Record companies DJs with prosecution (1 Viewer)

[breaking]

Record companies threaten DJs with prosecution

A top copyright lawyer has warned that record companies would prosecute anyone illegally using dance tracks on their mix CDs - even small-scale producers.

The warning follows the case in which two high-profile DJs - Chris Kross and Pee Wee Ferris - were ordered to pay more than $800,000 in damages and costs after the Federal Court found they had together illegally used the tracks on CDs sold in Sydney stores.

Kross, whose real name is Chris Fraser-Smith and his record company, Tower Records, were ordered to pay the lion's share of the damages and costs of about $818,000. Ferris was ordered to pay about $124,000.

Michael Williams from Gilbert + Tobin lawyers, who represented the music industry in the case, said the court delivered a clear warning to DJs who did not obtain proper licences.

"If you are going to take other people's music without permission, or if you turn a blind eye, you cannot claim ignorance," Mr Williams said. "The courts are willing to respect and uphold the rights of copyright holders and artists and impose enormous punitive sanctions against those who infringe those rights."

The music industry yesterday hailed the decision as an important victory and said it sent a clear message that DJs must pay royalties to artists whose music they remix and sell.

"It lays to rest forever the idea that DJs have a special place in the industry and can steal music," Michael Speck from the Music Industry Piracy Investigation Unit said.

The decision marked the end of a court case stretching over 2 years that included evidence of SMS threats and bullying by Fraser-Smith. Record companies, including Sony and Universal, initiated action against Ferris, Fraser-Smith and several other DJs in 2002.

Federal Court judge Peter Jacobson on Friday found Fraser-Smith had produced eight copyright-infringing CDs, including Happy Valley 1991 To 2001 - A Decade Of Dance and Hard Trance.

A CD of Ferris's DJ work was titled peeweeferris.com digital domination.

The CDs of both DJs contained 17 remixed works that were produced without permission of recording artists and other DJs.

In evidence to the court Fraser-Smith said he had been granted copyright licences for all the works.

Ferris said he understood Fraser-Smith had obtained copyright permission for the CD he was involved with.

Evidence was also presented to the court that Fraser-Smith had sent threatening SMS messages to record company executives responsible for music licensing.

Justice Jacobson dismissed the defence arguments saying the evidence showed: "Mr Smith and Tower [Records] knew that they did not hold the copyright licences for any of the infringing tracks and that they deliberately exploited the infringing works for their own commercial benefit."

What are everyone's thoughts on this?
Basically it meant if you were a bedroom DJ and you made a mixed CD and gave it to just one person without getting approval and paying royalties to the artists, you could be hit with massive fines.
I have a stack of these sorta CDs acquired from various sources and i think they are a great promotional tool.


EDIT:the article i posted is from the SHM website, i first read it in the newspaper which has a sub-article "how you can stay out of trouble" which includes the quote

"even small-scale productions out of bedrooms are illegal and will be investigated and prosecuted. mixing a CD and handing it out to friends can be considered infringement on a commercial scale (source: michael williams, gilbert+tobin lawyers, representatives of the australian music industry)"

 

[Xayma]

Well you would be illegaly copying their music. To do it you would have to own a legit CD with each of those tracks in your remix CD and also give them the original copies with the remix being the only copy.

 

[spin spin sugar]

yeah ideally i think its fine, its not like they're trying to claim the original track is by them so why is it a problem? but theres other issues involved i guess

 

[Xayma]

I think the main issue presented here was they made a commercial gain, off anothers work. The fines would be alot lower, possibly non-existant if it was small scale non commercial work, ie probably nothing more than a warning.

 

[breaking]

I think the main issue presented here was they made a commercial gain, off anothers work. The fines would be alot lower, possibly non-existant if it was small scale non commercial work, ie probably nothing more than a warning.

the article i posted is from the SHM website, i first read it in the newspaper which has a sub-article "how you can stay out of trouble" which includes the quote

"even small-scale productions out of bedrooms are illegal and will be investigated and prosecuted. mixing a CD and handing it out to friends can be considered infringement on a commercial scale (source: michael williams, gilbert+tobin lawyers, representatives of the australian music industry)"

 

[Xayma]

It can be considered infringement on a commercial scale, but the likeliness that they will prosecute is low. You would have to have enemies/stupid friends to be found.

 

[breaking]

oh shit, just realised i fucked up the title of this thread.
oh noes.

 

[LadyBec]

you did too
I think if you're just like playing aound with remixes at home and stuff then it should be alright... it's only if you're making a profit out of it that I object

 

[Soma]

As long as you're not doing it for profit noone would give a shit.
Most of the artists in the genres I like wouldn't even give a shit anyway, hip hop has a huuuuuuge sampling culture, you think most producers get clearance on every single sample?

 

[katie_tully]

-hides cds under rug-