...say they should be exempt

CURTIS CAMPBELL, STAR Writer

Local DJs have blasted songwriter and publisher Ruddy Isaacs for his recent comments in a Gleaner interview in which he stated that local DJs should pay to play songs at events, because they are paid for their service.

According to some DJs in response to Isaacs, artistes would not be reaping benefits from their music if it wasn't being played by DJs, therefore the benefits are mutual.

"My question is this, and I am not being disrespectful because you (Ruddy) are an elder, but I want to ask, if the artiste record a song and keep it to himself and the DJ does not play it, will you make any money from it?" ZJ Dymond asked.

He also noted that even if artistes should sign up with Jamaica Music Society (JAMMs), Jamaica Association of Composers, Authors and Publishers or any collection society and the DJs do not play the songs, no profit will go towards the artistes. Therefore, DJs should remain exempted from the copyright charges as it relates to them playing music at events.

However, the brother of the late reggae icon Gregory Isaacs maintains his initial stance.

"The radio station pay dem fi play and everybody wey play music publicly and nuh have nuh license, fi pay for it. Even the politicians must pay up because they use people music in their campaigns. Yu a bruck the law if you don't pay the societies. A artistes mek people know unno to, go on the stage and don't play any music and see what happens. So give back to the artistes. Promoters and the selectors must pay to play music, because the selectors collect money to play songs," Ruddy Isaacs said.

Promoter/radio disc jock DJ Amber also had an objection, as she feels neither selector nor promoter should pay copyright fees.

"The copyright issue should be between the artistes and the record labels. I don't think promoters should pay an additional cost to what we are already paying, this never used to happen over the years so why now? And quite frankly, the artistes stand to gain more from us playing their music, it boosts their popularity and let record labels notice them. This music business is becoming too technical and about money," she said.

Another DJ and promoter of Radio Active Fridays, DJ Smurf commented saying, "I don't have anything against artistes benefiting from their songs. But there are certain issues I have with the benefit system. When we pay this money to play music, how do we know which artistes benefit? How can we know for sure if the DJs aren't asked to submit a playlist?"

Adding, "If the promoters are already paying one fee, I don't believe the DJs should be asked to pay another, there is no need for two fees," DJ Smurf said.

E. M. Mullings, general manager of the collection organisation, JAMMS, told The STAR that promoters are the ones who should be paying and not the DJs/ selectors.

"Event promoters are the persons responsible for obtaining the required copyright permit to ensure that events are complying with the relevant provisions of copyright laws governing the playing of recorded music publicly. As the beneficial owners of the event, the promoter must seek to have in place all the required licenses, permits and consents that are needed to ensure that the event is meeting all legal obligations," Mullings said.