. You go here http://www.virtualdj.com/purchase/
Posted Sat 14 Jan 06 @ 10:48 am
Real_DJFunGus
lol makes me laugh, how everynow and then we see a comment like that about getting the full version, in some random post, that has nothing to do with the topic. lol
Posted Sat 14 Jan 06 @ 9:02 pm
mp3jrick
LOL
Back on track here, i'd love to see them pull their head out of their ass in the usa on this issue.
It's to the point of reports of djs being turned away from clients at venues and private use at venues because of the format problems and the hype/parnoia BS.
I also know that with the new trend towards mpeg copy being issued to djvj's it is watermarked with your name, so if it turns up anywhere it shouldn't you are dead meat dryin' in the sun.
These should be some fine looking videos that are compressed to 60mb, yes 1/3 of the size of mpeg2/vobs.
It's a long long road to unwravel the mess that grew to fast for it's own good.
I would favor licencing, this would lend clout and legitimacy to the legal guys who pay for their music and grant some security to the venues who's licences are at stake, and keep the riaa off our back which for a multi op is huge.
Back on track here, i'd love to see them pull their head out of their ass in the usa on this issue.
It's to the point of reports of djs being turned away from clients at venues and private use at venues because of the format problems and the hype/parnoia BS.
I also know that with the new trend towards mpeg copy being issued to djvj's it is watermarked with your name, so if it turns up anywhere it shouldn't you are dead meat dryin' in the sun.
These should be some fine looking videos that are compressed to 60mb, yes 1/3 of the size of mpeg2/vobs.
It's a long long road to unwravel the mess that grew to fast for it's own good.
I would favor licencing, this would lend clout and legitimacy to the legal guys who pay for their music and grant some security to the venues who's licences are at stake, and keep the riaa off our back which for a multi op is huge.
Posted Sat 14 Jan 06 @ 9:33 pm
terrykemp
I’m struggling not to swear here im so annoyed of this stealth tax, £200 is not a lot of money to pay however it is purely principle of this. I Purchase a CD or vinyl then record the track to my hard disk. All of a sudden I get a digital media tax !! they are taking the p**s ! CD’s are in fact digital media to start with ! So im allowed to play the cd or vinyl I purchased but not the copy of it, The outrageous cost of the PRS takes care of the ‘rights’ side of broadcasting in public so why is a laptop/PC any different! Come on most modern day CD players will play MP3 cd’s so are they covered? I think not, Yet it’s the same thing. In my view some government idiot has decided that anyone who can afford a laptop can afford £200 for . . . well nothing, WAKE UP 2* techniques SL1210’s cost more than a laptop nowadays.
Is this tax to ensure illegal copies are paid for in some strange way? I am aware of copyright law. If this is some half assed way of clawing back costs for illegal file sharing then deal with it direct not stealth tax it on laptop users assuming they are illegal.
If the copy is the problem does that mean any IPOD user should be fine on the spot for copying there own cd’s to there IPOD.
I strongly agree that all music should be paid for, I strongly disagree with the fact that you paid for music that can’t be played in a digital (yes I know cd’s are digital but some how exempt) format on a laptop.
Am I on my own here or does anybody else think this a pathetic attempt of raising more revenue?
Is this tax to ensure illegal copies are paid for in some strange way? I am aware of copyright law. If this is some half assed way of clawing back costs for illegal file sharing then deal with it direct not stealth tax it on laptop users assuming they are illegal.
If the copy is the problem does that mean any IPOD user should be fine on the spot for copying there own cd’s to there IPOD.
I strongly agree that all music should be paid for, I strongly disagree with the fact that you paid for music that can’t be played in a digital (yes I know cd’s are digital but some how exempt) format on a laptop.
Am I on my own here or does anybody else think this a pathetic attempt of raising more revenue?
Posted Sun 15 Jan 06 @ 12:14 am
bagpuss
The problem 'the powers that be' are having is thus:
CD's that are copied and played through a CD player is illegal at a nightclub, and this hasn't been covered in the tax. home made CD's are very easy to spot from originals, and most venue owners accept have the policy that only originals are owned. If you were playing copies you'd be in trouble if you were caught, and could only get away with it if you could prove you own each of these tracks (having receipts or originals at home), however, this is very rare as it's prevented in 1) the law, 2)the venue managers, so rarely should it need to go beyond this, it doesn't happen.
The laptop/software however is different, it has been made legal to use but only when this license is bought (UK), the reason they have opted for this is because it's not easy for a club owner/manager/on looker to see how many songs the DJ has, and more so it is impossible to conclude whether the material has been paid for, if it's been extracted from an original CD source, or if each track has been paid per download. In this case the material has been bought, if the material came from illegal sources then it would be illegal...., but copying CD's is a bit different, because you are literally duplicating something, mp3 is an alternative and opens up many 'advantages' so can be justified better.
What has been concluded is that the vast majority of DJ's (that use laptops) actually buy part of there music and illegally download part, making them semi legal//semi illegal.., the industry recognises the issue of all these varying factors, and how they can not be calculated on an individual bases and more so how they can NOT be prevented...
The license right now is something for those with too much money to buy and brag about, but I think that within 1/2 years this will be in law and a 'standard', it will for sure have a negative impact on Laptop DJ's and professional software sales too some extent (for those countries which choose simular laws), the extra annual cost will put many off except for the higher level DJ's, making this technology even more exclusive, on a personal note I'm not ready to spend £200 per year for a license which means I lose the advantage of the cheaper mp3 (paid for), you are indeed paying for those that use illegal files, I'd call this law a TAX, much like how the moderate alcohol consumer is paying a 'TAX' for those that end up in hospital every night getting expensive health care, the abusers (mostly).
That is my conclusion, when this law is enforced I hope I'm comfortable enough (in the DJ world) to pay for such a luxury TAX, in fact this tax encourages me to illegally download in a sense, for the reasons I specified, because the word I've received on the license is this "It doesn't matter where the hell you get the files from, it matters you own this license when using them".., they are almost saying have your music for free all year then give us £200 at the end of it to compensate.., of course this is not literally what they are saying, they want people to buy the license and buy their tunes, and the licence fee is very much to pay back the deficit the abusers cause.., abused further and the licence fee will increase (just like alcohol TAX).
A bit off topic and going out on a limb to say:
Illegal sharing is not as damaging to artists/record companies as some might think, there is factual data that suggests this to a degree has a positive knock on effect, and the good/bad it does cancels it's self out to some degree, making the problem smaller than what many of us think. The vast wealth shown on MTV is proof of this.
CD's that are copied and played through a CD player is illegal at a nightclub, and this hasn't been covered in the tax. home made CD's are very easy to spot from originals, and most venue owners accept have the policy that only originals are owned. If you were playing copies you'd be in trouble if you were caught, and could only get away with it if you could prove you own each of these tracks (having receipts or originals at home), however, this is very rare as it's prevented in 1) the law, 2)the venue managers, so rarely should it need to go beyond this, it doesn't happen.
The laptop/software however is different, it has been made legal to use but only when this license is bought (UK), the reason they have opted for this is because it's not easy for a club owner/manager/on looker to see how many songs the DJ has, and more so it is impossible to conclude whether the material has been paid for, if it's been extracted from an original CD source, or if each track has been paid per download. In this case the material has been bought, if the material came from illegal sources then it would be illegal...., but copying CD's is a bit different, because you are literally duplicating something, mp3 is an alternative and opens up many 'advantages' so can be justified better.
What has been concluded is that the vast majority of DJ's (that use laptops) actually buy part of there music and illegally download part, making them semi legal//semi illegal.., the industry recognises the issue of all these varying factors, and how they can not be calculated on an individual bases and more so how they can NOT be prevented...
The license right now is something for those with too much money to buy and brag about, but I think that within 1/2 years this will be in law and a 'standard', it will for sure have a negative impact on Laptop DJ's and professional software sales too some extent (for those countries which choose simular laws), the extra annual cost will put many off except for the higher level DJ's, making this technology even more exclusive, on a personal note I'm not ready to spend £200 per year for a license which means I lose the advantage of the cheaper mp3 (paid for), you are indeed paying for those that use illegal files, I'd call this law a TAX, much like how the moderate alcohol consumer is paying a 'TAX' for those that end up in hospital every night getting expensive health care, the abusers (mostly).
That is my conclusion, when this law is enforced I hope I'm comfortable enough (in the DJ world) to pay for such a luxury TAX, in fact this tax encourages me to illegally download in a sense, for the reasons I specified, because the word I've received on the license is this "It doesn't matter where the hell you get the files from, it matters you own this license when using them".., they are almost saying have your music for free all year then give us £200 at the end of it to compensate.., of course this is not literally what they are saying, they want people to buy the license and buy their tunes, and the licence fee is very much to pay back the deficit the abusers cause.., abused further and the licence fee will increase (just like alcohol TAX).
A bit off topic and going out on a limb to say:
Illegal sharing is not as damaging to artists/record companies as some might think, there is factual data that suggests this to a degree has a positive knock on effect, and the good/bad it does cancels it's self out to some degree, making the problem smaller than what many of us think. The vast wealth shown on MTV is proof of this.
Posted Sun 15 Jan 06 @ 7:02 am
lopez453
I download a lot of music from the net. It's purpose is for me to preview what is all about. It's not so many shops around here. And in hypermarkets like Tesco, carrefour, kaufland, metro.... I cannot listen to CD's. They are sealed. But actually i don't use this music to gig, just for my personal purpose.
Must agree with Bagpuss:
I downloaded the latest album of black eyed peas. And the decided, I'm gonna buy it's all cool.
I have some CD compilations with B. E. Peas that i spin, but if I did not download hole album and enjoyed It i've never considered buying it. In many cases there are 3 good songs on album and other are just "fillers" to have the album. So from this point of view, file sharing helps selling the music, when the users are not abusing it.
Must agree with Bagpuss:
I downloaded the latest album of black eyed peas. And the decided, I'm gonna buy it's all cool.
I have some CD compilations with B. E. Peas that i spin, but if I did not download hole album and enjoyed It i've never considered buying it. In many cases there are 3 good songs on album and other are just "fillers" to have the album. So from this point of view, file sharing helps selling the music, when the users are not abusing it.
Posted Sun 15 Jan 06 @ 1:20 pm
bagpuss
Months later and this Digital DJ 'Licence' is getting closer to home, for the first time ever I was actually asked if I had A Licence, which I don't currently.
The overall cost of the UK Annual Digital DJ Licence is £250!, Around the cost of three TV licences,
I'll tell you now I don't fancy laying out this cash, it's money that could go towards building up my Music collection or towards DJ toys, putting money into the industry the legit way rather than this crime of a Licence.
I'm all for preventing Music piracy, but I see this licence as A way of collectively punishing all those who choose to use a Laptop/Computer as part of their set-up. Simply because using a Computer is the most expensive means of DJ'ing, that is when combined with regular DJ hardware (which we mostly do), and of course if you purchase your music legitimately. This is aimed at professional DJ's who download their music illegally whilst punishing all those above board.
Do any of you guys own A DJ Licence?, if so what information was supplied with it?, and for those of you that don't.., how are the new laws affecting you? (where ever you may be from)
The overall cost of the UK Annual Digital DJ Licence is £250!, Around the cost of three TV licences,
I'll tell you now I don't fancy laying out this cash, it's money that could go towards building up my Music collection or towards DJ toys, putting money into the industry the legit way rather than this crime of a Licence.
I'm all for preventing Music piracy, but I see this licence as A way of collectively punishing all those who choose to use a Laptop/Computer as part of their set-up. Simply because using a Computer is the most expensive means of DJ'ing, that is when combined with regular DJ hardware (which we mostly do), and of course if you purchase your music legitimately. This is aimed at professional DJ's who download their music illegally whilst punishing all those above board.
Do any of you guys own A DJ Licence?, if so what information was supplied with it?, and for those of you that don't.., how are the new laws affecting you? (where ever you may be from)
Posted Sun 02 Apr 06 @ 12:22 am
sjursjur
This is outrageous stuff! How on earth is this supposed to be a good thing? What is the purpose of punishing DJ's, who actually spend a lot more money on music than the average man (and thus, generate more money for the music industry). It's completely bollocks. It's not worth argumenting cons and pros here, it's just to stupid. You poor UK DJ's have my deepest sympathies.
Posted Sun 02 Apr 06 @ 2:20 am
asymptote
Hi
Nice thread Bagpuss.
I've just read all the comments here and on the BBC link. There appears to be a strong consensus that DJs should not be forced to pay for music they have downloaded and paid for, or also for tracks which they have transferred to computer which they have bought.
One post suggests that DJs should stand together and challenge the legality of this. I'm not sure the license is legal but as small operators we don't have much muscle.
For example, last night I did a set which was all legally downloaded tracks, some of them known to the audience, but a lot new, but nevertheless good stuff. I've bought it - I'm promoting it for free - I'm earning an honest wage. What is wrong with that? Plus which the venues have already paid for licenses.
The real problem which the licensing people should concentrate on is those DJs who just download a load of files from file sharing programs or buy a DVD on Ebay with a load of tracks on.
That is illegal activity and the record companies and PPL are quite justified in chasing them. I've got thousands of vinyl tracks and thousands of CD tracks, all paid for and it's a bit too much to be expected to pay again to use what I have already paid for.l
One DJ on the BBC site said that he would welcome being prosecuted because he would gain from all the publicity and would be likely to get away without any real penalty.
PPL might easily back off if that sort of thing begins to happen and stop lumping legitimate DJs in with the pirates.
Nice thread Bagpuss.
I've just read all the comments here and on the BBC link. There appears to be a strong consensus that DJs should not be forced to pay for music they have downloaded and paid for, or also for tracks which they have transferred to computer which they have bought.
One post suggests that DJs should stand together and challenge the legality of this. I'm not sure the license is legal but as small operators we don't have much muscle.
For example, last night I did a set which was all legally downloaded tracks, some of them known to the audience, but a lot new, but nevertheless good stuff. I've bought it - I'm promoting it for free - I'm earning an honest wage. What is wrong with that? Plus which the venues have already paid for licenses.
The real problem which the licensing people should concentrate on is those DJs who just download a load of files from file sharing programs or buy a DVD on Ebay with a load of tracks on.
That is illegal activity and the record companies and PPL are quite justified in chasing them. I've got thousands of vinyl tracks and thousands of CD tracks, all paid for and it's a bit too much to be expected to pay again to use what I have already paid for.l
One DJ on the BBC site said that he would welcome being prosecuted because he would gain from all the publicity and would be likely to get away without any real penalty.
PPL might easily back off if that sort of thing begins to happen and stop lumping legitimate DJs in with the pirates.
Posted Sun 02 Apr 06 @ 1:24 pm
asymptote
Forgot to say above.
What about playing Napster tracks in VDJ?
Is that legal, if you've paid your napster to go fee?
What about playing Napster tracks in VDJ?
Is that legal, if you've paid your napster to go fee?
Posted Sun 02 Apr 06 @ 7:46 pm
krazyk
Wow, that's crazy (digital license).
I'm in the US and digital is getting more and more common be it with laptops or cdj players. I couldn't concieve paying a fee like that. Everytime I buy a cd i immediately rip it for prosperity because, cd's are such a crappy medium. I've thrown probably half of the stuff I've bought away simply because they've gotten scratched or worn just by sitting in a cd case for years.
I'm in school for a Broadcast Journalism course and soon will have access to probably to one of the largest digital archives of music in the world, for the company I work for, which includes not only songs, but accapellas and instrumentals.
Of course, there are a set of ethics which go along with that, such as not copying music for personal use, etc.
But, it will be awesome nevertheless.
For one, on the Digital License issue: I can't fathom how that works. It sounds like a hoax to me.
You pay 200 bucks to PPL? How do they know what music you have? Do they distribute the royalties to the artists of the music you own and play? Sounds, like it just goes into their pockets. What a rip.
I'm in the US and digital is getting more and more common be it with laptops or cdj players. I couldn't concieve paying a fee like that. Everytime I buy a cd i immediately rip it for prosperity because, cd's are such a crappy medium. I've thrown probably half of the stuff I've bought away simply because they've gotten scratched or worn just by sitting in a cd case for years.
I'm in school for a Broadcast Journalism course and soon will have access to probably to one of the largest digital archives of music in the world, for the company I work for, which includes not only songs, but accapellas and instrumentals.
Of course, there are a set of ethics which go along with that, such as not copying music for personal use, etc.
But, it will be awesome nevertheless.
For one, on the Digital License issue: I can't fathom how that works. It sounds like a hoax to me.
You pay 200 bucks to PPL? How do they know what music you have? Do they distribute the royalties to the artists of the music you own and play? Sounds, like it just goes into their pockets. What a rip.
Posted Sun 02 Apr 06 @ 9:23 pm
djsherz
Take note as well that you are also limited to a maximum of 20,000 tracks - how many of us already have more than this in our collection? And once you've signed up, they know who you are. What's to stop them bumping the price up the following year? And how long will it be before us video users get a video license forced on us?
This new license is badly thought out, impossible to enforce, and totally unfair to DJs. The venue already has a license to play music. I've already bought the cd. This is blatent money-grabbing, re-inforced with scare tactics aimed at djs and venue managers alike. I see Music Factory have teamed up with PPL and are fully supporting it though, i wonder how many jocks will be boycotting them from now on?
This new license is badly thought out, impossible to enforce, and totally unfair to DJs. The venue already has a license to play music. I've already bought the cd. This is blatent money-grabbing, re-inforced with scare tactics aimed at djs and venue managers alike. I see Music Factory have teamed up with PPL and are fully supporting it though, i wonder how many jocks will be boycotting them from now on?
Posted Mon 03 Apr 06 @ 10:29 am
vpcdj
once this bullsh1t comes to the US its gonna take a lot of djs down.
seems european artists dont know how to make the labels money off bootleg music to the point where labels have to resort to that.
here labels benefit from bootlegging and unlicensed music. labels use data from soundscan to sign artists and use that underground data to know whats hot [in hip-hop].
turntables birthed hip-hop and labels should just stay off trying to control everything. hip-hop is rebel music.
they should do that to all other genres of music but hip-hop djs :(
seems european artists dont know how to make the labels money off bootleg music to the point where labels have to resort to that.
here labels benefit from bootlegging and unlicensed music. labels use data from soundscan to sign artists and use that underground data to know whats hot [in hip-hop].
turntables birthed hip-hop and labels should just stay off trying to control everything. hip-hop is rebel music.
they should do that to all other genres of music but hip-hop djs :(
Posted Mon 03 Apr 06 @ 11:15 pm
djsherz
"they should do that to all other genres of music but hip-hop djs :( "
...right.... 'cos THAT would be fair... ???
...right.... 'cos THAT would be fair... ???
Posted Mon 03 Apr 06 @ 11:48 pm
101010101
sounds like the govenment is getting greedy to me, sounds like anotherway to double tax what is already taxed.
is there a way to petition against this law?
is there a way to petition against this law?
Posted Tue 04 Apr 06 @ 12:37 am
djsherz
I guess, but to stand up and be counted also means getting the finger pointed at, I for one certainly couldn't afford the fine if I was caught without the license...
Posted Tue 04 Apr 06 @ 1:22 am
vpcdj
easy. of course that was a joke.
anyway... it will get here in the US and its gonna change things. that i know for sure. they just shouldnt be prinks about it.
i think $300 a year is a fair for a wack dj to pay. but i think the RIAA should be paying the good djs :)
coz there'r alot of wack djs out there taking up space.
vpcdj aka anon aka smack your favorite dj.
anyway... it will get here in the US and its gonna change things. that i know for sure. they just shouldnt be prinks about it.
i think $300 a year is a fair for a wack dj to pay. but i think the RIAA should be paying the good djs :)
coz there'r alot of wack djs out there taking up space.
vpcdj aka anon aka smack your favorite dj.
Posted Tue 04 Apr 06 @ 1:25 am
Rune (DJ-In-Norway)
lol ;)
Posted Tue 04 Apr 06 @ 1:26 am
