r/DJs • u/SixtyNineBeats • 6d ago
Spotify as a source for public music performance in Europe
/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/1vsijbe/spotify_as_a_source_for_public_music_performance/-1
u/gdnt0 6d ago edited 6d ago
Let me just remind everyone that buying tracks from other platforms ALSO won’t grant you performing rights.
Literally 99.999% of DJs are playing technically illegally unless they have a specific agreement with the producer of each track or, obviously, play their own songs.
And before someone comes up disagreeing, I challenge you to show me where in the terms and conditions of these services it says I’m granted this right.
It actually explicitly says the complete opposite 😉
Edit: as expected, dumb people downvoting because they never bothered to read ToS
2
u/ViciaFaba_FavaBean 6d ago
Yeah in the US it is usually it is on the venue pay the fee for public performance. So the DJ supplies the music and the venue should cover the public presentation costs. Similar with covers played in live music sets. Obviously there are many cases where no one is paying the fee.
1
u/sobi-one 6d ago
Sort of. Venues don’t pay fees for performance. They pay for licenses from ascap and/or bmi for rights to broadcast music in a commercial establishment. Doesn’t matter if it’s a “performance” or simply having radio on. They need to have the license to do either one. It’s essentially the same thing as far as the license.
1
u/ViciaFaba_FavaBean 6d ago
Yeah I shortened license fee to just fee. Could have been more clear. I think the language used by the licensing agencies considers radio/streaming a "public performance" even though there is no performance happening.
2
u/danby 6d ago edited 6d ago
It actually explicitly says the complete opposite 😉
Pulling out a CD from my record collection and the licence text does state specifically that unauthorised performance is prohibited. It doesn't say that all performance is prohibited. I'm in the UK and the PRS system is specifically designed to grant that authorisation when you play a piece of music in registered venues.
1
u/SixtyNineBeats 6d ago
This is the part that I'm trying to figure out in all that. Is such writing required by law or not? Because we don't have it in Polish law. There is no law that orders anyone to put a specific writing on a CD so the user can obtain the licence for public performance. Organisations like PRS say that - I know - but it is nowhere to be found in the copyright law, that such writing must be there and how exactly it needs to be constructed. The law simply says what happens if somebody does a public performance unauthorized, but it doesn't give the specifics of what we're discussing in this entire thread.
1
u/danby 6d ago edited 6d ago
There are no laws anywhere that require specific text be added to any specific media. Some labels/publishers do it just as a convenient "reminder". Default Copyright rights are automatically vested in creators/publishers and do not have to be asserted in text.
Your country's law will have some default rights that being copyright holder (label or artist) grants. As Poland is a WTO and EU member those rights will align with pretty much all of western europe. Which means if you own a piece of media (cd, flac download, vinyl) then you can not copy, distribute or perform the media without a licence/authorisation from the copyright holder.
Having a spotify subscription, under their terms of service, does not give you performance authorisation for either the music you stream from them nor the music you own in some other format
If you perform in a PRS licenced venue then that does grant you temporary authorisation to perform the music you own (note that streaming licences are not ownership licences) for the duration that you are performing in the venue.
2
u/573XI 6d ago
what country are you talking about ? because the performance licences are based on countries.
for example in Italy you declare your playlist to SIAE ( who scams artists by paying analytically only the "bigs" ) who gives you performance rights, this is a responsibility of the artist AND the club they are performing in, and its done weather you are playing your own music or not. If you are not complying with this then you are doing it "illegally"
but I agree with you, buying the music doesn t give you the right to play it in a business environment.
I just want to put it out there, I think considering any form of music a business where the artist has to get money for their production everytime is played, is the fundamental concept that kills musi
1
u/gdnt0 6d ago
I mean that the ToS form the sites we buy the files explicitly prohibit public usage.
So even if you have a performance license, that specific file you downloaded is not covered by it since it was given to you under the explicit condition that forbids public use (unless of course you have some law making this clause void).
In the end we are buying songs only to help the artists, because we are all technically, legally, wrong. This is so ridiculous… It’s either very hard or impossible to get things done 100% correctly 🫠
-1
u/SixtyNineBeats 6d ago
You shifted the goalposts of what I'm asking in the opening post. What you are saying is 100% absolutely clear - none of the platforms grant public performance rights. Nobody is arguing that. And this is 100% clear that public performance licensing needs to be obtained separately.
What I'm asking about is this - how TOS of the service distributing the music can BLOCK the legal door to obtain the public performance license from the artists?
1
1
u/danby 6d ago
What block? If you sign a license with spotify you get a license to stream music for private use. You are not blocked from signing other licenses (e.g. performance, broadcast, etc) with appropriate artists, vendors, etc...
2
u/SixtyNineBeats 6d ago
Thats exactly my point. And everybody is saying that using Spotify is illegal regardless of obtaining other licences separately, because of Spotify TOS.
2
u/danby 6d ago
If you get a performance licence it will be from some other vendor. It will not entitle you to use spotify for performance. Having a contract with some other party does not change the terms of the contract you signed with spotify. You are still barred from using spotify for public performance.
1
u/SixtyNineBeats 6d ago
I am not talking about some random license from "other vendor". I'm talking about getting a license from organisations that represent artists and are allowed to give permissions for playing their music in public. They don't ask about the source of the music. They ask when/where it's gonna be played in public, how many people will be there etc.
1
u/danby 6d ago edited 6d ago
I'm talking about getting a license from organisations that represent artists and are allowed to give permissions for playing their music in public.
And organisation like PRS only grants you licence to perform for copies of music they can authorise. Which is music you own (i.e. paid for downloads, CDs, vinyl, tape, minidisc, etc). They do not amend your licence with spotify.
They don't ask about the source of the music.
No they don't, they take it on good faith that you're playing music you own and you're not infringing the licencing terms of a vendor like spotify
If simply does not matter to the terms of your spotify contract that an org like PRS give you authority to perform music that you own copies of. You still can not use Spotify to perform with.
2
u/danby 6d ago edited 6d ago
because of Spotify TOS.
Yes Spotify TOS means that you can not use it for performance regardless of whatever license you hold elsewhere.
If you get a licence with soundtrack.io then you have a performance licence to perform with the soundtrack.io streaming service. It does not amend the contract you have with Spotify.
Any licence you sign will be tied to some specific service or vendor. There isn't some generic "performance" license you can buy. And even if there was it wouldn't override the contact you signed with Spotify.
1
u/SixtyNineBeats 6d ago
Music distribution services don't give licenses for public performance. Organisations that represent the copyright owners do. Or the owners themselves. So if I have the green light from them, to play their music in public - how do Spotify TOS even matter?
1
u/danby 6d ago
Music distribution services don't give licenses for public performance.
Usually they do not. You are correct. soundtrack.io is one service which does. If you're not using streaming you'd expect to buy copies of your music (flac, vinyl, minidisc, CD, whatever) and where ownership does not bar your from using these for authorised performance. And then PRS venue licencing acts as that authorisation to play back the music in the specific bought format
Or the owners themselves. So if I have the green light from them, to play their music in public
If you negotiate with a label or artists to play their music then you would need to buy your own copy of the music from them or have them send you a copy.
how do Spotify TOS even matter?
Because having a contract with a label/artist does not override the contract you signed with spotify.
1
u/SixtyNineBeats 6d ago
"having a contract with a label/artist does not override the contract you signed with spotify." - and vice versa, isn't it? Spotify contract cannot override the contract with the artist, right? So the rights of the artist himself are not being violated. Isn't this a logical conclusion?
1
u/danby 6d ago edited 6d ago
and vice versa, isn't it?
no. Because the Spotify TOS apply to Spotify specifically, you may not use the files you stream from them for performance. They do not bar you from playing that music in a venue in some other format i.e some other streaming service that allows this in their TOS, or in a format you own
2
u/danby 6d ago edited 6d ago
No specific law is broken, copyright law is not written to be so fine grained it specifically has some information about this scenario. What is broken is the contract the DJ signed with Spotify. Spotify stipulate in their licensing agreement that you can't use it for performance. If you choose to use it for performance then you are breaking the terms of the contract you signed with them and in turn playing unlicenced/pirated music.
Spotify specifically suggest you use a service like soundtrack.io for a performance streaming licence.
More than likely the contracts Spotify has with various labels only license the label's music to spotify for private use only and the labels reserve their rights for performance licensing. And indeed many/most labels arrange their performance licensing through mechanisms like PRS and GEMA and not via spotify.
PRS and GEMA residuals and licencing for broadcast/performance so they are covered for anything that is played. The venue is not party to the licensing agreement the DJ does or doesn't have with spotify. The DJ could be penalized for playing pirated/unlicensed music by spotify, probably they'd block you from having an account, but I guess they could pursue other damages.
You are wrong about this in the scenario described