A New Consideration For DJ Licensing.

[Pamela]

but if the public continues to get ripped off on a regular basis by idiot DJs, the wrong person in the vast sea of consumers is going to get ripped off and take some sort of action. (Now THAT's a long sentence!)

I agree that there are idiot DJs, but I don't see the national emergency otherwise. Of course, I don't know what your definition of "rip off" is. ALL of the complaints I read or hear from brides is that their DJ was cheesy, arrogant, over-priced and/or didn't play songs she and the groom liked. I hear it all the time on the female message boards I hang at. Then they say things like "I should have just used our iPod". This then leads to other brides wanting to avoid the entire DJ issue and choosing ipods themselves or "friends of their brother" or some other low monetary risk solution to their wedding day music.

I just never see the "fly-by-night-DJ-ripped-me-off" stories directly from brides. I am sure it happens, just like it happens for every type of business (I have heard of TONS of stories about wedding shops disappearing in the middle of the night the past few years, including several recently). But the bigger problem over the last half-dozen years has been this big swell up of DJ Heads "educating the bride" in the wrong manner and carrying this attitude with it. Now it has backfired.

 

[John Allo]

Once again, great points are being made in this civil discussion. Thanks to everyone!

I think this debate has highlighted the lack of a clear image for the DJ industry. I always wished that the associations had done more on a national level with the traditional media sources to promote the professional DJ. *sigh*

I do not have a dog in this fight. I have retired and will never again spin music for pay. However, this doesn't mean that I have to stop caring about the industry that was good to me, and in trying to help friends and associates I've met along the way.

Once again, thanks to everyone for making their points in a non-condescending mature manner! This board kicks some major (slang word for buttocks, word can also be used to describe a beast of burden.) :clap::happy7:

 

[Fred Wright]

John, my dear friend,

It's folks like these who have contributed who make this crazy biz work. I am proud to know you all as dear friends and professional compadres.

Yeah, we've retired too. But we'll come out outta retirement for an upscale wedding or black tie event. If you want a teen party in your back yard, sorry, no can do. Keep a-workin' the phones, lol.

Keep the faith, my friend. We're here should you ever need us.

 

[Dude Walker]

I think this debate has highlighted the lack of a clear image for the DJ industry. I always wished that the associations had done more on a national level with the traditional media sources to promote the professional DJ. *sigh*

John,

The lack of clear image could be attributed to too many "anti-agendas".

Example: Music Licensing

The mere mention of music licensing gets the anti-agenda MDJs to bristle with every justification of why it should never come to pass...

Things like:

...the venue has an ascap license...so we're covered.
...the artists get little to none of the money.
...the record comanpies are profit mongers.
...ASCAP, BMI, SESAC won't license MDJs.
...royalties are unjust.
...etc

The list goes on & on.

Yet, a JUKEBOX can be licensed...? One simple expansion to an existing license could allow MDJs a certain level of legitimacy.

Yet...sadly, the "it'll never work people" are most likely already cracking their knuckles on why it would never...should never, work.





Given that you've wished that a national level "awareness" be presented...AND assuming that the MDJ industry is filled with honorable people...willing to make the necessary sacrifices...

If you were given the decision power...

Where would you start?
What would be your awareness platform?
How would you address the apathetic MDJ?
How would you address the WIIFM MDJ that expects instant results or they'll withhold their "support"?

 

[John Allo]

If you were given the decision power...

Where would you start?
What would be your awareness platform?
How would you address the apathetic MDJ?
How would you address the WIIFM MDJ that expects instant results or they'll withhold their "support"?

1) Where would I start? In the places that large numbers of brides frequent most often. (Even though I hate them) The Knot.com, Bridezillas on WE, and possibly Bride or Modern Bride magazines. I'd have ads in those areas touting the services of a professional DJ, and would have a website for brides to click on that provides info on what to ask a DJ, how to really discern between a pro and a fly by night, and plenty of cost analysis info, offering a soft sell for brides to realize that in the long run, some of their best wedding money will be spent on entertainment and not necessarily on things like a piece of cake or fancy place settings.

2) What would be your awareness platform? Sort of answered in 1? Any place that a large number of brides frequent.

3) How would you address the apathetic MDJ? With a swift kick in the ass. Let them know that while they may be making money at their current price level, they could be making a bit more if they put forth the effort to better market themselves and upgrade their gear and skills. Make sure they know how to use the mic, and I don't mean just clicking "on" and warbling something. Use it as another vehicle of entertainment, complimenting your music selections with brief bits of witty banter. Make the video store analogy I made in another thread. Once everywhere, those large chains that remain are scarce and somewhat lacking in the service department.

4) How would you address the WIIFM MDJ that expects instant results or they'll withhold their "support"? Part of me wants to say that these people cannot be helped regardless of how many good points are presented to them. Might I say to them....screw them? When their business folds, perhaps they can get a job working for the companies that remain, provided those companies would want to bring on such a unmotivated person. Nothing is handed to anyone (except if your last name is Hilton, it seems). Success is the result of hard work. What's the phrase? "Success is 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration." I believe a rather motivated individual named Thomas Alva Edison said that? And he was pretty successful.

As an information campaign rolled out to warn brides about the dangers of the low balling DJ and hopefully educated them in how to distinguish between a pro and a noob, the pros will succeed even more than they currently do, and the noobs will take such a hit that their choices will either be to get with the program or get out.

I hope this answers your questions, Dude.

 

[Dude Walker]

1) Where would I start? In the places that large numbers of brides frequent most often. (Even though I hate them) The Knot.com, Bridezillas on WE, and possibly Bride or Modern Bride magazines. I'd have ads in those areas touting the services of a professional DJ, and would have a website for brides to click on that provides info on what to ask a DJ, how to really discern between a pro and a fly by night, and plenty of cost analysis info, offering a soft sell for brides to realize that in the long run, some of their best wedding money will be spent on entertainment and not necessarily on things like a piece of cake or fancy place settings.

Intrigued...

So what type of ad frequency and cost would be associated with your campaign?

 

[John Allo]

So what type of ad frequency and cost would be associated with your campaign?

Don't really know. It's a concept, if there were any chance of it being implemented or even considered, there could be more research done on those things.

The information campaign would be seasonal, during the times of year when brides are most likely to be in the market for entertainment.

 

[Proformance]

Yet, a JUKEBOX can be licensed...? One simple expansion to an existing license could allow MDJs a certain level of legitimacy.

Yet...sadly, the "it'll never work people" are most likely already cracking their knuckles on why it would never...should never, work.

insert "crack knuckle sound": The music license you describe is not possible because:

1. It violates U.S. anti trust law and would require a congressional amendment or repeal of this portion of the US Code.

2. Under Copyright Law all private events, like weddings are specifically exempt from a performing rights license.

So there are two Federal laws that prohibit (for good reason) what you seek.

"It will never work" because people like me understand that the principles those portions of the US Code support are more significant than the self-esteem issues suffered by some mobile DJs.

Furthermore;

If you want a mechanical license, provisions for obtaining those copyrights are already in place.

If you need a performing license, provisions for obtaining those rights are also already in place.

So, (despite the obvious irony in this statement): No one in government is going to undertake such a massive change of US Law to fix a problem that doesn't exist.



John,

You're mixing two different things. You're describing the actions of an association - yet seeking the impact of a union.

What you describe is already being done (perhaps not very well) by DJ associations. These are simply commercial collective advertising concerns.

The lack of serious success here is simply a function of the minimal market share of professional mobile DJs. They simply don't control a significant enough portion of special event revenues to muster the resources you seek.

Also, there are too many non-professional alternatives that make such a credibility program uninteresting to the general maketplace. As Pamela pointed out - most DJ Horror stories are only scary to other DJs. The general public really isn't that affected.

Dude on the other hand, clearly prefers a union and needs a government decree that would force DJs in/out. Good luck with that.

 

[Flyingdjdan]

Proformance.

Sir, There is already in play (no pun intended) a simple to follow per jukebox fee schedule.

http://www.jukeboxlicense.com/2007ratesheet_standard.htm

To get these rates, one must be a member of an association. The AMOA.

www.AMOA.com.

How could this transfer and be applicable to dj's?

It ain't rocket science.

Associations already exist.
A rate schedule such as with jukeboxes. Pick some numbers.
Gov't pass the bill. (ok, may take a little time with that.)

Enforcement... Easy. Documents required to be filed or given to the hall prior to entrance of facility. Just as some now require insurance.

No pay, no play.

Btw Reguarding existing law...

So, the Federal Government has never changed their minds??? Changed laws???

Survey says...DING!

 

[Dude Walker]

Bob,

As per usual, you fail to support your posts with citable facts.

So I will respectfully request that you cite specifically which Title & Chapter of the Anti-trust code that you are imparting as evidence to support your position.



With respects to Title 17...let's take a closer look at your mis-interpretations:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000110----000-.html

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

(4) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers,

(B) the proceeds, after deducting the reasonable costs of producing the performance, are used exclusively for educational, religious, or charitable purposes and not for private financial gain, except where the copyright owner has served notice of objection to the performance under the following conditions:

Sorry Bob, MDJs are in it for commerical advantage...even the hobbyists...and those not turning a profit.

BTW, the IRS has specific guidelines on what qualifies as NON-PROFIT status.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html

PUBLICLY

To perform or display a work “publicly” means—

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.


FINANCIAL GAIN

The term “financial gain” includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

Bob, pardon me for not buying into your blustery...however, it appears that your non-qualified heresay interpretations could lead some MDJs to assume they are protected by technicalities that do not exist.

Record Companies throughout their history have always been motivated by copyright control & money. MDJs are simply an untapped source of revenue at present...however, our day is coming. Why haven't they nailed MDJs to the proverbial cross? Perhaps that relatively small number of registered entities prevents them from directly finding the entities stealing the works under their copyright control. Mandatory licensing...if for no other reason...would provide a way for current non-registered entities to be quantified, contacted & apportioned an appropriate royalty for use of copyrighted works. If royalty apportionment requirements force some entities from the business...it's about damn time.

 

[Jeff Romard]

Don't really know. It's a concept, if there were any chance of it being implemented or even considered, there could be more research done on those things.

The information campaign would be seasonal, during the times of year when brides are most likely to be in the market for entertainment.

John..Seriously no sarcasam.. why don't you consider starting an association.. We have certinaly had differences of opinion here over the last few months but I respect your knowledge and the heart you have for this business I feel you are among the few that could make a difference

Now back to being my crass self...

What does anyone see as the main purpose of Licensing. I cant get my head around how it will make things better

 

[John Allo]

Jeff, thanks for the kind words. If I had the ability, I'd seriously consider it.

However, I am unable to travel, I still tire easily, I can't be on my feet for long periods of time, and as much improvement as I've made since my near fatal incident in February, I am still a sick man struggling to manage a serious health malady.

But thanks for the vote of confidence regardless.

 

[Guest]

Tying licensing of any kind by requiring liability insurance (and don't get me wrong, I agree everyone should have insurance) is just opening up a venue for a lawsuit, because they are requiring something that is not required on a local/state level.

I know in my area, venues who were requiring all outside vendors to have insurance lost a small court battle, in which the judge ruled it was unlawful for the venue to require more than the state required for vendors.

 

[nextgen1]

As i said elsewhere, where do you think dj licensing will fit in terms of municipal, state, federal politics......on the low low end of the scale.....

I think a better tact would be for the various associations to lobby to the venues and educate them, as well as brides and grooms as to the importance of having insured dj services in their buildings. from a legal liability standpoint, I can't fathom any venue taking a risk with any uninsured contractor coming onto their premises. they open themselves up, as does the bride and groom to all kinds of liability.

Too bad the associations, at least here, seem uninterested....

I really do love a great debate especially when kept civil. It can be educational. Personally with the price of a license from your own city and the cost of insurance both of which I have. In my area your only talking about 300 dollars. I do see more of our local vendors looking for insured DJ's.

One venue which I performed at last month and will again next month requires it. I guess I quoted the above because I also feel this way. At my other job of 22 years. I have found that many people don't know or understand certain things. And that if you can educate them and yes I understand that many people are tired of doing that. But it helps 100 percent.

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time." Get the picture. I have been doing this for 22 years in my other position and yes it gets old but the fact that it helps dose not decrease.

You know I love these chat boards there is just so much creativity on them. And in my area some of the things I do haven't even been done before so they are fresh. And nope I don't tell people these are my ideas.

I let them know I network and talk with DJ's all over the USA and we get ideas from each other to better and make more professional our industry. The great part is that many of them do get it. They say knowledge is power but many people will never know your knowledge unless you open your mouth. I know since we are DJ's that can't be that hard.

 

[Steve LeBlanc]

Tying licensing of any kind by requiring liability insurance (and don't get me wrong, I agree everyone should have insurance) is just opening up a venue for a lawsuit, because they are requiring something that is not required on a local/state level.

I know in my area, venues who were requiring all outside vendors to have insurance lost a small court battle, in which the judge ruled it was unlawful for the venue to require more than the state required for vendors.

I'd like to see this case; is this a private venue or a state -owned venue.....If I'm a business owner, I can damn sure require any vendor or company coming into my building to carry liability insurance.....If they cause damage or injuries on my premises, I want to be protected.....

 

[Guest]

I'd like to see this case; is this a private venue or a state -owned venue.....If I'm a business owner, I can damn sure require any vendor or company coming into my building to carry liability insurance.....If they cause damage or injuries on my premises, I want to be protected.....

WV has some of the most f'ed up laws in the country. I will dig up the link to the case, but in essence, the court found that the venue (which was privately owned), was in violation of unfair business practices by contracting outside vendors not in accordance with state law. The law did not require outside vendors to carry liability insurance, only to be licensed through the business office.

 

[Dude Walker]

What does anyone see as the main purpose of Licensing. I cant get my head around how it will make things better

Jeff,

By requiring a business license at the state level. The Secretary of State and more specifically the Attorney General, whose office possesses the power to issue cease and desist business activity orders, could clearly address industry specific violations set forth in the wording of the business license.

The wording could include clear violations of the Uniform Commercial Code as they apply to our industry.

That, in and of itself, could help prevent specific fraud, deceptive practices, unfair business practices and anti-competitive conduct. Which could directly benefit the consumer by defining consumer protections as they specifically apply to our industry.

Also through the process of obtaining a business license a clear guideline could be established that could foster healthier economic growth for those entities willing to conduct themselves legally and ethically.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

.....and getting back to the reason for licensing in post #1, - No help.

Look, in NJ, we're supposed to have a business license and liability insurance- both easily available. I have them, but in all the years that I've been doing this, I've only been asked about them a few times (private events only) and have NEVER been asked for physical proof. They just took my word for it. The subject has NEVER come up at a bar venue. So, in regard to cutting down on low end cost competitors- right or wrong- it would seem to be a waste of time..

 

[Jeff Romard]

Jeff,

By requiring a business license at the state level. The Secretary of State and more specifically the Attorney General, whose office possesses the power to issue cease and desist business activity orders, could clearly address industry specific violations set forth in the wording of the business license.

The wording could include clear violations of the Uniform Commercial Code as they apply to our industry.

That, in and of itself, could help prevent specific fraud, deceptive practices, unfair business practices and anti-competitive conduct. Which could directly benefit the consumer by defining consumer protections as they specifically apply to our industry.

Also through the process of obtaining a business license a clear guideline could be established that could foster healthier economic growth for those entities willing to conduct themselves legally and ethically.

But Dude thats a business license....I have one I am regestired with the Province of Nova Scotia. Why would I want a license to be a Disc Jockey? What would that achieve?

 

[Proformance]

Dude, You've cut and pasted about two paragraphs from an online digest of one section of a massive document. You're hung up on the term "profit" and you're not citing the applicable sections of the code.

Where "performance rights" are concerned the categorization of the event and it's monetary purpose comes first, the monetary role of the DJ is secondary.

Rather than skimming the internet I studied copyright law at the graduate level (acually, before Al Gore invented the internet.) If you want to learn more about the topic that's up to you. I don't care enough to "prove" anything to you.

As for anti-trust law, any single entity or heirarchy established to issue such a music license would hold a monopoly on that same distribution. It is not consistent with the purpose of the Sherman Anti-tust Act, nor would it seve the best interests of the copyright holders.

I do recall that there was also a statement to this effect from the RIAA to one of the DJ associations pursuing this same idea some time ago. If you want to search the last 10 years or more of DJ magazines, Newsletters, and chat rooms to fnd it you can "prove" it to yourself.

Furthermore, you shoud already know that any one song may have numerous copyrights that need to be cleared; from the composers & lyricists, to the recorders, and publishers.

That is why in this country you would typically engage the services of a clearing house like the Harry Fox Agency in NY too contact and negotiate the mechanical or distribution rights with each respective copyright holder or their collective agent.

A music license for DJs is like re-inventing the wheel for Rocks that no one wants too Roll.