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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
