Venues around Australia are about to have to pay a whole lot more for the right to play recorded music, and not surprisingly dance music promoters around the country are more than a little concerned about being hit with such a massive rise. As reported on inthemix HERE, a ruling made by the Copyright Tribunal of Australia will see fees paid by venues that play recorded music rise from the former flat rate of seven cents per patron, per song. Clubs will now pay a licence fee of $1.05 a person based on the club’s capacity, which means that a venue which holds 1,000 patrons will pay $1,050, even if the club is only half full. The rate paid by dance party organisers will also rise from 20 cents to $3.07 cents per person.
Not surprisingly, dance music promoters around the country have expressed concerns over being slugged with such a hefty rate rise. First things first, will any of this money actually end up filtering down to the producers who are making dance music in Australia? Melbourne promoter Richie McNeil from Hardware, one of Australia’s leading promoters, doesn’t seem to think so. “I’ve had a record label for many years, and the way the money is distributed, none of it really gets back to the appropriate people anyway.”
He claims a lot of it is absorbed in administration fees of organisations like APRA (Australasian Performing Right Association) and AMCOS (Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society), some is never actually claimed by the musicians themselves and further still, unless a DJ is especially vigilant about submitting a playlist after a gig then it’s difficult to determine what music is played at a nightclub on any given evening. The end result being that the money doesn’t go where it should.
“I’m all for supporting Australian music, but the problem is that people receive money for their music just because they’re registered with APRA,” he says. “If you look at the list of labels that are represented by organisations like that then there’s barely even one label on there that actually releases the sort of music that gets played at our events.
“If the money was legitimately going to the artists that are being played at our events then I’d be happy with it, but I know that only around 10-15 per cent of that money actually reaches them.”
Richie says it will definitely impact the events put on by his company, particularly when it comes to the smaller, more underground parties where punter patronage is not necessarily guaranteed. “There’s those borderline gigs that you do where you don’t make much money but you’re doing it to support an artist or a particular style of music,” he says. “There’s probably four or five of those gigs a year that we do with borderline margins that we’d probably just end up not bothering with anymore. If you’ve gotta go from paying APRA $500 to $2,500 then it’s just ridiculous.”
The biggest cries of injustice are being made over the fact that the ruling is slugging the exact people who are helping break new dance music; the DJs, who offer exposure to up-and-coming producers. “If it wasn’t for club play then this music wouldn’t be getting exposed in the first place,” says Richie. “If you look at the ARIA Club Charts and then look a couple of weeks later at what’s in the Top 40, then you’ll see that it’s the clubs that are generating the initial interest and groundswell that helps these tracks chart. If it wasn’t for these events playing their music then it probably wouldn’t break in the first place, because radio stations won’t play it until that initial buzz is created.
“Clubs, dance parties and festivals are an integral and key part of record label’s strategies to get their music to cross over to the mainstream, which is where they make their real money. This is the frustrating thing, they want to burn the people that are basically trying to help them promote the music in the first place.”
For Tim Hardaker, National Editor of inthemix, the aspect of the ruling that needs to be considered closest is that clubs will be charged according to capacity of the venue, rather than how many people are actually inside. He claims it demonstrates a lack of understanding of how club culture operates. “The patrons at a club will fluctuate pretty wildly from week to week. It could be a particular DJ or the end of uni and the club will be packed. And then it could be raining and the club will have 15 people inside,” he said in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald.
“I don’t know whether it will force them to shut down but… within the nightclub culture there is a tendency to go to two or three nightclubs, whereas now you might only go to one club. The punters are price sensitive, they are university students and people who have just entered the workforce. The margins between profit and loss are so fine already.”
But not everyone is labeling it as all doom and gloom. John Wall from Fuzzy in Sydney says that he takes issue more with the steepness of the rate rise, rather than the fact that it’s gone up in the first place. “I never had any argument with the fact that producers should get paid for their work, but I think that the price rise is a lot. It’s big enough to have a noticeable impact on how competitive DJing is when compared to other forms of entertainment out there.”
And John believes DJing has already taken a hit as far as popularity goes. While ten years ago punters may have been more excited about seeing a DJ play than a rock band, it seems they’re getting more excited about seeing the live acts these days. “When you get an event as big as Field Day the amount comes to something like $75,000, which is a pretty big incentive to favour live acts over DJs. And if it has a negative effect on how many DJs are getting booked and how many dance events are held, then obviously it can also have a corresponding negative effect on the promotion of dance music that happens in that context.”
Looking beyond the obvious impacts the ruling will have, there are other factors to take into consideration. For instance, what about organisations like Mardi Gras who operate in a non-for-profit fashion? They put on the world renowned gay and lesbian parade and associated dance party every year in Sydney, and they’ll be slugged in a massive way because of the scale of their events. But as Mardi Gras chairman Marcus Bourget argues, they’ve got little means of making that money back.
“We’re a not for profit organisation, but unfortunately we won’t be able to get an exemption for this. For a 10,000 person party that means it’s an extra $30,000 that we’ll have to cover. It means juggling to keep ticket prices competitive but also provide the production values that people want. We don’t get opportunities like other promoters to make that revenue back. For instance, our coat check is run by a charity, so we don’t get any of that money.”
What does the PPCA have to say?
Looking to the official statement made by the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) who won its legal battle yesterday, board member Paul Christie claimed that, “An increase in these tariffs is long overdue and will help compensate artists who create the product which is the foundation of the nightclub and dance party industries. Artists are entitled to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work and this will go some way towards compensating us for our creative output.”
Another board member Lindy Morrison emphasised the impact decision will have on making music a sustainable career choice. “... Many of our recording artists have very little finance to fall back on as they grow older,” she says. “In my experience the community recognises that musicians have been given a poor deal and that’s why these tariffs are important. Music bestows a cultural bond between us all and artists should be valued for this.”
But both statements were taken from board members with a background in rock music – Paul Christie is a musician for Mondo Rock and Lindy Morrison is the former drummer for the Go-Betweens. With the agendas of the organisation’s being delivered from such a perspective, it makes you wonder exactly how much this decision was tailored to Australian dance music and nightclub culture, and whether it takes into account the different dynamics that are involved in both DJing and dance music production.
There’s evidence that some considerations were left out of the Tribunal’s ruling. For instance, the emphasis on a role of a DJ in creating the vibe of an evening. “Leading DJs earn substantial sums for their services,” the ruling says. “Good DJs work with sound recordings with great creativity to entertain the crowd and produce the experience at the nightclub. However, no one would pay anything to see a DJ without the sound recordings.” What this fails to consider is that many dance music producers use DJing as a way of promoting their music productions, and that DJing and music creation go hand in hand in a great deal of cases.
But the ruling does take into account the fact that in many cases, nightclub promotion can be a rough business. Looking at Sydney’s Home Nightclub as a case study, it showed that for about 90 per cent of the time the venue is at about 50 per cent below capacity. But this concession is at odds with the Tribunal’s decision to charge the rates depending on the venue’s capacity rather than the amount of people through the door on any specific evening, which means a promoter will get slugged with the same fees regardless of whether they pack the venue out or the night is a total bomb.
The Tribunal does concede that the ruling could have some fairly hefty financial consequences, looking again at Home Nightclub. “The fee payable in respect of Home Nightclub would be in excess of $480,000 per annum. That sum would exceed the net profit derived by Home for the financial year ended 30 June 2005. The proprietor of Home asserts that it would have no option but to transform the present venue into a big hotel with background music.”
But one of the main affirmations of the ruling is that even though Australian nightclubs may not be able to afford the price hikes, that’s no reason that those who are producing the music should be denied the payment that they are due. “If it be the fact that the right to play recorded music has the value claimed by the Society, the fact that many nightclubs presently operating cannot afford to pay for that privilege is not a reason for them to be subsidised by those whom the Society represents.”
What do you think? Take a look at the ruling yourself by clicking HERE or discuss it in the forums HERE.
DJSketch says...
I had this discussion very recently. as a promoter, it will hurt the local music scene. as aproducer, i doubt we'll see any of the money, and as a DJ, if clubs move towards live bands, that's going to do us no good either.
djbricksta says...
This is rubbish. Ive been talking about this with another DJ and you just wonder why they dont listen to figureheads in industry...
Rob Flaye says...
Just wondering whether any band that 'covers' another band also has to pay these fees? A massive overeaction by the big music labels. I feel for artists and yes they should get a greater share but the big record labels kept CD prices so high for so long. It was only a matter of time before the market came up with an alternative with free music sharing. Maybe if the big record labels woke the f*ck up they would have pre-empted things like Limewire, moved faster and come up with a mechanism where people pay less for music but the artists still get something! Now it seems free for all and people are set in their ways of 'free music download' culture! This new license fee system is bullsh*t and whos going to enforce it !!!!!
DJ GeRmAn says...
Absolute rubbish, this is goning to hurt badly
RC55 says...
I Hate Politicians
benii says...
I can understand from their point of view but! maybe an increase up to $1 over a 10 year period but not in one hit, that is just plain greedy! To increase by 15 times the current amount is rediculous. Imagine if petrol went up that much from $1.30 ltr $20 ltr hahaha! they would get shut down before they could even change their signs. A small increase is reasonable or a larger increase of a decent period of time is also reasonable
milkcrate says...
Whats next? they will start charge advertising companies and TV stations extra fee for playing advertising as there are people behind it that make it ... and car industry in its place should charge money from type manufactures for them to keep they wheels turning...... very similar... People who do this, have got no idea!!!
Spekman says...
This isn't fair!!! The people who changed this obviously are only thinking of live acts and not DJ's or the dance music scene... Can't something be done to shake this up a bit??? A petition or something haha??
Telegram Sam says...
Maybe the clubs and promoters who are going to be hurt like this could help start a campaign against the ruling by running some benefit nights. The increase is way too high and the rules and definitions are plainly unfair. IT should not be up to the tribunal to in effect discourage venues from having dancefloors and putting on club nights. Otherwise, illegal raves are looking like a good idea again.
benii says...
yeh how many of the songs that we here out are actually on massive labels...
skully says...
Fabulous article. A very complicated issue - i understand it from all sides... I'm not sure what the answer is.
DJ_LG says...
Is there any talk of an appeal? Does the dance industry think this is the end or can we make a change? It seems, like all mainstream commercial music that its all about the money. Why should those artist that have their tracks registered with APRA benefit from DJ's playing tracks/remixes/bootlegs/white labels (which they have already bought or be given by the artist to promote)from all over the world that have nothing to do with APRA? How is APRA going to give the money to the international producers? Very stupid. And I don't just think it's stupid it bloody well is stupid.
Deadlier_DaZ says...
Yeah, i can understand the reason for it, but such a jump in fees is discusting. Tim makes a good point about the majority of goers being uni students and ppl new to the work force, as in most cases ppl that will be able to afford the door prices will already be over their club faze. If they raised it over a period of time it would be able to be delt with, for instance when i was in school the food in the canteen took 5 years to go up 50 cents so i dont see how they can reason these changes so fast :S I think APRA is a little out of touch with things personally.
r_y_z_e_r says...
How many djs do you know that submit a playlist at the end of their set, how is this extra money going to filter back to the artists that created it. It paints a funny picture though.. the next party you attend being raided by accountants with clickers and calculators...
AnaisNet says...
Despite Mr McNeil's completely understandable and passionate view on the topic - he incorrectly refers on a number of occasions to APRA, which (as I understand) is a completely different animal. The beast in this case is the PPCA, not APRA.
Dj Anthrax says...
One question.....IF these price hikes end up reducing the amount of club nights around sydney which they no doubtebly will. What medium are these artists going to have to show people there music? Biting the hand that feeds you much?
B-Radikal says...
This will close the club i work in for sure...not good.
youngman says...
If this ruling means that promoters find it more difficult to put on nights, then LESS music will be played overall meaning LESS income for the artists the ruling claims to support. Surely this is counter-productive.
lipton says...
where is the money going?
fauce says...
i doubt anyone will bother opening on nights when they are not going to be full. Kiss any clubs being open on thursdays or wednesdays!! Also - I called the PPCA and most clubs (according to their license) cannot substitute bands for Djs so they do not need to pay PPCA. This is because night club licenses call for continuous music from when they open till when they close. So any CD which is played in between/before or after bands will mean they must pay the PPCA the full amount as if they had had djs all night. stupidity!!!
DJ GeRmAn says...
Now I'm less motivated to put on events anymore :(
vintage yahtzee says...
This is outrageous. Is there anything we can do?
Dunpo_Rob says...
mmmm..... It would make sense if the price hike was in favour of the Artist who wrote/scored the music, but that varies on the type of contract held with the record company. Anyways, it was inevitable. I actually attended this film night @ Sydney Uni that talked about the Music industry and where it's headed etc... and it didn't look pretty :(. Maybe Promoters could find a venue (like a Warehouse) Make it BYO, And instead of a DJ performing other artist's music they could be playing music for their own personal enjoyment, whilst their peers are listening to it at the same time, then.. for the promoters to make money.. they could accept Donations via a donations jar. IN OTHER WORDS - Warehouse party. OR House Party lol... If this is what it has come to then so be it. This will have adverse affects on pubs and clubs, they'll have to increase drink prices due to the decreased patronage, Promoters will have to Charge more money etc. damned domino effect. Trust a bunch of Office Monkey Reocrd Label Arsehole's who don't go clubbing to make this irrational decision!!! GrRrRRr!!!!
minimimi says...
It's stupidity like this thst makes you lose your faith in humanity. I hope there's a loophole somewhere...
rjfolch says...
In my opinion ; get involved so you don't get screwed.
Kanomc says...
This is so sad. I've been arranging for my own club night to begin and it is things like this that make it so difficult to begin. I agree producers should be paid for the great music they make, but is the best way to do it by making the clubs their music is played in suffer? How will new clubs and new styles of music come through now unless we have serious amounts of cash to invest??
TroyShaun says...
0 of home nightclubs annual profit... did they even look into sustainability - it obviously wasn't well thought out by them. In the end none of this money goes to the actual producers anyway, the whole thing is just rediculous really i hope someone does something.
iOTA says...
arnt there any other music societys and associations music promoters can use, make up there own rules that keep it the same?
somevideodude says...
As a club manager, this is scary stuff, The AHA (Australian hotels association) has been fighting this in the courts for about a year. I am also a VJ and we all share our visuals as a community, but none of us really collect any royaltiys for there usage. The visuals do add to the show and experiance of a club or event. Why aren't video content designers getting some sort of payment? I beleive the music artists should be getting a cut, but it should be introduced gradually so promoters and clubs and gradually increase prices over time. A lot of venues down in canberra where I am run nights with a $5 cover, the market is not going to react well to almost doubling the cost of gigs. It should be implemented over time so the market can get used to gradual price rise.
Marky says...
This feels like a desperate grab by record labels who are struggling under the impact of 'mp-free' music download culture. These labels are not getting the money through music sales like they once were, so they're now trying to find other ways to get that money. And fair enough, really - music is not a free service, it takes a lot hard work and talent to make music. Which is why I find this challenging. Of course the musicians and producers deserve to get paid more than they do. So too do the labels (though I feel the majors have benefitted disproporatinately under the old music model). It makes sense that the 'end-user', the club/bar/concert/festival going punter, fairly rewards the musicians and producers and labels for providing the soundtrack to their good times. But this suggested PPCA model really doesn't seem to "fairly reward" anyone but the mainstream labels. Much more investigation and industry consultation is required on this.
replicant says...
Just another exhibition of a complete lack of consideration of cause and effect. The negative flow on effects of this decision in relation to job loss within the nightclub industry will far out way the positive effects of additional revenue to the artists. With most of the revenue being consumed by paracytic bodies through the banner of 'admin costs'. It's a joke. Just another short-sighted decision by those that govern us.
exceeder says...
This is so ridiculous...clubs are going to have to cut back on promoters, dj's, bar staff, cleaners etc. What a selfish and inconsiderate decision against the little guy who this is really going to affect - the people going to clubs.
Gyrus says...
This is absolute bullshit!!! Here's an idea, lets take a representative from the FUCKRA or whatever and take them to Home on a friday and write down what (if any) of the songs played at their venue come from the artists they represent. Grrrrrrrrr!!!
luvpig says...
"Artists are entitled to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work and this will go some way towards compensating us for our creative output." how is that Paul Christie? exactly what is the framework within which an artist on an independant label will see any of that money? There's allot of emotive politics ('cultural bond', 'fair days pay', 'cut and run' :p) - but not much detail as to how this is anything but a brain fart from the fun police. I know its a beauracracy, and probably someone elses "job" to make this rubbish workable, but less pompous assertions and more developed planning which we as artists have access to would be useful please.
anders8b says...
damn, this is a pain in the ass! this situation should have been avoided... they should have ramped the prices up gradually starting when napster died! hindsight is a wonderful thing....
Ken Knott says...
The digital revolution hit the majors hard and they're just trying to get their own back any way they can. No matter how detrimental it is to the industry. The reality is that none of this money will make it back to the artists that are producing the music played in the clubs. What percentage of Dance music played in Australian clubs is Australian made anyway? I'd say less than 10%. The majority of our music comes from overseas. These price hikes are irrational, unjustified and will more than likely line the pockets of the majors and APRA administrators than Austalia's pool of producers.
PaulHamon says...
No-one willl get there music played if no venues can afford to open... I personally think after 15 years of running and promoting nightclubs and events that 1/10 venues can afford these fees and 1/10 punter will be willing to pay x3 the price for entry to ensure the venue can pay the fees. Most nights run at around 60-70% capacity if it's going well on a weeking week out average... and a venue can only have 1-2 but never 2-3 good nights in a week... so if they want to trade 4 nights and have the 1-2 good night will have to support the weaker nights... Pricing is going to increase, no-one is going to go to slow nights, venue will be forced to open 1 night per week only maybe 2 if they are lucky... these venues will pay large weekly rents for 12 hours of trade.... we will see a rash of closure... And in the long run... less new music will be played... Maybe we'll see a rise of new-night that only plays unrelease, unrecords, unsigned artists... from mp3 and elsewhere... where the artists agrees that it's to play there tunes... and we can skip the stupid fees... but will the punter wanna here 100% music that they don't know... i don't think so... no idea what's gonna happen, it's a bad bad bad bad move for youth entertaiment in Australia.
djonnit says...
I see more sense in contracting aids than this cods-walop. It's hard enough to keep a party going alone without having to fork out more $. How about we get rid of the whole scene and just watch Idol- yeah right!
djdavewin says...
Im all for it! I hope they do initiate the plan. Its ONLY fair for the producer who sits down everyday and works his life away while people enjoy his production BUT give praise to the mediocre DJ. It'd be a TOTALLY different story if all the dj's produced their own songs, and didn't get their dues! GO AHEAD, INITIATE PLAN A! Finally.....
beegurl says...
Everyone needs to send their complaints here: complaints.mail@ppca.com.au