Secondly there are too many to chase down to bother for nickels and dimes and probably in most cases nothing would be awarded but cease and desist order. The fact they can sue you is the point the reality is none of us will ever be bothered.
Non-sense. You simply don't get it. Look at all the problems with your argument:
I get paid even if the event gets cancelled and no music is played.
I get paid even if the electricity goes out and no music gets played.
I get paid even if they ask me to turn it off so they can talk instead.
I get paid even if the police shut it down 5 minutes before I begin.
If just being a wedding DJ is a commercial use
(incorrect interpretation) then you have a real dilemma because you have
no metric by which to measure the relationship between music played and gain produced.
If on the other hand, the
gain being measured is the sale of a tangible good or benefit
(correct interpretation) then there is a
direct correlation between the music and the gain - and this is what defines commercial use.
Play music at the mall and people
shop more and longer. measure = sales | cause = music
Play music in your store and more
customers patronize you. measure = sales | cause = music
Play music in a bar and people stay longer and
buy more drinks.
measure = sales | cause = music
Play music at your rally and more people
hear your message. measure = promotion/action/sales | cause = music
In these instances the result is ALWAYS the same - revenue goes up with music and that ALWAYS holds true regardless of whether the music comes from a
DJ, Band, CD, or iPod. It also holds true whether the music is owned by me, or you, or streamed from somewhere else. It is consistent across all circumstances irrespective of the music source and a direct correlation between music and a commercial gain. The DJ is not a party to the metric because he is not a party to the commercial activity or a stakeholder in the gain that it produces.
Does it not strike you yet, that there is
no direct correlation between the fee a DJ receives and whether or not any music ever gets played?
That gets me in the whole thing is they hypocorasy that some put out. They have major issues against pirated music but feel since they pay for it it's OK to use it any way they feel even if it's against the TOS or EULA. It's OK to steal the sheep not OK to steal the calf.
Look at your own hypocrisy. You claim to support fairness and Copyright law - yet you can't be bothered to actually learn how the law really works - and in a most egregious affront claim that the will of a corporation is somehow more potent than rights and privileges recorded in U.S. Law.
