Sure, the business and the radio stations could do a deal there. But the stations aren't obliged to. It's like Amazon. I can recommend a product they're selling to a friend and I get nothing. But if I sign up to their affiliates scheme, I can do the same thing and earn a cut. But that's Amazon's choice to offer the scheme.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright not supposed to work this way?
Evidence? I'll go with logic. If you don't have control of something, you can't decide/guarantee what happens to it or what value it has.
Copyright is not just publishing rights, it's full control.
What fair dealing UK copyright laws are there, sorry?
Copyrights being transferable is an important part of having control. If I have full control of something, I have the right to transfer the control to someone else if I want to.
As for copyrights lasting forever, as I've said, I don't really agree with this - they should last for the lifetime of the artist at the very least, assuming the artist still has the copyright, and if so the artist should be able to choose who gets the rights after their death too. IMHO.
There are no such things as statutory fees in the UK copyright law, as far as I know (prove me wrong by all means!). There are just fees that have been legally decided for disputes between particular parties.
The purpose of UK copyright, these days, is again, to give creators 'right's over their 'copy'!
You CAN give it for free, if you like. UK copyright law does not bar anyone from doing this, and copyright here is in place by default but can of course be relinquished should the creator/artist want to do so.
"This is my work"
Look, I just created something - that sentence above this one. I have copyright of that sentence as written by me. Now, I'm going to give that copyright away: The line above this in speech marks is now in the public domain and does not belong to me any longer. And there you go, I just gave away something for free.
Digital (or in fact, intellectual) works are most definitely scarce. Works by me can only be made by me. Works by you can only be made by you. Sure they can be replicated, but the WORK is scarce. You and the rest of the world can't make a new 'Dave Nattriss' work because you are not me.
I'm amused how you even assume I went to a college. I went to a playschool, then private pre-school, then a state primary school, then a state secondary school and sixth form, then a university. Please stop insulting my education, and while you're at it, please stop insulting me.
You contradict yourself there. First you say (all) thieves think stealing is moral(ly right), then you say only Robin Hood thought that, then you say he had a good point (which implies you agree, which implies you might be a thief!), then that most petty thieves think that it's wrong! Petty thieves are still thieves, as was Robin Hood.
OK, in the UK, commercial and private property are often treated differently. As soon as you start using (and possibly having your business paying for) property for your business, it qualifies as commercial property.
I believe moral (as in, generally what most people believe) rights can be more important than legal ones and it should be the job of every legal society to keep their laws up to date with what the majority of the public believe. Most people don't believe it's OK to take something from someone, physical or intellectual, without their permission, which is why in the UK we have both laws against physical theft, and also copyright.
You don't have the moral right to perform (play) my music without my permission though, no matter how you get your hands on it.
Haha, read your very own comment. You quoted me, correctly, saying 'specifically sent BY someone'. Not 'to someone' - 'BY SOMEONE'. You are the one lying, Rose - everyone can see now.
No, it's NOT THE SAME because the law breaking was not the receiving/access of the air waves. Again: the licensing societies are charging BUSINESSES to PERFORM (i.e. play) music that THEY DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS TO on COMMERCIAL PREMISES. Air waves have nothing to do with it. The same licenses are required to play music from CD, or iPod, or Spotify, or vinyl, or cassette, or 8-track, or whatever.
"The business owner doesn't lose his right to use his physical property when he walks into a business."
That really depends on a lot of things. If you mean the right to use his radio when on commercial property, no, he doesn't. I never claimed he did or that any rights to use a radio were in question.
"The business owner doesn't lose his right to access his air waves when he walks onto his property."
They're not his air waves, but yes, he doesn't lose the right to access them on his property.
"The agencies attempt to weaken his rights to his own property, physical, digital, and real, is morally wrong"
You have completely neglected the intellectual property rights, which he, the business owner, has no rights to. It's not about his rights to use his radio, or to tune into public radio stations. For the last time, I hope, the reason the barber got fined was for performing (playing recorded) music that he did not have the required licenses to play, as dictated by the owner of the music recording and writer of the music.
This has absolutely no comparison with asking (or event forcing) a black person to sit in a different section of a bus based on their race. The barber wasn't fined because of his race! You have lost it...
But I do want my music to be heard, so long as UK copyright law is respected, which is why I'm happy to let my licensing society to license it to radio stations that respect that law. UK copyright law states that you can't perform (i.e. play a recording of) my music in a commercial or public place without my permission, whether it comes over the airwaves or on a plastic disc or flash memory or down a cable. I will give you that permission, so long as you get a license from the PRS and PPL. If you don't want to do that, don't perform my music.
Nobody is being sued (or in fact fined) for accessing air waves. The infringement was for the performance of copyrighted work without permission. Do you understand?
If I perform (play) them, then yes, I am breaking the law, and you have already broken it by e-mailing them or copying them onto a disc (assuming you meant that as opposed to sending me your licensed CD).
Receiving stolen (stealing means taken without permission) property is an offence in the UK too.
As for paying the artist, that entirely depends on what licensing arrangements they've got in place, if any. If there are none then I am breaking copyright law by default (assuming the work was published less than 50 years ago).
I know what it means in the UK, yes - essentially that your family is rich enough that so long as the head of the household maintains their work/income, the rest of the family can live off of them. In the UK we also have working class, which means that income is limited, and upper class/aristocracy who generally don't need to work at all to live. And we now have an 'underclass' which are those living off of benefits and not contributing to the economy at all.
Thanks for partially sticking up for me. However, you're wrong about a few things:
"he insists that the situation is 'morally' correct because the law says so"
No, I never gave that as the reason why I think it's morally correct.
"claims to not be connected in the industry but apparently he is"
Eh? What connection to the music industry do I have? That matters? That affects my view on copyright? And you claim I lied? How so?!
"Rosa Parks should have got off the bus and started her own bus line"
That was a suggestion - I didn't insist it. However, as history tells us, what she did instead worked perfectly well.
"Those in opposition are really just stating the obvious - the law NEEDS to be changed."
This is subjective. Those who write songs, but don't perform them, or who perform them but don't write them, might not agree. They might like the licenses being separated so that the licensing is more granular and ultimately fairer. And that's why they are.
"willing to go down with the ship"
What ship is this, sorry? You already admitted that "the side with the absurd law wins", which I guess you mean is me, or my country?