30 Jun
2005
30 Jun
'05
8:57 a.m.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:02:57PM +0200, Mario Lang wrote:
I highly dislike this retarded attitude. In the end,
this means
that only users with the experience to bypass such hoops do
get the priviledge to do what they want. This is flawed
by design. Broadcasts were always easy to record,
just flip a tape into your radio and hit record. Its no difference
in the computer world
I entirely agree in principle. I'm no apologist for the UK music
licensing system, but as mentioned before I'm guessing that the key
difference is supposed to be that ultimately if some user bypassed the
download restrictions and did something like make copies for sale, it
is that user rather than the web site management that would be getting
the letters from somebody's lawyers.
For the Radio Britfolk organization, it is a choice between paying huge
PRS fees for downloadable music, being seen to break the law in a rather
public way, or making the music available for free in the only way
allowed.
Apparently as long as the token effort is made, they are legal.
It's a bit like putting a flimsy toy padlock on the font door of your
house. Anyone breaking it (two seconds with a bolt cutter) can be done
for breaking and entering a.k.a. burglary, whereas if you leave the
door unlocked so they can enter the house without damage, no such
prosecution can be made (theft is a separate issue).
Not that I'm recommending it as a security model :-)
There's plenty more wrong with the music licensing system in the UK at
the moment - don't get me started on the licensing of premises for live
music, a much bigger can of worms right now.
Usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
--
Anahata
anahata(a)treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827