Slashdot Mirror
BBC In Trouble Over Free Music
Take a Byte Out of Crime writes "According to this article, British classical labels are claiming that the BBC giving away the these symphonies, which were performed by the BBC Orchestra for free, constitutes unfair government competition. Apparently all free music really is illegal these days, or soon will be, public domain be damned."
Time to get the Ouija board out and see what Beethoven has to say about all of this. He says...
"First post!"
Hmmmm...
If you not good enough to compete with the public domain, then it's time to rethink your career.
British Classical music IS parody
*ducks*
There is truth in humor.
"The Stupidest Lawsuit since the World Began"
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
.. wives and girlfriends for unfair competition
Mod Parent Down Illegal Website
Crossfading classical music ?
I never tried that. I'm not sure that's going to work out all right.
Let's see: the grandiose and triumphant C major POM POM POM pom-pom-pom POM POOOOM ending of the 5th crossfading into the delicate F major string intro of the 6th... but then, why not ? Anything goes !
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Well there's the problem: these works are in the public domain and copyright law needs to be fixed. Let's extend the period that works stay under copyright to, say, 300 years, thus increasing the incentive for classical composers to write more ace symphonies and ensuring that the record labels get the megabucks they deserve.
I realize the sarcasm, but pipe down. You don't want any legislatures to have that idea in the back of their heads. Scary...
You may be thinking of the case of Baker vs. Sanji which was decided in a venue somewhere in the Middle East of centuries past. In that particular case a poor defendant (Sanji) living in an apartment above a bakery was enjoined in a civil suit by the Baker, who sought damages arising from the defendant's habit of opening his apartment window every morning and taking in the aromas of the dark crusty bread, warm sweet rolls, and crunchy biscuits that wafted up from the bakery- without benefit or recompense to the plaintiff who toiled over the hot ovens to produce the smells. In his complaint the plaintiff argued in court that the defendant had been "stealing" the smells, and sought damages for the "whiffing and sniffing".
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but in the remedy phase of the trial issued a symbolic judgment where it was arranged that the plaintiff would hear the "clink clink" sound of the defendant's money as it dropped into a bowl, in lieu of an actual settlement.
You're nothing but a theif who wants to be able to steal the property of people who died more than 300 years ago. Property is property, and property rights do not expire.
:)
I am a decendant of Ug, inventor of fire. Every time you light a cigarette you owe me a license fee for using my Intellectual Property. Pay me biatch.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
- Consumers are being forced to pay for the BBC to produce those recordings via the BBC's license fee, which is a compulsory tax for those with a TV set. This means that to buy the commercial version you must pay for both: hardly fair competition.
- Due to the huge size of the BBC it can empoloy monopolistic tactics such as using a loss leader to kill off competition. It can also afford to buy any technology it needs even if that technology was developed at risk by smaller commercial organisations.
- In the absence of commecial competition, how likely is the BBC to continue providing this content at the same quality and price. The BBC is mandated to provide free TV, radio and website, but all other aspects of the business are revinue-generating.
Basically, the BBC should avoid doing what can be adequately be provided by the commercial sector. Thing like classical recordings made by the BBC are not free; they will be paid for by us one way or another.