Sorry but in the UK you never have the right to do ANYTHING you like in your business or inside your property. NEVER. There are laws that cover the entire United Kingdom, not just public areas.
You may see this as being wrong/unfair, but it's for the best for the country, and if you don't like it, you can simply leave the country. You can't have it being OK to kill or injure people, for instance, so long as it happens on your property.
Says anyone who doesn't agree with taking something (content) that isn't theirs to take.
But they could make their bus service for blacks only. Then the law would have had no effect as there would be no whites on the bus that they would be legally obliged to give preferential seating to.
Of course you do - it's your work, you can do what you want with it, be that selling it to a record label/publisher, to a film producer, licensing it for a video game, or just giving it away for free if you prefer.
Digital files are not scarce, but digital works can be. Just because something is easy to replicate, that doesn't mean all intellectual property rights just get voided.
Picasso's family was middle class so he didn't have to worry about funding too much. This is not the case for the vast majority of people and thus artists.
And exactly - their ability to make their art is limited by having to do another job to pay the bills. They can only do it as a hobby, so it does stop them from creating (as much as they'd like to).
No, you really don't. Hyperlinking is not illegal in the UK, nor anywhere else in the world as far as I know.
If you are knowingly endorsing/promoting/supporting illegal activity (like the Pirate Bay did, for instance), that's completely different.
So what? UK copyright laws state that you need permission to perform (i.e. play) recordings at commercial premises. The fact they music came via the air waves makes no difference - the rule applies to all recordings.
We weren't talking about radio stations, dumbass. The coward was talking about not making money from CDs/records and instead suing their customers (that buy them).
OK, fine, like most industries, the music industry has been affected by the global recession and overall sales of recorded music are down as people tighten their belts and perhaps just buy a single or two instead of buying a whole album. The industry is not dead by any means though, dumbass.
Of course it is. You don't believe that a shop is a place of business?
Right, but their license to broadcast also allows the public to listen to their broadcast, in non-commercial or public places.
Unfortunately for you, the UK law doesn't care what you don't care about.
Actually yes, they do consider public performances to be different to private ones (on commercial property). They require licenses for both but they don't say they are just the same.
Nobody owns air waves. "Man, you're dumb."
People own rights to their work. If you don't have permission to play my work on your property, you are morally and legally wrong to do so.
No, a building can have both public and private parts.
And yes, it turns out that a license is required for playing licensed music for employees in private commercial premises too.
But what does the RIAA have to do with anything in this case?
Man, you're rude.
I never said they were sent *to* anyone specifically (although sometimes they are, such as on encoded subscription services, or when used by the police etc.).
And no, the agencies aren't trying to charge people to access public property (the radio waves?) on their own property. They are charging BUSINESSES to PERFORM (i.e. play) music that THEY DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS TO on COMMERCIAL PREMISES. Not that same at all.
Fine, you have the moral right to listen, but alas not the legal right, not in the UK anyway. It's illegal to tune into police radio channels, for instance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_radio
And this doesn't affect this case, as it's about commercial property/premises, not private.
No, your belief on whether something is immoral or not has no effect on whether it actually is immoral.
Thieves usually have a genuine belief that stealing is OK, but morally it is not.
By my way of thinking, she should have found another way to travel, or, disobeyed the rule (as she didn't agree with it). Which she did.
Don't tell me what I think.
Like what? Either make your point or quit being so lazy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says anyone who doesn't think that stealing content (taking it without permission) is OK.