DJVO | DJ Verification Organization

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
DJ PAUL said:
Really?

http://www.ascap.com/Press/2012/0625-venues-action.aspx

Paul
Click to expand...

That's not the same as "Making sure DJs are only playing the correct versions and the right quality". ASCAP doesn't care where the music was sourced from. They don't care who's singing it, either. The only thing ASCAP cares about is making sure that the songwriters and publishers get paid whenever (and wherever) their music is played in public. ASCAP doesn't care if there's a DJ in the building or just a radio playing in the background. If you're making a profit at a building serving the public and there happens to be music playing, they want their piece of the pie.
 
It's been said before...but I'll say it differently....

No! There is no way to prove that ALL of our songs were obtained legally.
No! Clients don't care about this issue, just as they don't really care about a lot of things that matter.
No! No organization can "make sure" that only legal DJ's get work, and keep illegal DJ's out.
No! I personally don't feel that getting some organizations "seal of approval" will improve my business.

YES! The idea is a good one. I just think there is no way to accomplish their ultimate goal.
If ASCAP and BMI cannot effectively police the music industry, how can some brand new organization do it?
(and I'll bet that 99% of our clients never HEARD of ASCAP and BMI, either)

Good luck on that, DJVO....
 
Ausumm said:
It's been said before...but I'll say it differently....

No! There is no way to prove that ALL of our songs were obtained legally.
No! Clients don't care about this issue, just as they don't really care about a lot of things that matter.
No! No organization can "make sure" that only legal DJ's get work, and keep illegal DJ's out.
No! I personally don't feel that getting some organizations "seal of approval" will improve my business.

YES! The idea is a good one. I just think there is no way to accomplish their ultimate goal.
If ASCAP and BMI cannot effectively police the music industry, how can some brand new organization do it?
(and I'll bet that 99% of our clients never HEARD of ASCAP and BMI, either)

Good luck on that, DJVO....
Click to expand...
Not so fast Mike, it may be tedious but not impossible. Just as how some Hotels and finer Venues are asking DJs, coming to play on their premises, for proof of Liability insurance, this has cut down on those wannabees or lowballers going to said places. They are too cheap to buy the Insurance so that cost alone has restricted them from said places. It does not necessarily mean that those who have the Insurance are any good either but I wager it will give them a better perspective and respect for the craft.

A system can be implemented but it will take much thought to properly execute. Maybe they ought to repeal powered speakers. Watch the inexperienced blow up their systems with improper wiring and connections. LOL
 
Ausumm said:
If ASCAP and BMI cannot effectively police the music industry, how can some brand new organization do it?
(and I'll bet that 99% of our clients never HEARD of ASCAP and BMI, either)
Click to expand...

Again, wrong purpose. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are all songwriters' and publishers' rights organizations. They do not exist to police the music industry. No organization does this. The RIAA comes close, but they're funded by the record companies and aren't usually concerned about what DJs do.
 
B-Sharp said:
Again, wrong purpose. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are all songwriters' and publishers' rights organizations. They do not exist to police the music industry. No organization does this. The RIAA comes close, but they're funded by the record companies and aren't usually concerned about what DJs do.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that was their purpose, Bendan...
I was trying to imply that bigger, well-funded music organizations have little control over music issues SIMILAR to this.
So why would these guys think they can change the world?
 
ahoustondj said:
Not so fast Mike, it may be tedious but not impossible. Just as how some Hotels and finer Venues are asking DJs, coming to play on their premises, for proof of Liability insurance, this has cut down on those wannabees or lowballers going to said places.
Click to expand...

But individual venues, or even chains, can only have a small impact on keeping out the wannabe's.
My point was that this organization will have little or no "clout" to cut down on anything!
I have no problem with their ultimate goal...only with they way they want to FUND their effort. (with MY money)
 
Ausumm said:
But individual venues, or even chains, can only have a small impact on keeping out the wannabe's.
My point was that this organization will have little or no "clout" to cut down on anything!
I have no problem with their ultimate goal...only with they way they want to FUND their effort. (with MY money)
Click to expand...
Well Mike, one can't always expect everything for free! ;) If yer gonna gain something, its only fair yer should pay something!
 
Artists will get the best exposure possible of their music by the DJ playing the correct versions and the right quality. Not copies and low quality bootlegs that were obtained illegally​
Brendon-
You are wrong. the statement I quoted says the "artists will get the best exposure". Meaning songwriters and composers, etc...

According to the ASCAP governing documents they are very concerned with what DJs are doing especially the ones on stage and in recording studios. You, I assume being a wedding dj may not be directly effected yet but I gaurantee you the venue you plan to play in is.

Paul
 
DJ PAUL said:
Artists will get the best exposure possible of their music by the DJ playing the correct versions and the right quality. Not copies and low quality bootlegs that were obtained illegally​
Brendon-
You are wrong. the statement I quoted says the "artists will get the best exposure". Meaning songwriters and composers, etc...

According to the ASCAP governing documents they are very concerned with what DJs are doing especially the ones on stage and in recording studios. You, I assume being a wedding dj may not be directly effected yet but I gaurantee you the venue you plan to play in is.

Paul
Click to expand...

Okay, so then it's irrelevant to this discussion. What the DJVO stands for and what ASCAP wants from Avicii when he's in front of 35,000 people are two different things.
 
While it MAY be possible to verify future purchases, it's not possible to verify past purchases, especially ones built up over 25+ years. Some of our songs come from pools, some from CDs, some fro itunes/Amazon/wherever, some even from ripped albums, cassettes and 8-tracks, if that's where the music was.

So if 50% of say my library isn't verifiable, what difference does it matter whether it was the 1st 50% or the last 50% .. and in either case, assuming I have quality rips, what difference would a label of verification get me?

Unlike a liability insurance form, this buys nothing tangible.
 
The only way to do this properly IMHO, is to issue a DJ license from a respectable body, that has oversight.

For example, my gun licenses are issued by the Dept of Agriculture (go figure -- it's ok to shoot corn apparently).

So, you pay your money, they issue you a license to use all music you want to, in the performance of your DJ work. The RIAA are probably the only folks that could do that, since they represent the big labels. So let's say you pay a given amount each year, and you are free to use anything in your arsenal, no matter how you obtained it.

It should be a non-profit, with minimal overhead costs, and the rest going back to the people who hold the copyrights to the music. So, now you have a DJ license. Doesn't mean you're good, bad or whatever -- but you have the rights to play music anywhere in the country -- whether public or private.

I think that's pretty much how they do it in Canada via the AVLA, but I'm not exactly sure if they are a non-profit...


Unfortunately, in the case of the OP, it appears we just have someone who wants to make some cash on the side, by putting your name in a database. None of that money is going to go to the artists (after your "free" first year) -- it is going to some guy who types your name into a database ;)
 
SoftJock Rick said:
The only way to do this properly IMHO, is to issue a DJ license from a respectable body, that has oversight.

For example, my gun licenses are issued by the Dept of Agriculture (go figure -- it's ok to shoot corn apparently).

So, you pay your money, they issue you a license to use all music you want to, in the performance of your DJ work. The RIAA are probably the only folks that could do that, since they represent the big labels. So let's say you pay a given amount each year, and you are free to use anything in your arsenal, no matter how you obtained it.

It should be a non-profit, with minimal overhead costs, and the rest going back to the people who hold the copyrights to the music. So, now you have a DJ license. Doesn't mean you're good, bad or whatever -- but you have the rights to play music anywhere in the country -- whether public or private.
Click to expand...

I'm already free to use any song in my arsenal, no matter how I obtained it. Why do you feel a license to play music is needed? Having one won't make you a better DJ, and it won't get you more business.

The problem with pushing for a licensing system for DJs (as has been discussed many, many times before) is that you don't really want the government (or the RIAA, for that matter) in your business any more than they already are. Give them the power to license DJs and the costs will almost certainly increase over time, with the proceeds doing nothing to support the artists, songwriters, publishers, whoever. It's a tax where no tax is needed.

Gun licenses and licenses for other professions (barbers and tattoo artists, for example) are important because there's a risk to public safety involved. As far as I know, too much Bieber cannot cause infection or death.
 
B-Sharp said:
I'm already free to use any song in my arsenal, no matter how I obtained it. Why do you feel a license to play music is needed? Having one won't make you a better DJ, and it won't get you more business.

The problem with pushing for a licensing system for DJs (as has been discussed many, many times before) is that you don't really want the government (or the RIAA, for that matter) in your business any more than they already are. Give them the power to license DJs and the costs will almost certainly increase over time, with the proceeds doing nothing to support the artists, songwriters, publishers, whoever. It's a tax where no tax is needed.

Gun licenses and licenses for other professions (barbers and tattoo artists, for example) are important because there's a risk to public safety involved. As far as I know, too much Bieber cannot cause infection or death.
Click to expand...
But apparently too much Carly Rae Jepsen will get Tuck ill.
 
i'll wait for the right time

now i'll sit back with a beer and a bucket of crisp's

while you lot work this out
 
B-Sharp said:
I'm already free to use any song in my arsenal, no matter how I obtained it. Why do you feel a license to play music is needed?
Click to expand...

Apparently, you have never read any of the EULA's you agreed to when purchasing music. Most say no commercial use -- commercial use is pretty easy to define, you're getting paid to reproduce someone else's intellectual property for other than yourself to hear/read/watch, et. al. Simple as that.

So, if you came to my place, and I paid you $100 to play somebody else's music -- you have failed to honor the license agreement you consented to.


A DJ Music license, would take all the ambiguity out (not really ambiguity, but DJ's making up their rules as they go along). You pay say $400 a year, and you get to play anything, anywhere. No more BS about public or private, etc...


The RIAA (and artists) haven't paid much attention to us YET -- but if they'd take out their little calculators, and figure out that roughly 90,000 DJs in this country, at $400 a pop each year equals $36 million dollars a year -- well, you get the drift... ;)
 
SoftJock Rick said:
Apparently, you have never read any of the EULA's you agreed to when purchasing music. Most say no commercial use -- commercial use is pretty easy to define, you're getting paid to reproduce someone else's intellectual property for other than yourself to hear/read/watch, et. al. Simple as that.

So, if you came to my place, and I paid you $100 to play somebody else's music -- you have failed to honor the license agreement you consented to.


A DJ Music license, would take all the ambiguity out (not really ambiguity, but DJ's making up their rules as they go along). You pay say $400 a year, and you get to play anything, anywhere. No more BS about public or private, etc...


The RIAA (and artists) haven't paid much attention to us YET -- but if they'd take out their little calculators, and figure out that roughly 90,000 DJs in this country, at $400 a pop each year equals $36 million dollars a year -- well, you get the drift... ;)
Click to expand...

You are simply uninformed and lacking a clear understanding of the current law regarding DJs. What you've stated is incorrect, and your expectations of the RIAA are a fantasy. DJs have been operating now for a half-century. If there was a legal way for the music industry to charge DJs they would have found it by now. They've tried multiple times and failed - because the law is very explicit on the issue of private vs public performance, and where both commercial and government copyright authority ends.
 
Proformance said:
You are simply uninformed and lacking a clear understanding of the current law regarding DJs. What you've stated is incorrect, and your expectations of the RIAA are a fantasy. DJs have been operating now for a half-century. If there was a legal way for the music industry to charge DJs they would have found it by now. They've tried multiple times and failed - because the law is very explicit on the issue of private vs public performance, and where both commercial and government copyright authority ends.
Click to expand...


If you say so Bob... :rolleyes:

BTW, where did you get your law degree, and where do you practice...?
 
B-Sharp said:
I'm already free to use any song in my arsenal, no matter how I obtained it. Why do you feel a license to play music is needed? Having one won't make you a better DJ, and it won't get you more business.

The problem with pushing for a licensing system for DJs (as has been discussed many, many times before) is that you don't really want the government (or the RIAA, for that matter) in your business any more than they already are. Give them the power to license DJs and the costs will almost certainly increase over time, with the proceeds doing nothing to support the artists, songwriters, publishers, whoever. It's a tax where no tax is needed.

Gun licenses and licenses for other professions (barbers and tattoo artists, for example) are important because there's a risk to public safety involved. As far as I know, too much Bieber cannot cause infection or death.
Click to expand...

Such a license is not even possible in the USA. It would be a direct violation of at least two major Titles of the US Code

Furthermore, if you had such a fantasy license there could be no EULA's in coexistence since all licenses would now emanate from a single authority (monopoly). The rights of producers to freely control the licensing and use of their products would now be usurped - which is why the law is the way it is. Licensing DJs actually runs counter to the commercial interest of the music publishers by taking from them the control they now exercise over how their products are distributed and used and handing it over to a central authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back