DJing in public places... Rules make no sense

[Claymore]

Mine says it's: 'To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.'

[snowbelle]

it is HIS house... 3dx does not provide the Streaming System for the public rooms... only the radiostreams. Achilles bought the server licenses and provided it to the community. So his server... his rules... quite easy. And he stands in the line of fire. German law is not this nice for copyright violations... ergo each one who uses HIS servers has to follow HIS rules. 

 

 

Everything that was done was legally done. He brought his personal views (and issues about legal content) in when he said CU is not allowed for streaming content anymore.

 

HIS house, HIS rules, HIS decision, HIS opinion, HIS fault. It wouldn't have been HIS fault if the HIS opinions weren't so skewed on CU. That is the real issue here. He has the right to say NO to something that is being done on HIS servers, not something that is being done on someone else's. 

[Guest RobT]

you guys seem to be missing the point. So you dont like rules, not many do but i would imagine most were in place to protect him and 3dx possibly against any threat of litigation . The game and djing isnt a democracy, Its a game owned by people who have every right to put rules in place to be followed. There is a reason why before you play about any game ever made you have to agree to a TOS. Same with the djing. 

 

As far as people chipping in to buy the servers. slim chance of that happening, they are very careful who they allow have any type of game access and with good reason, they arent just going to open themselves up for future legal issues just because you want live djing. You had it once, how did that turn out?

[Guest RobT]

Mine says it's: 'To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.'

lmao

[JessicaX]

My big thanks and deep respects  go to Achilles who provided us with his money, his work, his time and his heartblood for quite a long time.

You simply didn't earn all this bullshit.

 

Sad to see that some few selfish persons are able to destroy anything you were doing for the community and in fact destroying fun for a lot of ppl here.

 

Besides from that I highly agree on Shanti's words.

 

Music is intended to be enjoyed and bring ppl together and not to divide or split them. It just seems some ppl are not adult enough here to accept rules

that were clearly communicated in advance.

 

OliU, I have always respected you and and we have had some nice chats. The issue here isn't that the rules were not followed. You are 100% correct when you say "The rules were clearly communicated in advance". I followed all the rules from the start. Achilles knew where my music came from. The choice of CU was suggested to me from 2 of the most popular DJs here. The point that everyone seems to ignore is... the decision to remove CU as a legit music source was made IMMEDIATELY after he found out that I record my EDM mixes. Now we can all sit here for days or weeks and discuss the legal implications of what we do... MOST of it is illegal, including the recording and uploading of ALL mixes to Mixcloud.

 

But the fact remains, I didn't do anything wrong, and I always followed his rules. He looked down on me and did not agree with me recording mixes. Sorry, but that is no one else's business. Me recording a mix has nothing to do with streaming in public on 3dx. But to immediately remove CU as a legit music source as a measure of retaliation because he didn't like that I record mixes? I'm shocked at how many people support this type of action.

[JessicaX]

 

And if I understand things correctly, Achilles did something like this and is why he was so insistent on certain rules being followed and only songs played that had the correct metadata on them.

He paid the correct licensing to allow the public DJs to be covered.

 

You are correct Twiggy. Like I said, i cannot verify this, but this is what he told me and I would have no reason to assume differently, meaning that anyone streaming to public was protected. 

 

The problem is that once he found out I record my EDM mixes, the rules were IMMEDIATELY changed to not allow CU music in public. This was done in retaliation to me doing something that he did not like in private on my own PC. The recording issue has nothing to do with streaming in public and the 2 issues are and should have been left completely separate from each other. The fact with recording is that ALL recording and distribution of licenced audio goes against copyright. ALL but 1 EDM DJs here upload to mixcloud, including Achilles! Why am I the only one that was looked down upon it? Because I found a way around the CU DRM protection? OK... yes I admit, it is illegal for me to do that... but as I have explained over and over... what one does on their PC is their business and noone else's. Just because I did my recording in a different way doesnt make the other's recordings any more legal because because i have shown links and SS's from the RIAA website that clearly indicate that ALL recording and redistribution is illegal, except to websites like Beatport, etc... where you can sell your mix and the artists get some of the profits.

 

I have always followed the rules and I refuse to list anyone else's name involved here, but i can assure you, other DJs are affected by this decision, and many of you might be suprised and shocked by who these other people are. In the case of everyone recording illegally, he chose to retaliate against me and remove my source of music, also affecting other people. The rule to not allow CU was NOT a rule from the start. More than 1/2 of the DJs have been using it for years. It was put into place within seconds of finding out how I record my EDM mixes.

[JessicaX]

I'd just like to add that I would also donate monthly to support a Public DJ system in this game. I would do so with no sense of entitlement.

 

So would I

[snowbelle]

Snowbelle a blanket license does not cover a streaming service, it is not even meant for the Internet, it is meant for things like live performances, shopping malls and restaurants.

Unless things have changed dramatically over the last 2 years that is how it is.

There are heaps of websites offering music and saying they have licensing covered under blanket licenses, or at least there was.

The music industry, mainly the 3 top labels have been slowly cleaning them out.

It is a miss conception that blanket licenses cover a range of music licensing and has been a problem for some time now.

But if you contact SESAC they will tell you all this, they did me when i contacted them a little over 2 years ago.

They will explain exactly what blanket licensing is and what it is meant for, and also what it is agilely being used for.

If you are streaming music to others a blanket license does not cover you.

 

Blanket license from CU doesn't cover as streaming service, but it covers using content from these providers to play music. Blanket license on Mixcloud covers uploading music to their servers, allowing what you upload to the servers be *legal.* The servers or radio station needs to get a license (which Achiles) had, similar to mixcloud. So with both of these together, everything that was done with CU to stream content to 3dx was legal. The music industry hasn't been cleaning them out because they make the most money from subscription models, hence iTunes, Google Music, Amazon. 

 

There are websites like these that will give you everything you need to supply a radio station or DJ over the Internet, some of them do have music covered by the correct licensing to stream that music to you.

But if you stream that music out to others then it is up to you to obtain a license to do so.

If you read through their terms you will not find anywhere where they say you are actually licensed to further stream that music to others.

They could not possibly do that for $9.90 a month and pay the royalties that they would have to pay, it would be much much more than they get from supplying the service for $9.90 a month.

The ones that do do it legally are like $60 a month 40 hours, if you stream to less than 100 people on average.

They supply a means of getting all the required data they need to be able to pay the correct royalties that you use in shoutcast.

When you use those services that info is automatically sent to them so they can supply that information when they pay SESAC the royalties owing so it goes to the right people.

 

It is not up to us to do the math. You don't know how the royalties are being paid. Also, you don't understand the business behind subscription service. A subscription service will net artists more $ than a one time fee because it is being paid monthly. Subscription models are more profitable for any artists than one time fees, because with one time fee, there is a hard cap on how much they can receive. With subscription models, their revenue stream is endless month over month.

 

The $60 ones are licensing fee for streaming radio, not obtaining music. Two different things. 

 

You can stream from a number of places, you do not even have to own the music, it can be streamed from places that do like iTunes and others.

But if you stream that music out to others then you are responsible for the correct licensing and payment of royalties.

An that cannot be covered by any blanket license, no matter what it says on any websites that is how it is.

As I have said, you don't have to take my word for it, phone the licensing agencies like SESAC and find out for yourself.

 

Now I have gone through content unlimitted and virtual dj and found the only thing I can find on the subject.

Note what I have highlighted in bold.

 

So all our ContentUnlimited catalogs (Audio, Karaoke and Video), only contain tracks that are fully compliant with this.

(note: the right of public use from the sound recording copyright that we are talking about here is not the same as the right of public performance from the master work copyright, for which your venue still needs to pay fees to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC)

 

If you want to see a website that does do it correctly, look at the one I have supplied a link to below.

Notice the pricing and how it is done using TLH and ATH calculations, that is the way it is done.

 

https://www.streamlicensing.com/?action=page&page=pricing

 

You need to retrieve the ISRC code from songs, these guys have a setup that automatically does that as you DJ in Shoutcast, see where it talks about that.

Content Unlimited does seem to say they supply tracks with the correct information in the metadata for them to draw the required information, namely the ISRC code.

But I would say from what has gone on Achilles found a problem with them.

But they do not supply you with the license that makes it legal for you to broadcast that track, you have to do that.

 

And if I understand things correctly, Achilles did something like this and is why he was so insistent on certain rules being followed and only songs played that had the correct metadata on them.

He paid the correct licensing to allow the public DJs to be covered.

 

Correct, he covered the license. So why doesn't he want to allow CU as a legal source of music? Note that purchasing a music track from Google, iTunes, Amazon or Beatport doesn't automatically give you the license to stream. Say no to CU and yes to all the rest, makes no sense.

 

[JessicaX]

you guys seem to be missing the point. So you dont like rules, not many do but i would imagine most were in place to protect him and 3dx possibly against any threat of litigation . The game and djing isnt a democracy, Its a game owned by people who have every right to put rules in place to be followed. There is a reason why before you play about any game ever made you have to agree to a TOS. Same with the djing. 

 

As far as people chipping in to buy the servers. slim chance of that happening, they are very careful who they allow have any type of game access and with good reason, they arent just going to open themselves up for future legal issues just because you want live djing. You had it once, how did that turn out?

 

After 7 pages of posting and me explaining over and over, you and many others still don't understand the situation. I'm not sure if it's a comprehension issue, or if you just don't care about the transparency and consistency of what rules are and why they should be followed. 

 

This isn't an issue about rules being followed. The rules were always followed. Even after him making the decision to not allow CU files to be streamed, I did not stream a single track on 3dx. There is not a single instance where I was on a 3dx public server and failed to follow the rules.

 

The issue is simply that the rules were changed in retaliation against me because he didn't agree with something I did on my PC, in private, that had nothing to do with public streaming. 

 

7+ pages and me explaining this over and over and I am shocked that you still cannot comprehend what this is about.

[Guest RobT]

After 7 pages of posting and me explaining over and over, you and many others still don't understand the situation. I'm not sure if it's a comprehension issue, or if you just don't care about the transparency and consistency of what rules are and why they should be followed. 

 

This isn't an issue about rules being followed. The rules were always followed. Even after him making the decision to not allow CU files to be streamed, I did not stream a single track on 3dx. There is not a single instance where I was on a 3dx public server and failed to follow the rules.

 

The issue is simply that the rules were changed in retaliation against me because he didn't agree with something I did on my PC, in private, that had nothing to do with public streaming. 

 

7+ pages and me explaining this over and over and I am shocked that you still cannot comprehend what this is about.

its odd how in the docq threads you were all for his strict rules, Now all of a sudden because they went against you they are the most terrible thing ever created. Life isnt fair.  doesnt matter if you are even right, which you could be. Rules are rules. there are plenty of laws in the world that make no sense but you will still be arrested if you break them

[Cordelia]

This could go on for ever. I don't know whether some people are coming in half way through and not reading the whole thread or whether they are incapable of understanding the problem.

I know nothing about streaming, public DJ'íng, etc. but, to me, the problem was pretty obvious from the original post.

Let me provide an analogy so Jessica doesn't have to keep repeating herself...

 

A business owner provides a forecourt for the sale of vehicles by others.

All the vehicles are legitimate, all the paper work is valid, etc.

However, the owner discovers that one of the sellers is stealing other cars and selling them on the side so refuses to allow that person the ability to sell any vehicles on their forecourt, despite their legitimacy.

The seller complains to the newspapers.

The business owner doesn't like the complaint being made public so shuts down his business.

 

We can moralise all we like about what the aggrieved party is doing on the side and whether or not the business owner is entitled to do what they want.

However, the fact remains that the aggrieved party followed the rules and the business owner was responsible for shutting up shop.

[JessicaX]

its odd how in the docq threads you were all for his strict rules, Now all of a sudden because they went against you they are the most terrible thing ever created. Life isnt fair.  doesnt matter if you are even right, which you could be. Rules are rules. there are plenty of laws in the world that make no sense but you will still be arrested if you break them

 

*facedesk* 

 

Rob, I will try this one last time with you... although it's probably the 20th time I have had to say this: I have never once had an issue with any of his rules. The rules were ALWAYS followed and I respected his rules. The issue is that the rules were changed after he found out I record EDM mixes and upload them to Mixcloud. This was done because of his own personal views and done in a manner of retaliation against me after I told him it was none of his business what I do in private on my own PC.

 

I sincerely hope you "get it" this time because i would love to get back on topic. Please stop referring to "rules not being followed" because there were no rules saying we could not record mixes on our PC. Im sure as much as he would love to enforce that, he cannot.

[JessicaX]

This could go on for ever. I don't know whether some people are coming in half way through and not reading the whole thread or whether they are incapable of understanding the problem.

I know nothing about streaming, public DJ'íng, etc. but, to me, the problem was pretty obvious from the original post.

Let me provide an analogy so Jessica doesn't have to keep repeating herself...

 

A business owner provides a forecourt for the sale of vehicles by others.

All the vehicles are legitimate, all the paper work is valid, etc.

However, the owner discovers that one of the sellers is stealing other cars and selling them on the side so refuses to allow that person the ability to sell any vehicles on their forecourt, despite their legitimacy.

The seller complains to the newspapers.

The business owner doesn't like the complaint being made public so shuts down his business.

 

We can moralise all we like about what the aggrieved party is doing on the side and whether or not the business owner is entitled to do what they want.

However, the fact remains that the aggrieved party followed the rules and the business owner was responsible for shutting up shop.

 

Well thats a bit of a harsh example but I'm glad that someone "gets it". Tho what I was doing on the side isn't any different than what any other DJ was doing. I just had to be a bit more creative because I was using DRM content.

[Guest RobT]

Yes i get that so you had one or two choices. follow said rules or stop djing. you dont seem to comprehend that. fair or not it is ultimately his choice to make any rules changes. is it fair, prob not but lifes not fair.  

[snowbelle]

Yes i get that so you had one or two choices. follow said rules or stop djing. you dont seem to comprehend that. fair or not it is ultimately his choice to make any rules changes. is it fair, prob not but lifes not fair.  

 

As much as I have been refraining from saying, "You are an idiot." It doesn't change the fact that, you are one. So for one last time for your thick skull, rules were being followed. He changed the rules because he didn't like it. Means he threw a fit without being reasonable. It isn't fair, it is childish at best. And has nothing to do with life not being fair.

[chloe]

its odd how in the docq threads you were all for his strict rules, Now all of a sudden because they went against you they are the most terrible thing ever created. Life isnt fair.  doesnt matter if you are even right, which you could be. Rules are rules. there are plenty of laws in the world that make no sense but you will still be arrested if you break them

Good luck that we live in a world where we will not getting arested if we break Achilles rules.

[Guest RobT]

As much as I have been refraining from saying, "You are an idiot." It doesn't change the fact that, you are one. So for one last time for your thick skull, rules were being followed. He changed the rules because he didn't like it. Means he threw a fit without being reasonable. It isn't fair, it is childish at best. And has nothing to do with life not being fair.

which he is entitled to do since he ran the servers, not 3dx. and do you really want to go down the insulting road Ms. snowbelle? I assure you im better at it then you.

 

*edited for typo*

Edited April 27, 2016 by RobT

[JessicaX]

Yes i get that so you had one or two choices. follow said rules or stop djing. you dont seem to comprehend that. fair or not it is ultimately his choice to make any rules changes. is it fair, prob not but lifes not fair.  

 

And I did make the choice to not DJ in public because it would be going against his rules. Then i tried to work things out with him in private to see if we could come to an agreement, and over and over and over.. the issue always came back to him being upset with me that I record my mixes. Well im sorry... but that's not his business!

 

I'm confused as to why you are posting replies that are completely redundant. Yes we all know what rules are and why they should be followed. yes.. we all know that Achilles ran the servers and paid for them from hsi own money.  Yes... we know that all the other DJs put in a lot of time an effort to entertain the community, and Yes.. I also enjoy MissyB's mixes...    But.. None of that is at question here. None of it WAS in question. The word for the day is... REDUNDANT.    

[Rochi]

Why does Achilles need to be a middleman in this anyway? As far as I can see you can just set any stream url into the panel O.o

And why are the public zones now set to play some random horrible music? At least the Sin Club one sucks x) Default please

 

[Guest RobT]

And I did make the choice to not DJ in public because it would be going against his rules. Then i tried to work things out with him in private to see if we could come to an agreement, and over and over and over.. the issue always came back to him being upset with me that I record my mixes. Well im sorry... but that's not his business!

 

I'm confused as to why you are posting replies that are completely redundant. Yes we all know what rules are and why they should be followed. yes.. we all know that Achilles ran the servers and paid for them from hsi own money.  Yes... we know that all the other DJs put in a lot of time an effort to entertain the community, and Yes.. I also enjoy MissyB's mixes...    But.. None of that is at question here. None of it WAS in question. The word for the day is... REDUNDANT.    

maybe because you are posting redundant things, djing ended like 200 posts ago. yet you are still looking for sympathy when even some other djs have spoke out against you. pot, meet kettle

[Guest RobT]

in closing, because this is going around and around... your butthurt i get it. i also get that you pretty much killed djing  congrats! have a great day.

[JessicaX]

maybe because you are posting redundant things, djing ended like 200 posts ago. yet you are still looking for sympathy when even some other djs have spoke out against you. pot, meet kettle

 

I was never looking for sympathy. Transparency & Consistency.. yes!

[Cordelia]

There is no way she could kill it, Achilles was responsible for killing it.

[JessicaX]

in closing, because this is going around and around... your butthurt i get it. i also get that you pretty much killed djing  congrats! have a great day.

 

I don't have that kind of access. It was never an ability of mine to remove the stream servers from 3dx. I feel sorry for you that you are unable to comprehend the situation. Tho it does make me happy that the more you post, the more people get to see what kind of person you are. 

[Shanti]

I have always followed the rules and I refuse to list anyone else's name involved here, but i can assure you, other DJs are affected by this decision, and many of you might be suprised and shocked by who these other people are. In the case of everyone recording illegally, he chose to retaliate against me and remove my source of music, also affecting other people. The rule to not allow CU was NOT a rule from the start. More than 1/2 of the DJs have been using it for years. It was put into place within seconds of finding out how I record my EDM mixes.

 

I need a little clarification if you don't mind.

 

Were these recordings made while playing on 3Dx ? Or did you respin them after login off from 3dx to record them ?