Using music legally

[tpaairman]

Hello all,

I'm looking into starting Djing for weddings and events. My question has to do with usage rights to the music. Here's what little I've found so far, correct me if I'm going wrong here.

From what I've read, under copyright laws, a private performance is any gathering of friends or acquaintances, and that a wedding would fall under this because it's a private event, not charing admission, and by invitation only, etc, etc. I understand that I can't legally use songs from iTunes since their terms of service state no commercial use. But if I get music from places like Promoonly.com, once I've purchased that music, do I need any further rights or licenses?

Micahel

 

[Ausumm]

You used the correct word. You PURCHASED your songs.
That should cover you, unless the area you are in, or the venue you are at, have some sort of law or tax in place.
But I would imagine they would have to let you know about it before hand.
You will find the rest of the burden is on the venue, in paying money to ASCAP and BMI.
But I'm not a lawyer.
Not sure about the "terms of service" for Itunes, I don't use them.

 

[soundinmotiondj]

From what I've read, under copyright laws, a private performance is any gathering of friends or acquaintances, and that a wedding would fall under this because it's a private event, not charing admission, and by invitation only, etc, etc.

Mostly correct. Charging admission is NOT a determining factor of "public" -v- "private." Neither is "invitation only." Many people get tripped up on this.

The relationship between the people attending matters ("a small circle of family or its social acquaintances"). A wedding meets that definition. There are additional stipulations. Live streaming a wedding reception to relatives who can not attend...that crossed the line to being a "public event"...even if there is a password, etc.

A gathering of co-workers is NOT a private event, even if there is no admission charge, and even if the "general public" can not attend, and even if the event is "invitation only." A "club" that is "members only", that holds an event at a "private business" is still a "public performance."

From the ASCAP website http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx:

What is a public performance?
A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances.) A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet. Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or his representative. However, there are a few limited exceptions, (called "exemptions") to this rule. Permission is not required for music played or sung as part of a worship service unless that service is transmitted beyond where it takes place (for example, a radio or television broadcast). Performances as part of face to face teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions are also exempt.​

I understand that I can't legally use songs from iTunes since their terms of service state no commercial use. But if I get music from places like Promoonly.com, once I've purchased that music, do I need any further rights or licenses?

No, in practice.

The "commercial use" license is (only?) available from the "promo" music services that are available. Keep your subscription current (you do NOT purchase that music, you purchase a license...stop paying the subscription and you are *technically* suppose to return all the music), play only this music, and you will have no issues.

RIAA has publicly, on more than one occasion, given a "wink & nod" that if you have purchased all your music from any legal source (e.g. original CD bought a retail, used CD, iTunes, eMusic, etc), and you have a 1:1 relation between what you play and what you have paid for, that it is "not likely" that any legal action will be taken against you. This is probably as close as anyone will ever get to "permission."

 

[steve149]

Mostly correct. Charging admission is NOT a determining factor of "public" -v- "private." Neither is "invitation only." Many people get tripped up on this.

The relationship between the people attending matters ("a small circle of family or its social acquaintances"). A wedding meets that definition. There are additional stipulations. Live streaming a wedding reception to relatives who can not attend...that crossed the line to being a "public event"...even if there is a password, etc.

A gathering of co-workers is NOT a private event, even if there is no admission charge, and even if the "general public" can not attend, and even if the event is "invitation only." A "club" that is "members only", that holds an event at a "private business" is still a "public performance."

From the ASCAP website http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx:

What is a public performance?
A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances.) A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet. Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or his representative. However, there are a few limited exceptions, (called "exemptions") to this rule. Permission is not required for music played or sung as part of a worship service unless that service is transmitted beyond where it takes place (for example, a radio or television broadcast). Performances as part of face to face teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions are also exempt.​

No, in practice.

The "commercial use" license is (only?) available from the "promo" music services that are available. Keep your subscription current (you do NOT purchase that music, you purchase a license...stop paying the subscription and you are *technically* suppose to return all the music), play only this music, and you will have no issues.

RIAA has publicly, on more than one occasion, given a "wink & nod" that if you have purchased all your music from any legal source (e.g. original CD bought a retail, used CD, iTunes, eMusic, etc), and you have a 1:1 relation between what you play and what you have paid for, that it is "not likely" that any legal action will be taken against you. This is probably as close as anyone will ever get to "permission."

Actually a gathering of co-workers can be considered a private event as it could be construed under the definition of "its social acquaintances", but it depends. And if you do "charge" for the event, it will likely considered "public", not private, regardless of the audience.

 

[soundinmotiondj]

Actually a gathering of co-workers can be considered a private event as it could be construed under the definition of "its social acquaintances", but it depends.

It only depends on getting caught.

If the relationship between two people is defined by a common employer, they are not "social acquaintances" for purposes of RIAA...even if all the people are also friends outside of work. If "all" the people attending are co-workers (and plus one's), that IS a "public performance." Keep in mind that the gathering must be a "small circle" of family. The "family & social acquaintances" exception is written for kids birthday parties, weddings, Bar/Bat-mitzvahs, and the like.

If you want to play hypothetical games, be my guest (and by all means, get your lawyer to explain these to you in detail) ...well, what about a family run company, that only employs blood relatives...what about a bunch of co-workers who all met at a singles mixer and decided to form a company after they were friends for five years... Claiming that we are all related to Adam & Eve is also unlikely to get the case dismissed.

And if you do "charge" for the event, it will likely considered "public", not private, regardless of the audience.

A cover charge is a pretty clear indication that the event is "public"....but there can still be exceptions. A family reunion where everyone pays for their own dinner is still a "private event"...even if there is a "per head charge" at the door of the restaurant. The defining characteristic of a private -v- public event really is the relationship of the people who are attending the event, and has little (or nothing) to do with any of the "other" details that seem to come up so frequently.

I am not entirely clear why this is such an issue, the event organizer is on the hook for getting any licenses. A mobile DJ can not even get a "general purpose" license from ASCAP, BPI, or SESAC.

 

[Scott Hanna]

In my opinion,
Assuming you are in the US, any purchases music you use is fine. The venue is responsible for paying any licensing fees. So if you do not own the venue, I wouldn't worry about it.

Buying a song from the local wal-mart, itunes, amazon, or promo only does not change the rights. As convoluted as the record industry is, they are not going to make different rights for different media, or worse, different rights from the same media that's purchased at different places. Some word it a little differently, but they all say generally the same thing. The only difference with promo only is you don't have the right to resell it. You still don't have "commercial rights" to the music....meaning you can't use the song in a commercial or a training or promotional video, for example. You'd still need to obtain proper rights for the individual song you'd like to obtain commercial rights for.

They understand it would be completely impractical to obtain rights for every song played at a venue. They also understand that it would be completely impractical to try to collect money from DJs. So they've created a system that BMI and ASCAP collects money from venues.

 

[Scott Hanna]

The challenge is some people see the word " not for commercial use" on a CD or in terms of use on MP3 sites, and think..".ok, since I am charging them money, it's commercial use".

The reality is, it wouldn't matter if you were doing it for free. If you are playing music...any music, at a venue they consider public, ASCAP and BMI would charge for those rights.

 

[soundinmotiondj]

The only difference with promo only is you don't have the right to resell it. You still don't have "commercial rights" to the music....meaning you can't use the song in a commercial or a training or promotional video, for example. You'd still need to obtain proper rights for the individual song you'd like to obtain commercial rights for.

You are confusing "licensed for commercial use" (needed to play pre-recorded music in a public performance), with a "mechanical license" (needed to make copies of music for distribution), and "synchronization rights" (needed to synchronize music with video - movie, karaoke lyrics, tv broadcast, etc). There are also "grand rights" (needed to put on a live theater performance with music - opera, musical theater, etc - generally negotiated directly with the copyright holder, and not with an organization like ASCAP or BMI).

There are other less well known rights associated with music copyright law, but "commercial use", "mechanical", "synchronization", and "grand" are the big four that come up all the time. Radio licenses, including internet broadcasts have some additional details that I have not fully researched.

Promo only is licensed for "commercial use"...that's kind of the whole point of promo only (and similar services). There is a long standing "wink & nod" from RIAA that litigation is unlikely against a DJ who has purchased otherwise legal copies of music and used them in their business. This is not the same as "legal" or "guaranteed"...but it is as good at things are likely to get in the near term.

 

[Scott Hanna]

Promo only is licensed for "commercial use"...that's kind of the whole point of promo only (and similar services).

I believe you are confusing what companies like promo only is about. They are not about offering special licensing to DJs. They have no license to offer. They are about providing DJs with music they're most likely play. Record companies allow them to do this as they see a benefit to DJs having access to their music.

I don't pretend to be a lawyer or an expert, but I don't think that music from music services is "licensed" any differently in the US. I believe, as a DJ, I have just as many rights to play a song from a CD I bought from the local music store as I do a song I bought from Itunes, Amazon, and music from services such as Promo only, prime cuts, etc.

The website, and their practices, seem to make it very clear that the venue is responsible for obtaining any licenses needed. As far as I know, a DJ in the US cannot obtain a license to play a song....or a group of songs.

I've been buying promo only for years and then switched to prime cuts. The venues I play at still need to obtain proper licensing. If I happen to play a song that I didn't get from Promo Only or prime cuts, it doesn't change a thing.

If that was the case, they would first have to find a DJ playing a certain song, then find out where the DJ obtained the song to determine if the proper licensing was in place. If they bought it from promo only, it's ok, but if they bought it from a store or online, it's not? I really believe that is incorrect.

Has there ever been one case ever...anywhere..USA or not...where the source of purchased music was the question?

In fact, promo only's website says:

Question: What is this ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC and do you pay any of their fees for me?
Answer: ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are public performance licensing companies and the fee's they collect are not included in the Promo Only subscription price.

It doesn't matter where you get your music (from us, Record Store, K-Mart, or free directly from the record company), if you play music to the general public and are making money from it, you are liable for public performance fees. Any Bar, Retail Store, Theme Park, Commercial Radio, Roller Rink, Internet broadcaster, or anyone that plays music for the public, are examples of who needs to pay public performance fees. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are the organizations that represent the songwriter and collect the fees for them.

If you are DJ in an established venue or something similar, public performance fees are most likely already being paid for. There are also exemptions for private events such as weddings, birthdays, and the like, as long as it is "private", you are not charging an admission, and it is not open to the general public. If you think you might not be paying these fees and need to, or you are not sure if you're already paying these fees please see the corresponding web sites

 

[soundinmotiondj]

I believe you are confusing what companies like promo only is about. They are not about offering special licensing to DJs. They have no license to offer. They are about providing DJs with music they're most likely play. Record companies allow them to do this as they see a benefit to DJs having access to their music.

In Theory:

The license to use the physical media (or digital file) in a commercial way is separate from all other licenses that have been discussed. Media with music that you buy at retail are licensed for "non commercial use" only. Promo only media is licensed for "commercial use".

This "commercial use" license is TOTALLY separate from anything that RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and so on require for the "public performance" of the same song. This is the gist of the Promo Only quote you posted.

In Practice:

If you "legally purchase" your music, one copy per system, everything will be OK. The venue is on the hook for the ASCAP, BMPI, SESAC public performance license.

RIAA has said in public that it is "not in their interests" to sue anyone who has legally purchased their music collection, and is otherwise in compliance with the requirements of the copyright restrictions. This is a "wink & nod" that provided you have ANY legal copy of a song (regardless of source), you are not likely to be sued for using the song in an unlicensed manner.

Keep in mind that "paying for" a song is not the same as a "legal purchase." The mp3 sites in Russia are NOT legal...and you can still be sued (but I am unaware of any such cases).

Has there ever been one case ever...anywhere..USA or not...where the source of purchased music was the question?

Provided the music was "legally purchased", I am not aware of any cases where the specific source was an issue. This is related to the "wink &nod" from RIAA that I have mentioned a couple of times. The way the law is written, it is possible for RIAA to sue someone for using a "retail" CD in a commercial environment....but RIAA has said they are "not interested" in litigating in those situations. This "wink & nod" form RIAA does not grant you additional rights. But it is *some* safe harbor in the event things change in the future.

There were some early cases involving "used CDs"...but those were settled in favor of allowing the resale and use of used CDs.

I am aware of multi-ops that have been successfully sued for making copies of their music onto multiple systems. I am aware of KJs who did not buy songs from a source that had "synchronization" rights being successfully sued. But in these examples, the person on the losing end did not purchase a "legal" copy of the music to begin with.

 

[steve149]

I'm not too partial to winks and nods ... too many get misinterpreted as flirting (with disaster).

 

[soundinmotiondj]

I'm not too partial to winks and nods ... too many get misinterpreted as flirting (with disaster).

True. That is one reason I keep trying to be specific, instead of "rounding" or "summing up."

Unfortunately, with RIAA, a "wink & nod" is all we are likely to get in the US. I have more hope of Congress passing a law to fix copyright than I do of RIAA putting anything in writing.

 

[Scott Hanna]

The license to use the physical media (or digital file) in a commercial way is separate from all other licenses that have been discussed. Media with music that you buy at retail are licensed for "non commercial use" only. Promo only media is licensed for "commercial use".

Can you point to something that explains what type of license one gets when they purchase music from promo only or similar sources?

If this is true, it's completely opposite of everything I've heard, even from people associated with these services.

Also, nothing on their website, as far as I can find, mentions anything about their music being specially licensed for commercial use. If I was in their marketing department, that would be all over everything...telling DJs that our music offers a license you need that you couldn't get when you buy music elsewhere. It's a pretty big detail to leave out, no?

 

[soundinmotiondj]

Can you point to something that explains what type of license one gets when they purchase music from promo only or similar sources?

If this is true, it's completely opposite of everything I've heard, even from people associated with these services.

Check the bottom of this page on the Prime Cuts FAQ...there is similiar restriction in the hard copy I got when I signed up years ago.

http://www.primecutsmusic.com/index.php/resources/faqs

*All copyright and related rights are reserved by applicable recording labels and artists. For broadcast or promotional use only. Duplication and/or resale prohibited.

Technically, it is not "illegal" to resell the discs, but it is a violation of the contract you signed when you got the subscription in the first place. You had to "prove" that you were a "commercial" user in order to get the subscription in the first place...Promo Only and Prime Cuts CAN NOT sell to the "public"....because of their licensing agreements with the publishers.

This is similar to the "promotional" copies of songs that are sent to radio stations & clubs. The license does not allow for resale...but it is never enforced in practical terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotional_recording

 

[Scott Hanna]

Check the bottom of this page on the Prime Cuts FAQ...there is similiar restriction in the hard copy I got when I signed up years ago.

http://www.primecutsmusic.com/index.php/resources/faqs



Technically, it is not "illegal" to resell the discs, but it is a violation of the contract you signed when you got the subscription in the first place. You had to "prove" that you were a "commercial" user in order to get the subscription in the first place...Promo Only and Prime Cuts CAN NOT sell to the "public"....because of their licensing agreements with the publishers.

This is similar to the "promotional" copies of songs that are sent to radio stations & clubs. The license does not allow for resale...but it is never enforced in practical terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotional_recording

Yes, I agree. They are only allowed to sell to broadcasters or DJs, because of their licensing agreement with the publishers and not allowed to be resold. The record companies are simply protecting their other distribution channels.

I still don't see anywhere where that gives anybody any commercial rights to play a song vs a song bought at a store. It's simply talking about how it can be sold.

I do believe if these record pools were able to offer some sort of license for songs that a DJ needed that the DJ was not able to get by purchasing music in regular channels, they would be promoting the heck out of that to the DJs. But they are not.

 

[soundinmotiondj]

Yes, I agree. They are only allowed to sell to broadcasters or DJs, because of their licensing agreement with the publishers and not allowed to be resold. The record companies are simply protecting their other distribution channels.

I still don't see anywhere where that gives anybody any commercial rights to play a song vs a song bought at a store. It's simply talking about how it can be sold.

Yes, you do see the difference...you are just ignoring it.

Promo Only & Prime Cuts are specifically licensed for "commercial use" (e.g. broadcast & promotional use). The CDs you buy in the store are licensed for "non commercial use only." You have acknowledged the details of both of these licenses. So, how do you still have a question about the difference between a "promo" song and a "retail" song in terms of their "commercial use"?

I have stated on more than one occasion that "in practice" these licenses are not enforced in a meaningful way. RIAA does not enforce these licenses. RIAA only the payments for "public performance" rights through ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. Each individual publisher would need to actually enforce their license agreements about commercial -v- non-commercial use.

I do believe if these record pools were able to offer some sort of license for songs that a DJ needed that the DJ was not able to get by purchasing music in regular channels, they would be promoting the heck out of that to the DJs. But they are not.

How these companies choose to market is their business. As this thread has shown, there is a LOT of bad information and "old DJ tales" on the issue of copyright and licensing for music...and there is significant difference between the "theory" and the "reality" of using music as a mobile DJ. Perhaps it is the judgement of PO and PC that any "clarification" they attempt will only confuse the issue.

When I started with these services in the late 90's, the "commercial use" of their product was a talking point - and was prominently featured on the webpages for radio stations and night clubs. Mobile DJs have traditionally been an afterthought, at best. Now, some 15 years later, all I could find was a footnote on their FAQ page.

 

[Scott Hanna]

Yes, you do see the difference...you are just ignoring it.

Promo Only & Prime Cuts are specifically licensed for "commercial use" (e.g. broadcast & promotional use). The CDs you buy in the store are licensed for "non commercial use only."

Sorry, but I'm not ignoring it. Not only does promo only not state that their music is "licensed" for a certain use, their website specifically says

It doesn't matter where you get your music (from us, Record Store, K-Mart, or free directly from the record company

. If they were able to offer ANY type of required license, I do believe they would at least acknowledge it, even if they didn't want to market it in any way, which still seems very odd to me.

If it was on their website at one time, I believe the reason it's not there anymore is because that information was incorrect and the record companies made them take it off.

I do know that you've said it over and over. But until PROMO ONLY, or prime cuts, or whomever says that their music offers some specialized license that my music is required to have...which I have never heard of, I'll have to believe otherwise. I have never seen anything that says "licensed for commercial use." "I did ask you to point to something that said licensed for commercial use". You pointed to something that said, broadcast or promotional use only, which simply means it can't be sold to the public.

Any "Commercial rights" for a song needs to be obtained for that certain song. A DJ cannot purchase it. Promo Only cannot sell it.

I'm not trying to be hardheaded. I do agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there.

I would recommend contacting Jim from Prime Cuts and ask him if his music offers any type of required license. Maybe I'm wrong. But if Jim says that he can offer commercial licensing, then I've been mistaken all of these years, and will be glad that i've been purchasing from promo only and primecuts for a while.

 

[soundinmotiondj]

Sorry, but I'm not ignoring it. Not only does promo only not state that their music is "licensed" for a certain use, their website specifically says .

You cut the sentence off....the whole statement in context is clearly stating that regardless of the source of your music, a "public performance" license still must be purchased from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC. This statement does nothing to address the "commercial use" license that I have been referring to.

It doesn't matter where you get your music (from us, Record Store, K-Mart, or free directly from the record company), if you play music to the general public and are making money from it, you are liable for public performance fees.

If they were able to offer ANY type of required license, I do believe they would at least acknowledge it, even if they didn't want to market it in any way, which still seems very odd to me.

Emphasis mine. You have changed the terms you are using. I think this is causing your confusion.

What do you mean by "required"???
Are you "required" to abide by copyright law?
Are you "required" to abide by the license terms of a contract that you agree to when you sign up for a music service?

First, "Commercial use" is a bit of jargon from copyright law that includes a great many things, including "broadcast or promotional use" for music or video. I thought you knew that...but I am adding it for clarification here.

As I have also said many times and many ways....in practical terms, no "commercial use" license is "required" because the specific contract clause is rarely (never?) actually enforced. There is a difference between a license term that is present in the contract but not enforced and one that is not present in the contract....at least in theory, in reality I am not sure that there is a difference - that's a question for your lawyer.

I do know that you've said it over and over. But until PROMO ONLY, or prime cuts, or whomever says that their music offers some specialized license that my music is required to have...which I have never heard of, I'll have to believe otherwise. I have never seen anything that says "licensed for commercial use." "I did ask you to point to something that said licensed for commercial use". You pointed to something that said, broadcast or promotional use only, which simply means it can't be sold to the public.

There is that "required" word again.

The "commercial use" restrictions are actually in the contact that you agree to when you sign up for a service. This is not a "law", but is rather a "contract." The contract that you agree to with PromoOnly or iTunes includes the license terms. And a contract that includes penalties, and that can be used in a civil court case.

Let's look at the contract license terms, and compare Promo Only and iTunes.

http://www.promoonly.com/images/forms/SubscriberAgreement.pdf

Promo Only is a product whose sole intent is the promotional exposure of music and music video and is restricted to use by professional DJ’s, Radio Stations, and specific music industry related professionals only. Use of this product beyond this intent is prohibited.

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html

USAGE RULES
(i) You shall be authorized to use iTunes Products only for personal, noncommercial use.

Given that as background...according to the license terms in the contract agreed to by each user, can the music from PromoOnly and iTunes be used in an equivalent way in a mobile DJ business?

Any "Commercial rights" for a song needs to be obtained for that certain song. A DJ cannot purchase it. Promo Only cannot sell it.

Technically, the "commercial use" is part of the license terms granted by the publisher of the media....Prime Cuts or PromoOnly in this case. However, it is likely that the contracts with the producers require this term to be added to the contract between PO/PC and you.

I would recommend contacting Jim from Prime Cuts and ask him if his music offers any type of required license. Maybe I'm wrong. But if Jim says that he can offer commercial licensing, then I've been mistaken all of these years, and will be glad that i've been purchasing from promo only and primecuts for a while.

I would recommend that you contact Jim...and ask him some very detailed questions....to help you separate the "actual terms" from the "practical terms" of the licensing agreements for music.

 

[Scott Hanna]

You cut the sentence off....the whole statement in context is clearly stating that regardless of the source of your music, a "public performance" license still must be purchased from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC. This statement does nothing to address the "commercial use" license that I have been referring to.






Emphasis mine. You have changed the terms you are using. I think this is causing your confusion.

What do you mean by "required"???
Are you "required" to abide by copyright law?
Are you "required" to abide by the license terms of a contract that you agree to when you sign up for a music service?

First, "Commercial use" is a bit of jargon from copyright law that includes a great many things, including "broadcast or promotional use" for music or video. I thought you knew that...but I am adding it for clarification here.

As I have also said many times and many ways....in practical terms, no "commercial use" license is "required" because the specific contract clause is rarely (never?) actually enforced. There is a difference between a license term that is present in the contract but not enforced and one that is not present in the contract....at least in theory, in reality I am not sure that there is a difference - that's a question for your lawyer.



There is that "required" word again.

The "commercial use" restrictions are actually in the contact that you agree to when you sign up for a service. This is not a "law", but is rather a "contract." The contract that you agree to with PromoOnly or iTunes includes the license terms. And a contract that includes penalties, and that can be used in a civil court case.

Let's look at the contract license terms, and compare Promo Only and iTunes.

http://www.promoonly.com/images/forms/SubscriberAgreement.pdf



http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html




Given that as background...according to the license terms in the contract agreed to by each user, can the music from PromoOnly and iTunes be used in an equivalent way in a mobile DJ business?



Technically, the "commercial use" is part of the license terms granted by the publisher of the media....Prime Cuts or PromoOnly in this case. However, it is likely that the contracts with the producers require this term to be added to the contract between PO/PC and you.



I would recommend that you contact Jim...and ask him some very detailed questions....to help you separate the "actual terms" from the "practical terms" of the licensing agreements for music.

Required means that there is a law somewhere that says if you do this, or don't do this, you can be sued, fined, convicted, whatever. Basically, there are consequences when you get caught doing something or not doing something, then it's REQUIRED. If it's not required, then it doesn't mean anything.

Are you required to have a driver's license? Yes. Can you drive without one? Yes. But there are consequences when you get caught. Would people pay to have a driver's license if there were no consequences for not having one?

I've never seen anything, anywhere, anyhow, saying a DJ is required to purchase music from certain sources, or there will be consequences. Have you? I don't need to talk to a lawyer. I concern myself with real world problems, not someone's misinterpretation of some commercial use rule in a way that have never been enforced. 50 lawyers will give you 50 different interpretations of any law...or rules you are talking about. Show me one court ruling. When something is that muddy, a court decision is what defines it.

I think the itunes disclaimer is pretty clear as well. Buying a song from Itunes does not give anyone rights to play it publicly. If it's going to be played publicly, rights need be obtained through ascap and bmi, and then you can play any itunes mp3 or kmart cd that those companies represent. JUST LIKE THE PROMO ONLY WEBSITE SAYS.

I don't think the question needs to be detailed.

The question is, "Does buying music from prime cuts or promo only offer some type of license or usage rights I need to conduct my business that a store bought cd or online mp3 does not?"

If it does offer some sort of license, what is the name of the license and how is it enforced?

And I believe the answer you'll get is no, there is no license or special permission that comes with the purchase of our music.

 

[Scott Hanna]

Promo Only is a product whose sole intent is the promotional exposure of music and music video and is restricted to use by professional DJ’s, Radio Stations, and specific music industry related professionals only. Use of this product beyond this intent is prohibited.

This simply means only DJs, radio stations, and music industries can purchase and use this material. They are not allowed to sell it or give it away to public.

Doesn't say anything about granting "commercial use", "licensed for commercial use". It says who is allowed to buy it and/or have it.