Pledge “djlicense”
"I will refuse to purchase a digital DJ license but only if 100 other working DJs will do the same."
— Christian Mayne, Working DJ (contact)
Deadline to sign up by: 1st May 2006
56 people signed up, 44 more were needed
Country: United Kingdom
More details
The digital DJ license (http://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_lf.nsf/Digi...) is a cynical act of profiteering by the music buiness.
PPL are demanding that DJs pay £200 for an annual license allowing them to play music stored in digital form (laptop or CDr). This includes legally purchased items which are apparently only licensed for "domestic use". Moreover, the license limits how many tracks may be stored in the DJs database to 20,000 (I personally have well in excess of 40,000 tracks - all legally obtained - and I'm not about to start deleting them...).
Nightclubs already pay for a license which allows music to be reproduced on the premises. Therefore, I believe this license is simply an attempt to intimidate hard working DJs into coughing up £200 for a license that is probabably unenforcable and likely worthless.
The music business relys on DJs to give their products exposure. That's why we are sent music free of charge. If all DJs refuse to pay this charge, PPL will have no choice but to drop it or risk harming their clients interests when we are unable to play PPL registered music.
I pledge not to buy this license if 100 other working DJs will agree to do the same.
- volunteer my time and energy to support keeping the branch libraries open for Evanston residents.
- donate $10 to Rep. Jenn Coffey and volunteer at least 5 hours of time to her 2010 re-election
- contribute to the effort, "Give-a-Book: Help a Child Learn,"
- run at least 20 miles each week until April 5th,
See more pledges, and all about how PledgeBank works.
Things to do with this pledge
Comments on this pledge
Current signatories (
= they've done it)
Christian Mayne, the Pledge Creator, joined by:
- Jono Cary
- Katie B
- Paul Lopez
- Ian Forrester
- Sir Arthur Grebe-Streebling
- J Ward
- Rowan Porteous
- Rob Morgan
- Jules woodell
- Amee Edwards
- Bryn J Wright
- Peter Thorp
- Paul Diamond
- Gary White
- Ashton Man
- Gary Powell
- andrew hall
- Al Salzz
- Steve Robinson
- glen hewitt
- Vic Hollingsworth
- John Griffiths
- Andrew Hodkinson
- DEANO CARROLL
- Dr Marrese
- Cassidy P
- James Watson
- Vince Sherring
- alastair thomas
- Dr Jon
- Faze Al
- Trevor R
- Adam Lewis
- Alex C
- Jan
- kev nottingham
- Paul Grimes
- DJ Dash
- Daniel Essex
- Tom Ferny
- dj ravee
- m. booton
- Paul Cook
- Richard Anderson
- Malcolm Wood
- Lawrence Behmer
- Phillip Corner
- 9 people who did not want to give their names
No other industry gets this much support. I would support it if PPL gave all the money raised direct to artists, they do not, less than half finds its way to the artists
Besides... What about open DJ nights and people having a tryout, do they need a license before they have a crack at it.
If the clubs play by the rules I can see many a night cancelled because a DJ forgot or doesn't have a license.
Plus this may cost more to enforce than they will get from it.
Andy Hall
It also legally allows you to back up all your tracks on a second hard drive something which you could never do before legally
The club already has a license which allows the music to be played. The music played in clubs is regularly audited to ensure artist receive payment for the plays.
The license will not allow you to back up all your tracks, it will allow you to back up 20,000 tracks. I edit or remove long intros etc for speed of cueing. This is also not permitted under the license.
And the fact remains that DJs are essential to the record business, which is why we get sent music free of charge by the record industry. Record companies and artist value the free publicity afforded to their products by DJs across the country. I believe that copying a miniscule proportion of a collection onto CD-R for use in a club constitutes fair use. This new license is simply an attempt to intimidate DJs into coughing up based on a grey area in the law. I believe it is also an attempt to test the water before introducing a similar personal license for owners of MP3 players.
The music business should be thoroughly ashamed of itself for such blatant profiteering. Music industry greed is killing music.
How does this affect Radio stations by the way? Most of which have vast libraries of MP3s or DAT tapes? Will there be an attempt to restrict their collection to 20,000 tracks / not edit out swearwords etc?
You misunderstand. Clubs pay performance licences and DJs pay royalties when purchasing tracks, be it on CD, vinyl or digitally. What PPL are trying to do here is screw more money from DJs (Who promote the product) on top of all the charges already paid.
NO OTHER INDUSTRY gets this sort of support, why is the Music biz special. If I leave a newspaper or a book in a cafe, no performance licence, no matter how many people read it, even if the main reason people visit the cafe is to read it but play music, even background music and I must pay what is effectively a tax to private industry.
Worse, PPL is a private company, financed out of these levies, they waste waste much of the money in top heavy management, then distribute much of the remainder to the big 4 labels. Very little goes to the artists.
Whilst I am not (yet?) a DJ, I am however looking to launch an internet radio show (soon hopefully?) - and so I think this latest licensing is lunacy!!
Soon, we'll need licenses for licenses! :O
Who else is fighting this?
Rgeards and good luck.
After all you can only be playing that piece of music once at anyone time no matter what the format!!
can someone help me out here, many of the bars i drink in have all the usual licenses but use a computer based system to play the music without a dj, does this license mean that the many bar staff (and sometimes customers) who are allowed by management to change the order of the playlist will have to fork out £200?
and what about the hundreds of volunteer dj`s for college and hospital radio who also store tracks digitally in the same way as the pledge starter, where they avoid needing a broadcast license by pumping the sound through speakers rather than a radio frequency, will these volunteers also be fleeced by this license?
I have since found out that it doesn't cover me for copying legally obtained music onto cdr's.
This is ridiculous I don't know any dj who takes their original recordings out with them for fear of trashing them, as many of you have said "we have paid for this music once, why should we pay again"
It seems to me that this is another way of extorting money from dj's, when all we are doing is promotiong the music on behalf of the record companies, we play it in the clubs before it comes out in the shops, our customers hear it, if they like it they ask what it is & eventually go out & buy it when it comes out.
Needless to say I won't be buying a digital dj license
However according to the Creative Commons License if I make profit by performing this music I need the artist's permission...but it seems implicit from all the artists' websites when downloading this music that you are encouraged to publically perform this music and they expect no recompense....(correct me if I'm wrong here).
So here is music that is in the mp3 format that is not covered by this new license proposal...
And I assure you that much of this music supasses the fodder found in record shops..
And a very interesting regular DJ set can be maintained that is certainly "underground" and defies this new legislation proposal....
how can that really be so bad. with them gone 200 quid won't be so hard to find as the work load should pick up.
I don't get sacked....my mixing stands out by itself...people are prepared to pay for a DJ who brings in the crowd....the principal of paying for this license gets up my crystaline nose...hee hee