The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Since most people on this board are very well schooled in music, i have a question. I am a mobile DJ, that is my only job right now. The question is....As a mobile DJ do I have more rights to download music than the average listener. It is a question i have struggled with for awhile now. I could use the argument that I actually promote the artists therefore I should be entitled to download. It is an interesting question and I would appreciate any comments.

honestly i think you're exactly right... but with all morals aside i think it'd probably still be technically illegal i just don't think you'd get charged with it as likely since you are basically advertising...

but me as a person... unless it's somethin' that blows me away... it's most likely goin' get downloaded anyways... cause i don't have a shitload of money to spend on everyones CDs...

i guess it just depends on what you really claim as wrong...
to me... it's music... and the fact that they are putting limitations on it... is probably right and wrong...
but that's how the record industry make money... the bands themselves make most of there money off of shows... and sales at shows... they don't really make that much off the CDs...

touchy subject... but me personally... i don't care... gotta do what you gotta do...

creep wrote:I could use the argument that I actually promote the artists therefore I should be entitled to download.

Similarly, the artists could use the argument that you deprived them of a sale by not purchasing the disc...

I don't think anyone gets a free pass when it comes to copyright law (other than the silly safe-harbour provisions in the DMCA.) There are licensing agencies that allow you to pay a fee for the restricted use of music in certain situations (like club performances, radio broadcast, etc.). ASCAP and BMI in the U.S. SOCAN, I think, where I live.
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/l ... music.html.

So your moral dilemma here is essentially the same one we all face: to 'steal' or not (where the definition of 'to steal' changes according to our needs and moods.)

creep wrote:I could use the argument that I actually promote the artists therefore I should be entitled to download.

The devil's advocate could claim that since your use of the music could technically be considered a "performance" that a lot of people are going to enjoy, that you are even more bound to paying for it than someone just listening by himself in his dorm room.

You're gonna do what you have to, and I'm certainly not guilt-free, nor am I sure of my stand on the issue, but for me the argument of "advertising and promotion" doesn't hold any water at all.

Qualifier: I am not against downloading music.

However: would you not, in fact, be MORE guilty, as you are making money off of playing this "ill-gotten" music?

I am smart.

i respect all of your points on this matter. The lines in the sand are clearly drawn, either you do or don't. I can't say that i have not done it, but at least i understand when i do it...that i am doing wrong. For the most part, I get my stuff from Promo Only, but every now and then I have to have an emergency song at the last minute. thanks again

What does it mean to be a "mobile DJ?"

Good point Phil...but i could also come back at you with, the artist makes money off of me. I do promote what i play...with artist and album descriptions. Don't these labels pay big money for advertising? So I could also say that i am paying the royalties when i perform by advertising for the label. But i don't fall back on these arguments...it is wrong, i know it.

maybe you should focus on artists that are willing to part with some if not all of their music for free in the hopes of gaining a wider audience.

i see no problem with downloading, playing, promoting artists like that. and we have a big huge archive full of them right here. many of whom are better than alot of the commercial dreck you here on the radio today.

but as far as downloading or P2P sharing of music that the artist would rather not freely distribute, i'd still call that stealing.

uh oh.....here comes Adjuster.....

Generic wrote:What does it mean to be a "mobile DJ?"

the he DJ's mobily

Poor June wrote:

Generic wrote:What does it mean to be a "mobile DJ?"

the he DJ's mobily

Um, creep?

a mobile DJ is someone who takes the party to the crowd in my grocery-getter. Unfortunatley, it also means i pretty much spin mainstream CRAP which i don't particularly like....oh well, it pays the bills.

But if i get too many more requests for Usher...i'm gonna freakin lose it...i'm out

I would have thought that a mobile disco operator would have to pay royalties to the artists/publishers whatever each time they play a track. I often wondered if they did - I guess your question answers that for me.

Anyway - I agree that your "I'm advertising" arguement doesn't hold water. It's like me stealing a guitar and saying and saying "Well, the Martin guitar company is receiving advertising by having one of their instruments played by Caravan Ray, so it's OK".

Caravan Ray wrote:I would have thought that a mobile disco operator would have to pay royalties to the artists/publishers whatever each time they play a track.

Technically, they're supposed to (though it's done through licensing organizations, rather than directly with the publishers.)

I like the way it works in Canada: the onus is on the venue to acquire a 'performing rights licence' from SOCAN, for a fee. SOCAN distributes the fee to its member artists based on random samplings of the licensed organizations. I think it's actually someone's job to visit clubs and note which songs are played. Then SOCAN disburses the collected fees based on how frequently they heard each member's songs.

(I'm a member, and I've never seen a dime. Maybe I should start playing my own songs at gigs, or something.)

It would be great if the USA had a license like SOCAN. If I remember correctly SOCAN lets you make copies of any music, whether you own a copy or not, which means downloading is OK.

I say download away. Sure, you're making money off of it, but you're also promoting the bands. Most bands would probably <i>give</i> you a cd if they met you in person.

deshead wrote:I like the way it works in Canada: the onus is on the venue to acquire a 'performing rights licence' from SOCAN, for a fee. SOCAN distributes the fee to its member artists based on random samplings of the licensed organizations. I think it's actually someone's job to visit clubs and note which songs are played. Then SOCAN disburses the collected fees based on how frequently they heard each member's songs.

Believe that's how it's done on this side of the border as well. Back in my ol' radio days we used to have about one week a year where everyone had to file playlists that got sent to ASCAP; I understand they used those samplings to decide how much money everyone deserved.

Venues (used to, maybe not any more) work along similar lines: either you pay some license fee to ASCAP and BMI or your performers are not allowed to play covers (or recorded music not by them).

mikeaitch wrote:If I remember correctly SOCAN lets you make copies of any music, whether you own a copy or not, which means downloading is OK.

Not just SOCAN: The Canadian government hasn't ratified the WIPO digital media treaties (the same legislation that begat the filthy DMCA). This means Internet file sharing isn't technically illegal in Canada. (It's our dirty little secret.)

[Sorry to get sidetracked, but here's a great article on the Canadian situation: http://p2pnet.net/story/3121. And Cory Doctorow's Save Canada's Internet from WIPO shows why the legislation on both sides of the border is broken. From http://www.digital-copyright.ca/, which is required reading for Canadian musicians who care about their intellectual property.]

creep wrote:But if i get too many more requests for Usher...i'm gonna freakin lose it...i'm out

Man, you're making a living as a DJ and you're complaining? What's this world coming to?

I think that you're less "morally entitled" to download than someone who doesn't use the tracks for financial gain. I download stuff to try it out, and see if I would like it. I also download stuff that there's no way in hell that I'm paying for, like an album with one hit song that I will tire of in a few weeks.

You're making money. Why not pay for the things that are allowing you to make that money?

mikeaitch wrote:It would be great if the USA had a license like SOCAN. If I remember correctly SOCAN lets you make copies of any music, whether you own a copy or not, which means downloading is OK.

SOCAN is a performing rights organization (PRO), so they have no part in the mechanical rights aspect (which is concerned with downloading and/or burning/manufacturing CDs). You pay a fee for the right to perform the music, whether from a recording or live.

In the states it's ASCAP and BMI that manage most of this, and any wedding band of significance pays an annual fee for the right to play anything in their catalogs, similar to how radio stations are covered, though radio is required to submit playlists.

I would chime in on the side of "you a bad law-breaking, man", more so because you make commercial use of it. You are actually making money off the goods. The guilt you feel is genuine. Not that I care much anyways.