You absolutely said 'specifically sent to someone'. I copied and pasted your statement, so there's no use lying now.
The business owner was using his physical property to access public air waves on his real property. It is absolutely the same.
The business owner doesn't lose his right to use his physical property when he walks into a business. The business owner doesn't lose his right to access his air waves when he walks onto his property. In fact, since both the physical property and the air waves were on his real property, his right to use both is strengthened, not weakened.
The agencies attempt to weaken his rights to his own property, physical, digital, and real, is morally wrong, just as asking a black person to sit in a different section of a bus is morally wrong.
AC: Artists are having a problem selling plastic discs, and are choosing to sue their customers as a remedy.
You: The business owner is not a customer.
Me: The business owner is a customer.
You: Not of plastic discs!
Me: The business owner is a music customer. He may not be a plastic disc customer (although he probably is) but the OP didn't say that the lack of plastic disc sales led to plastic disc customer suits. He said that it led to customer suits. You do understand that musicians have many customers who don't purchase plastic discs, right?
In this case, he obviously consumes radio music, which makes him a customer of the radio stations, who purchase music from the artists. That's the same as consuming plastic discs, in which you become a customer of a store, and the store purchases plastic discs from the artists.
So if I e-mail you infringing tracks, or mail you a disc of infringing music, then you should have to pay the artist? Even though you didn't have a choice about receiving those items?
You do realize what the term 'middle class' means, right?
Further, the world does not owe you a living at what you're talented at. It's sad that they can't make a living through music, but it's sad that millions of talented parents, poets, mechanics, and makers have to have jobs to support their talents as well. That's reality. Talented musicians don't deserve more than any other talented person.
Plenty of artists find ways to make money without making money from their copyrighted music. Quite a few of them have non-art related jobs, and create wonderful art as a hobby.
You realize that people have been creating art and music for thousands of years, right? And that most artists don't create to make money, they create to fulfill an inner need. If they can fulfill their pockets as well, then awesome, but it's not necessary for art to be created.
No, their license is a blanket license for them to broadcast that music on the public airwaves. They do not purchase a license to listen, they purchase a license to broadcast.
I don't care what country you're in, you should not have to pay to listen to what people broadcast into your own air.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@Dave Nattriss) Really?
The business owner was using his physical property to access public air waves on his real property. It is absolutely the same.
The business owner doesn't lose his right to use his physical property when he walks into a business. The business owner doesn't lose his right to access his air waves when he walks onto his property. In fact, since both the physical property and the air waves were on his real property, his right to use both is strengthened, not weakened.
The agencies attempt to weaken his rights to his own property, physical, digital, and real, is morally wrong, just as asking a black person to sit in a different section of a bus is morally wrong.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Happy
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People own the air waves. If you don't want people to hear your music, don't transmit it, or allow it to be transmitted, on public air waves.
Suing someone for accessing their air waves is morally and legally wrong.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the conversation that we just had:
AC: Artists are having a problem selling plastic discs, and are choosing to sue their customers as a remedy.
You: The business owner is not a customer.
Me: The business owner is a customer.
You: Not of plastic discs!
Me: The business owner is a music customer. He may not be a plastic disc customer (although he probably is) but the OP didn't say that the lack of plastic disc sales led to plastic disc customer suits. He said that it led to customer suits. You do understand that musicians have many customers who don't purchase plastic discs, right?
In this case, he obviously consumes radio music, which makes him a customer of the radio stations, who purchase music from the artists. That's the same as consuming plastic discs, in which you become a customer of a store, and the store purchases plastic discs from the artists.
God, you're dumb.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few good points
Further, the world does not owe you a living at what you're talented at. It's sad that they can't make a living through music, but it's sad that millions of talented parents, poets, mechanics, and makers have to have jobs to support their talents as well. That's reality. Talented musicians don't deserve more than any other talented person.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re:
In addition, zero can absolutely be a fair market value, and digital files are not a scarce good.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: A few good points
Plenty of artists find ways to make money without making money from their copyrighted music. Quite a few of them have non-art related jobs, and create wonderful art as a hobby.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: re: Dave Nattriss /Anon coward
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re:
Also, why are you only looking at the singles? Should you be looking at overall sales of recorded music? Roflmao.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Please care somewhere else
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't care what country you're in, you should not have to pay to listen to what people broadcast into your own air.
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>