Andrew Edwards Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I have a question... Does this stop us from ripping an original CD to be played back via Qlab? Also, How the heck are we supposed to police our clients music source?Receipts from download? The original physical format?A sworn affidavit? Seems to me that the only way to ensure that illegally obtained music is not played is to not play any music at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I don't think you do - you just need to pay whatever is the appropriate payment to the people who require it. In practice, if you pay for the use, the source doesn't really matter - because the payment for use is the most large one. I guess that to be absolutely correct, then there will probably be a fee due for media to media copying, the old dub license. However, I suspect the actual source isn't treated that seriously when it's part of a bigger process. For the big organisations who ingest thousands of tracks and make them available networked then MCPS have a justified interest, but for something like a dance show when tracks appear on MD, CD, ipod, memory stick and god forgive them, even cassette (had one last week, and got the 17 year old newbie to ask the old guy who gave it "what is this?" - he he) - it's a one use copy process - resulting in a much more expensive use fee to PRS/MCPS/PPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Gordon Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Despite being a tort, rather than a criminal activity - breaching copyright is still wrong. It seems it can be criminal in certain circumstances, see this link, but note that the owner of premises would not be liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 That's actually quite important - so I've copied it below. The key features seem to be that if you know the music is not cleared and you use it, you too are guilty of a criminal offence - and that's pretty serious. Criminal liability for copyright infringement Copyright infringement is a civil wrong and where infringement occurs a claim may be brought by the copyright owner or a person who has an exclusive licence to the work through the civil courts. In certain circumstances copyright infringement can amount to a criminal offence as well. I've highlighted sentences that may well cover things we do. Criminal offences relating to copyright infringement Where a person, without the licence of the copyright owner, carries out one of the following acts they commit a criminal offence: makes for sale or hire an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is an infringing copy of a copyright work; imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is an infringing copy of a copyright work; possesses in the course of a business an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is an infringing copy of a copyright work with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright; in the course of a business sells or lets for hire or offers or exposes for sale or hire or exhibits in public or distributes an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is an infringing copy of a copyright work; distributes otherwise than in the course of a business an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is an infringing copy of a copyright work to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright (informally swapping computer games via an enthusiast’s network has been held to amount to such an offence); makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work and which he knows or has reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies for sale or hire or for use in the course of a business; possesses an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work and which he knows or has reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies for sale or hire or for use in the course of a business; communicates copyright work to the public in the course of a business, or otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner where he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work; “causes” the public performance of a literary, dramatic or musical work where he knows or has reason to believe that copyright would be infringed (a person “causes” such a performance only if they perform it themselves or their servants or agents perform it – the owner of premises will not be liable by letting out the premises in which the performance is held); “causes” the playing or showing in public of a sound recording or film where he knows or has reason to believe that copyright would be infringed (simply delivering a film to an exhibitor has held to be insufficient). Where an offence is committed by a company or another type of organisation the directors, managers, secretary or similar officers of the company or organisation or a person who purports to act in one of these capacities also commits a criminal offence if they consented to or connived (knew was what going on but turned a blind eye and did nothing about it) in the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleah Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I have a question... Does this stop us from ripping an original CD to be played back via Qlab?Yes it does. If you rip a CD to Qlab (or anything else) you have made a copy, for which you have to pay for. "rip" is a very recent term which tends to be used to describe the process of copying something, it is none-the-less still copying!How the heck are we supposed to police our clients music source?Receipts from download? The original physical format?A sworn affidavit?Reading Paul's quote, you've answered your own question correctly. Holding the original in your hand is the only absolute guarentee... even then it could be half-inched :o In these days of easily recordable media, digital downloads, the internet (file sharing), copying is so quick and easy and the naive could be forgiven for thinking it is actively encouraged. Back when magnetic tape was the only common recording medium, it was more of a fuss and palava to copy, format shifting only being possible in real-time, we knew it was wrong and one did tend to feel a little guilty when copying a record or pre-recorded cassette even if only for use in the car.... Show of hands from those who have run a theatre or dance show audio from reel to reel?? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boswell Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 show of hands from those who have run a theatre or dance show audio from reel to reel?? :D Still got the kit somewhere including the splicing bits, might be thick with dust and pigeon droppings by now!I'm so old I can't even remember the make or model Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard P-W Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Show of hands from those who have run a theatre or dance show audio from reel to reel?? :D School plays - in mono on a Tandberg machine "borrowed" from the old langauge lab! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamplighter Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Show of hands from those who have run a theatre or dance show audio from reel to reel?? :D 1962 to circa 1990 when I started to veer towards Minidisc. Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbuckley Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I have a question... Does this stop us from ripping an original CD to be played back via Qlab?Yes it does. If you rip a CD to Qlab (or anything else) you have made a copy, for which you have to pay for. Sometimes, that is simply wrong. If you are ordinary bloke with and are sitting at home and copy a CD to your hard disk (or whatever) then yes, you have infringed copyright. That is because the only licence you have to cover the work you are copying is the licence granted to you when you purchased the CD, and that licence says "do not copy". The licence isn't actually for the physical CD, it is for the intellectual property of the composition and for the actual playing and the rendering of that intellectual property, not the bit of plastic that is the CD itself. The licence binds those intellectual rights to the physical media. The licence on the CD also forbids you to play that work to the public. However... if you are in a venue that has a set of music licences then you can make that copy, as you have a different set of licences under which you are working, and the default licence printed on the CD no longer applies. You are licenced to use the intellectual property of the work and the rendering thereof, and thus the media they are on is no longer relevant. And you can play them to the public, under certain specified conditions. Show of hands from those who have run a theatre or dance show audio from reel to reel?? :D Oh yes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Edwards Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 So the actual source of the material is not relevant as has been mentioned before. The licences that allow you to play the intellectual copyright in public also allow you to make a copy (and also therefore edit?) for the purposes of the said public performance. Is anyone able to point me to the specific place that states this is possible? In the PPL licence conditions, it quite clearly states that the licence does not entitle the holder to copy any sound recordings for any purpose (section 2.4). I cannot see anywhere on the PRS about this but as this only covers the music and not the actual recording this is not surprising. MCPS appears to have licences to cover every kind of duplication except for converting mediums for single use. As I see it the recording states no duplication. The venue has two licences (PRS/PPL) that covers the copyright of the recording and its contents allow it to be played in public. Both of these either explicitly deny or make no mention of allowing duplication as it isn't relevant. There is a long list of licences that allow you to dub, make part of a soundtrack or duplicate a recording for the purposes of distributing a physical product or for broadcast (TV, Radio or Internet). They way we interact with music seems to be sitting in a hole within the various licences. They have clearly not kept up with the way that we use technology to make our jobs easier. Perhaps it is not mentioned because it is simply such a big nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelgrian Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 So the actual source of the material is not relevant as has been mentioned before. The licences that allow you to play the intellectual copyright in public also allow you to make a copy (and also therefore edit?) for the purposes of the said public performance. Is anyone able to point me to the specific place that states this is possible? It doesn't allow you to edit unless there is specific permission. The license is on the work as a whole editing it creates a derived work which would have to be specifically cleared with both the mechanical copyright holder and the copyright holder on the work itself. It's such a pain that in film they frequently just use the work and they worry about the copyright clearances afterwards, there's usually an entire person or even a team of people dealing with it. Usually they get all the releases however ever so often things get held up or permission is refused so they have to remove the use of the work or if that's not possible they just can't release their film. In the PPL licence conditions, it quite clearly states that the licence does not entitle the holder to copy any sound recordings for any purpose (section 2.4). True. I cannot see anywhere on the PRS about this but as this only covers the music and not the actual recording this is not surprising. True. MCPS appears to have licences to cover every kind of duplication except for converting mediums for single use. True. The nearest things would be the 'ProDub' license which licenses DJ's to convert CDs in to to digital form or the SG4 exhibition license and the price of that will really make your eyes water. As I see it the recording states no duplication. The venue has two licences (PRS/PPL) that covers the copyright of the recording and its contents allow it to be played in public. Both of these either explicitly deny or make no mention of allowing duplication as it isn't relevant. There is a long list of licences that allow you to dub, make part of a soundtrack or duplicate a recording for the purposes of distributing a physical product or for broadcast (TV, Radio or Internet). True. Technically you need to play all your sound effects or music off the original medium in their entirety with no editing or combining with other media. They way we interact with music seems to be sitting in a hole within the various licences. They have clearly not kept up with the way that we use technology to make our jobs easier. Perhaps it is not mentioned because it is simply such a big nightmare. It's easier if it's just the PRS involved because the music is being performed live (but is not covered by grand rights) or it's being reproduced from the original medium as entry or exit music. The PRS at least have the licenses to cover that. http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/livevenuesevents/theatre/Pages/theatre.aspx However even within the licensing regime it's a nightmare. For example all mass CD duplicators who matter hold agreements with the MCPS. So even if you hold all the relevant copyrights yourself you still can't get your CDs duplicated unless you submit documentation to the MCPS who then submit a No Claim notice back. A similar thing applies to PRS. Everyone carries on regardless and the rights agencies don't press the point because they are getting money and the increase in the amount of money they would get if it was all sorted out and above board wouldn't be worth the hassle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Edwards Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 With all that appears to be true, I still think that it needs a huge overhaul. You can acquire a CD, play track 1 and fade it down at 1m32s. However, if you copy that track onto a computer and edit it to achieve the exact same thing then you are a 'criminal'. There should be a allowance within the both licences that enable you to do this. It is not that big a deal and it could even say that you must delete the material within a certain time after the final performance. It could also stipulate that you cannot edit the track in such a way as to be harmful to the copyright holder. The darn thing has been paid for twice as it is. The copyright holders should be paying us for advertising the track. I have had numerous folks wave up to the control room asking what that song was. </rant> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.