Slashdot Mirror

The sad thing is, that despite there being several laws in place that could be used to punish these companies (Computer Misuse Act, 1990 and the Data Protection Act, 1998 spring to mind) they wont be.

In light of the number of breaches recently (such as the MOD losing restricted USB sticks, the Inland Revenue losing records and even the damn Navy losing recruiting information), I'll wager the government will introduce another new law to deal with this but still, you know not actually do anything about it.

The sad thing is, that despite there being several laws in place that could be used to punish these companies (Computer Misuse Act, 1990 and the Data Protection Act, 1998 spring to mind) they wont be.

In light of the number of breaches recently (such as the MOD losing restricted USB sticks, the Inland Revenue losing records and even the damn Navy losing recruiting information), I'll wager the government will introduce another new law to deal with this but still, you know not actually do anything about it.

We'd like to keep our private stuff private as well..

And some of us are legally bound to keep personal data private.

Exactly.

The way that freedom and privacy are both highly valued on Slashdot bemuses me, as they can come into direct conflict. Take, for instance, right to roam legislation, which guarantees ordinary Scots access to the countryside, under certain conditions. This, of course, can be seen to impinge on the privacy of landowners.

Privacy also theoretically limits free speech (another highly valued concept on Slashdot). If I tell the world that person X is cheating on his wife, am I invading his privacy or defending my free speech?

The Slashdot obsession with defending all of these concepts leads me to believe that self-interest, not any altruistic concept of fairness, is the motivating factor behind most contributors' opinions.

I reckon you've got a few options:

1. point him towards your country's relevant legislation: UK (and in non-legalese) or US
2. explain why spam is so annoying because it's intrusive and it makes it harder to read wanted messages in your inbox
3. explain that spamming 1000 people may get him 1 extra sale, but it will piss off the other 999 to the extent that some of them will go out of their way to avoid trading with you

Ok, so you're dealing with a sales-focussed person here, the only one likely to carry any weight is going to be last one and even then, you may be onto a losing streak. Assuming this person controls your pay packet, you're either going to have to put up a token resistance and then keep your mouth shut; or perhaps if you have the option, consider whether you want to be working for someone like that...

3.7854118 litres per US gallon according to my unit converter (not to be confused with the UK gallon, which is 4.54609 l). £1 is $1.947 right now, and petrol here was &pound1.169 the last time I looked.

So that's $8.62 per US gallon, to the nearest cent. $100 spent on petrol here wouldn't fill my tank.

For UK/EU ppl out there, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20022013.htm and http://www.out-law.com/page-431 for the safe harbour provisions.

Rest is my untested knowledge for which I accept no liability.

I believe it all hinges on third party liability to a breach tho - a question of fact and degree will not suffice in claims like this. Third party liability is only established through knowing participation (knowledgeable assistance if you will).

Actual knowledge is one piece constructive, and one piece subjective. Claimants often try to claim entirely on the constructive knowledge front (so they don't have to show the state of mind) and ignore actual knowledge, which requires a dishonest state of mind. and so the argument goes a dishonest mind is hard to prove when you don't know what's going across your tubes. but then there's also a grey area: wilful blindness/recklessness and the argument you can't be guilty of being reckless as to data exchanged when you don't monitor the data upon international standard that avoids actionable per se).

I think from a liability point of view, ISPs need to take a step back, and start offering unrestricted plans that don't acknowledge *anything* about the content they're handling.

I say that because I think safe harbour provisions are an all or nothing defence. Similar to automatism as a defence to homicide. Let me explain that one. Murder and manslaughter constitue homicide. Murder is a specific intent crime - that is, to be found guilty, a jury will be instructed that they must find the action of killing and the state of mind to kill (a specific intent to kill) coincide at the time of killing. In short that means the mens rea (the guity mind) and actus reus (actions) of a killing must coincide to commit a murder. Without either, you are not guilty of murder, but may be guilty of homicide.

The intent for murder must be specific - an actuak intent to kill someone or a virtual certainty as to that effect. A virtual certainty is best described if you think of a bomber on a plane - he has the intent to kill people around him when he sets off a bomb, yet it is a virtual certainty that he will kill the rest when the plane crashes, which establishes an indirect/oblique intent.

Automatons are not responsible for their actions since they lack intent. So... if you're intoxicated (either by prescription drugs, illicit drugs or alcohol) to the extent you cannot possibly form the intent to kill (mens rea), which is so far beyond being drunk it calls for an intoxicated person to be on the brink of death almost, then you can claim automatism.

(before someone goes off to kill someone, bare in mind that issues of public policy will defeat self-induced automatism)

Automatism is an all or nothing defence. In so-called "normal cases" of homicide where someone lacks the intent due to intoxication, or someone takes a reckless risk where it was unreasonable to do so in the circumstance and they jury can infer they should have reasonably appreciated that risk, then that person is found not guilty of murder as they lack specific intent, but can still be found guilty of manslaughter.

If we apply the principal to copyright infringement, and imagine that the safe habour provisions are like a person operating as an automatom, then we assume that should a person ever be proven to be capable for forming a state of mind, fulfilling any mens rea, then they destroy their lawful defence. With an all or nothing defence, there are no levels to mitigate liability. You are either innocent or guilty of an offence if you have or have not a defense.

When ISPs such as VM start to move beyond their role as providers of a service, they start to acknowledge intent, preventing them from relying on their safe harbour defence

At the moment we all have a contract with ISPs. Under contract, in which they are obliged to provide a service, as we are o

So there's Freedom of Expression.

But that's from the Human Rights Act 1998, so it can probably be ignored :-(

The UK's Freedom of Information Act was enacted in 2000.

IANAL, but I thought this was a BIG no, no as far as the RIP is concerned. You cant do this unless both the sender and receiver give consent, or your MI5/MI6/GCHQ/Judge etc. And thats just to snoop, modifying traffic is a even worse.

You can snoop on a private network, if you own the network (ie a company can spy on its own network/equipment), but BT would be considered a public network and you cant do this on a public network.

Any other guys in the UK know any more?

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_2

The FoI act also allows a fee. I'm not sure what the limit is, but I think charges of around £70 are normal. The DPA might actually be more cost-effective.

The criminalisation of "non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse" was first proposed by "children's charities" - who are forever desperate to encourage donations by exploiting people's emotions - in 2006. In 2007, the campaign was backed by low-importance MPs who wished to elevate their profile, but who were most likely uninterested in the issue in question.

The campaign became irrelevant when, earlier this month, any image derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child became illegal under Section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. It is also illegal to distribute any obscene publication under the Obscene Publications Act, and despite the contrary claims of the Ministry of Justice, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess a pseudo-photograph, which means that all efforts to a implement this new law will have only one effect: the possession of material which is not derived from photographs of 'abuse' and which is clearly not photographic will be criminalised.

Unfortunately, the UK economy is heading for recession and the criminal justice system is under attack due to a lack of space in prisons (the latter is ironically due to silly, politically-motivated legislation). The Labour government recently suffered a horrendous defeat in the recent by-elections, due to their drastic inability to deal with these issues. They have no choice but to use distraction techniques to divert attention from their incompetency.

Paedophiles are being used as pawns for political and economic reasons, simply because they are currently the weakest minority who nobody will speak out for.

The pathetic irony of this situation is that someone who is convicted of possessing a cartoon derived from a photograph of a child masturbating will get the same sentence as someone who is convicted of making a photograph of an adult molesting a child, because the person in the former case would be charged under the recently amended Protection of Children Act and the new law (Protection of Proper Thoughts Act?).

"According the news article, the motivation for the law is close a loophole in the law whereby a paedophile manipulates a illegal photography in order to make it legal:

"The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.""

FTA:

"The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons."

But under the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, Section 69:

"References to a photograph also include- a tracing or other image, whether made by electronic or other means (of whatever nature)- which is not itself a photograph or pseudo-photograph, but which is derived from the whole or part of a photograph or pseudo-photograph (or a combination of either or both)"

So not only is it absurd to suggest that all drawings need to be criminalised because pedophiles are allegedly converting child abuse images into them, this simply isn't a loophole anymore anyway!

What if pedophiles start converting images of children into page 3 girls, will they need to be criminalised too?

The claim that this material is already illegal to sell or distribute is also bogus (they made this same false claim with the extreme porn law - on that note, expect to see "extreme" adult cartoon images made illegal in a few years). The Obscene Publications Act requires a jury to believe that the material would "deprave or corrupt" those likely to see it, but these new laws do not have such a test, instead using a dictionary definition of the word "obscene" (i.e., disgusting etc). I suspect that a jury made up of Daily Mail readers would consider plenty of Manga and Hentai to be illegal.

Also see the official announcement, and consulation and consultation response documents.

I fear that to the police, hentai is not merely something that may be unintentionally caught, but it is a direct intended target. In the response to the "extreme porn" law (a different law, but the comment is relevant), Greater Manchester police stated "Would like to see account of several child cartoon images e.g. Hentai material."

And note that whilst the age of consent is 16 in the UK, the age for child porn was raised to 18 in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. So sex with a 17 year old is legal, but a fantasy drawing of someone who might look 17 would be illegal!

The Register has a better write up.

Will South Park's Red Rocket be illegal?

So how does it square up against RIPA?

Based on my quick and wholly NAL reading of Sect. 5, it seems to be more about context. The Scientologists' building was nearby, and the law forbids 'insulting' writing which might cause people nearby 'distress'. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1986/pdf/ukpga_19860064_en.pdf

Section 5
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-
        (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
                or disorderly behaviour, or
        (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation
                which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
                within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment,
                alarm or distress thereby.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a
        public or a private place, except that no offence is committed
        where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or
        other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a
        dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another
        dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove-
        (a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any
                person within hearing or sight who was likely to be
                caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
        (b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to
                believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing,
                sign or other visible representation displayed, would
                be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other
                dwelling, or
        (c) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant ifâ"
        (a) he engages in offensive conduct which the constable
                warns him to stop, and
        (b) he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or
                shortly after the warning.

(5) In subsection (4) "offensive conduct" means conduct the
        constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this
        section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the
        further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable
        on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the
        standard scale.

Section 6
(4) A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he
        intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other
        visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting,
        or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or
        (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware
        that it may be disorderly.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1986/PDF/ukpga_19860064_en.pdf

It is illegal under the UK Data Protection Act to disclose personal data to a third party without the permission of the data subject. It is also Illegal to obtain or attempt to obtain personal data without authorisation of the data subject.

Therefore the Customs officer/boarder is breaking the law and attempting to force the traveller to break the law. The traveller has an obligation reason to say NO.

Or do this clever four minutes YouTube music video, from The Get Out Clause, an unsigned Manchester band who could not afford a camera crew for their video. Its members performed in front of a load of closed circuit television/CCTV cameras, requested the footages from the camera operators under the Data Protection Act, and stitched the results together for their music video.

Seen on Boing Boing.

Not true - in the UK it is actually illegal to rip a CD in itunes.. format shifting is illegal.

For the last time this was looked at see http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/oct/30/copyright.news and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095612.stm (both seem to be from the same source).

It was only in 2003 that the law was amended to allow timeshifting (recording broadcasts) and make transient (in-memory) copies legal.

See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm

in the UK I'm fairly certain that it's still, albeit perhaps only technically, illegal (sorry, I couldn't find a more authoritative source) to copy CDs for any purpose, whether for transfer to an iPod for practical purposes or simply as an archival backup.

No, that's wrong, there's a whole range of types of copying that are legal in the UK, described in Section 3 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Whether they apply specifically to CD ripping for the purpose of enjoying music you own is debatable (depending on whether or not you consider it to be "private study"), but it's certainly not the blanket ban on copying you describe.

As a Scotchlander, I can assure you that there's no such thing as "UK law". There may be regulations, but I challenge you to point to a single "UK" statute, outside the Act of Union. Even if you are a lawyer, you might want to consider not playing on one Slashdot.

The Data Protection Act 1998.

I claim my five pounds.

Note that this is design right, not copyright. UK law recognizes a difference between the two. Design right applies to the shapes of things.

I'm interested in Mr. Ainsworth's defense. According to the article, he has two claims in his defense. First, "... that the intellectual property rights to the designs have expired." The Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988 specifies that design right (as distinct from copyright) lasts 15 years from when the design was first recorded or a finished product first made. Since storm troopers appeared in the very first Star Wars in 1977, and had to have been made in 1976 for the filming, I'd say that's a pretty good defense.

The article also says he claims that "if they [the rights] do still exist, as the designer he [Mr. Ainsworth] owns them rather than Mr Lucas." That seems rather more dubious to me. Mr. Ainsworth accepted a payment of 30,000 pounds for his work. Even in the absence of a formal contract, that would strongly suggest that he did it as a commission, in which case ownership of the rights would fall to the commissioner (Mr. Lucas in this case).

It'll be interesting to see how it comes out; and for once we won't have to wait too long, since the case is expected to take ten days.

The UK does have a EUCD-compliant section allowing for safe-harbour and takedowns, since October 2003.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm#27

I believe the UK Computer Misuse act 1990 covers it.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900018_en_1.htm

See:
* Unauthorised access to computer material
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
* Unauthorised modification of computer material
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both.

I don't see how the Act does not apply to the people involved.

If someone wrote malware or sniffed your keystrokes, the same law should apply whether the perpetrator is BT or some "Evil Hacker".

...and Computer Misuse Act 1(1) and European Convention on Cybercrime, Articles 2, 3 and 6.

...and the data protection act. Also something else from the act ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/Acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_3#pt2-l1g11 ):
"An individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing for the purposes of direct marketing personal data in respect of which he is the data subject."

Essentially, users should be able to opt out of targeted advertising based on their personal data if they wish.

Then again, we also have a new buzzword for crime with ideological motives. It's called terrorism...

Yup, under UK law interfering with any electronic system for political reasons is defined as terrorism, but bombing civilian infrastructure in a "shock and awe" campaign is considered legitimate. George Orwell is no longer the appropriate literary reference - these days it's Lewis Carroll.

It's the same in the UK. Though originally it was possible to make a "specified deposit" to a government bank account instead of purchasing insurance. But the required amount has been increased so quickly (e.g. from £15,000 to £500,000 between 1988 and 1991 - see section 20 ) so this is essentially not really an option for most people anymore.

Would you support mandatory liability insurance in other areas like employment? What about mandatory insurance that covers more than third party liability, like Hilary's health care plan? What are the criteria for making insurance mandatory do you think?

Do they operate outside the US? I've got *loads* of MP3s on my server, all of which are subject to copyright - they're mine, though. If Media Sentry want to come and poke through my server, I'll have them under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

...and plenty of others.

The distance selling regulations would often apply:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/distance-selling-regulations/
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm

The Sale Of Goods act certainly would:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023045.htm
(there have been many revisions of this)

while it helps the NCC get column inches to say that people are "signing away legal rights", it's not actually true. They may THINK that they have, but all legislation in this area has been drafted to ensure that people CAN'T.

...and plenty of others.

The distance selling regulations would often apply:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/distance-selling-regulations/
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm

The Sale Of Goods act certainly would:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023045.htm
(there have been many revisions of this)

while it helps the NCC get column inches to say that people are "signing away legal rights", it's not actually true. They may THINK that they have, but all legislation in this area has been drafted to ensure that people CAN'T.

> Contract's a contract...

Under UK law that's not entirely true. If a contract employs unfair clauses those clauses can be nullified. An analogy is, if you borrow £10000 from me and agree that (a) you will repay it with 12 months, and (b) if you don't repay it I can break your legs. This is unfair: if the contract was challenged in court it's highly likely that (a) you would have to repay the debt, and (b) I could not break your legs if you didn't repay within the specified time-frame.

IANAL etc etc

> Does the GPL also create an imbalance between the rights of the distributer and the rights of the consumer?

I wouldn't have thought so, since consumers can freely read the GPL before using the GPL-licensed application, and the GPL effectively empowers the consumer to become a distributor. I had a quick peek at the relevant legislation and couldn't see anything that would affect the GPL.

IANAL etc etc

> I'm sure under UK law there are provisions to fight 'unfair contracts'.

There are indeed - The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

It's one of the things[1] I cite when I'm getting the Student Loans Company to repay the unlawful charges it periodically decides it can charge me. Other people have used it successfully against banks. You can bet that smart ISPs just know their customers are aware of their rights.

[1] The other being a House of Lords ruling from the early 20th century that penalty charges are unlawful except to recover actual or liquidated losses. But I digress.

Stuff the agreement - in the UK we have the Data Protection Act which means if you want them to delete all of your personally-identifiable data, they are obliged to do it by law. Would be interested to know if anyone has actually tried this yet, as it could break their database quite a bit, and remove lots of *other people's* photographs (or at the very least, the tagging on those photos that identified the person who'd ask for the DPA deletion).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_5#pt4-l1g36

says that "domestic purposes" are exempted from the Data Protection Act, so no, I'd not bother the ICO right now, I hear he's a bit busy.

.. I never realised until recently with the whole NHS thing on the news that we even had laws that tried to silence people.

Then you're doubtless nice but dim.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, section 132 - 138, aka Brian Haw's Law.

As for the UK not having free speach, name a particular UK law regulating it that you believe shouldn't be a crime.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, section 132 - 138, aka Brian Haw's Law.

If you're having trouble sleeping, you could have a look at the Ts and Cs here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/legal/iplayerterms.shtml

It says "Downloadable BBC Content is available for download within the UK only" rather than "Downloadable BBC Content is available for download by licence payers only". However it also says "You agree ... to not download or attempt to download the BBC Content if you are outside the UK". Maybe you could persuade them that you've got very long arms?

I'm not aware of any "protected ability to retransmit content from one place to another" in the UK. There are some new rules in the 2003 copyright act, notably legalising timesharing (see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm#19 ) and a few other specific exemptions, but I'm not aware of anything general.

I'll see your draft code of practice and raise you the Act itself.

As far as I can see, a notice may be given on the basis of "reasonable grounds" to believe that the key is necessary for carrying out just about any government function (49(2)(b)). Failure to comply with such a notice can result in imprisonment (53(5)). A person is taken to have shown that they didn't have the key if they produce evidence of this and the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt (53(2)).

I see nothing requiring that the person issuing the notice actually demonstrate that either the data or the key exists. They merely need some basis for claiming that it would be useful to have them if they did.

I'm neither a lawyer nor an expert on RIPA, but the same argument does seem to have been made by various civil liberties groups around the time the Act was going through Parliament, and I'm going to assume that they do have lawyers who could grok the fine print.

I was a consultant at a large UK retail bank and we were going to use a type of picture/CAPTCHA on the online banking solution. Except that the RNIB (Royal National Institute for the Blind) consultancy operation basically told us that if we went ahead they would be forced to "go to the newspapers" and also would consider taking action under DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) legislation.

It's really important to consider (in the UK at least) that around 10% of the online population will not be able to see or draw images clearly on a computer screen and therefore, whilst graphical authentication is fantastic security for most of us - it does not work for all of us. As soon as you present a 'way out' for those that cannot see as well as the average human, you have introduced a loophole in your security system and the investiment in CAPTCHA or imagery is threatened.

NB: in the UK, under DDA we have to provide "a reasonable alternative" for disabled users - however, the strength of the RNIB lobby is really turning that into "You must not discriminate in any way against a sight impaired user" - so by making it impossible for impaired sight users to use this strong authentication from TFA is in fact discriminatory against them...

rd

Where do you get the idea that you need to "sign the Official Secrets Act" in order to be covered by its provisions? Nobody has to "sign the Official Secrets Act" but as a Crown servant (or contractor) one is required to sign a piece of paper which acknowledges that one understands the Act's provisions. All persons in UK jurisdiction are covered by the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989. The 1989 Act was "An Act to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 by provisions protecting more limited classes of official information" The 1989 Act does not affect the operation of section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which protects information useful to an enemy. The maximum penalty for offences under section 1 of the 1911 Act is fourteen years' imprisonment.

IANAL. The sad thing is that under UK law, just linking to "infringing material" may be a crime: "providing means for making infringing copies". If you refer to Chapter II of the Act:

" 24 Secondary infringement: providing means for making infringing copies

(1) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner-- ...

...(d) sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or hire,

an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of that work, knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies. "

How is anything this site did remotely "illegal"?

It's hard to say; the article doesn't give enough detail. The relevant UK law is, I believe, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.

I suppose if the site hosted torrents, that would fall under "an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of that work, knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies.".

Alternatively, if the site merely hosted links, it might be classified as "permitting use of premises for infringing performance", but that's a bit of a stretch.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4

Chapter III
Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works

72 Free public showing or playing of broadcast or cable programme

(1) The showing or playing in public of a broadcast or cable programme to an audience who have not paid for admission to the place where the broadcast or programme is to be seen or heard does not infringe any copyright in

(a) the broadcast or cable programme, or

(b) any sound recording or film included in it.

(2) The audience shall be treated as having paid for admission to a place

(a) if they have paid for admission to a place of which that place forms part; or

(b) if goods or services are supplied at that place (or a place of which it forms part)

(i) at prices which are substantially attributable to the facilities afforded for seeing or hearing the broadcast or programme, or

(ii) at prices exceeding those usually charged there and which are partly attributable to those facilities.

(3) The following shall not be regarded as having paid for admission to a place

(a) persons admitted as residents or inmates of the place;

(b) persons admitted as members of a club or society where the payment is only for membership of the club or society and the provision of facilities for seeing or hearing broadcasts or programmes is only incidental to the main purposes of the club or society.

(4) Where the making of the broadcast or inclusion of the programme in a cable programme service was an infringement of the copyright in a sound recording or film, the fact that it was heard or seen in public by the reception of the broadcast or programme shall be taken into account in assessing the damages for that infringement.

---------

The customers have not paid to hear it. They have not paid extra, and they have not paid admission. It is a "free public performance" and therefore not infringement.

This is similar to the case in the States where you need a license to play music through speakers *installed in the building* but not over portable radios/players owned by the employees. The former constitutes public performance and the latter does not, as playing through permanent overhead speakers and such is a part of the business and portable radios are not.

--
BMO