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."

Comments

Proving once again

[Anonymous Coward]

That no good deed goes unpunished.

It's not "free music"

[Eric Smith]

The people of the UK have already paid for it! Thus it isn't "unfair competition" either, unless the initial production of the music (not its later distribution) is unfair.

The complaint that this is unfair strikes me as being very nearly as absurd as the situation in the US where there are private companies complaining that only they should be allowed to have the data collected and generated by the taxpayer-funded National Weather Service, and that taxpayers should not be able to get the data directly from the government.

Then they'd better not broadcast any music either

[newandyh-r]

Is there any intrinsic difference between making the performances available for download and broadcasting the performances on digital radio.
If you have the right equipment (such as a Psion Wavefinder) and a reliable signal (not so easy for digital) you can record all the Proms at MP3 equivalent quality.

Re:So I guess....

[Breakfast Pants]

The difference is the governments aren't funding those people! Oh wait, Governments around the world routinely do things like that. In fact local governments often put a lot of money into funding symphonies etc.--without that funding the "Classical Labels" who are complaining in this case would have a much crappier talent pool to pick from. This same issue came up when some town was releasing its GIS data a while back... I don't see how it is even an issue if it has already been paid for (as with that data and these performances).

Re:The next logical step

[aussersterne]

Governments are put in place to do the things that private citizens and corporations can't do on their own: enforce order, build roads, provide for the common defense, etc.

Says who? You deftly slide this by as though it's a statement of fact. How about:

Governments are put in place to do things that private citizens or corproations won't do, but that most private citizens wish somebody would do.

or:

Governments are put in place to make golf courses.

Just what "governments are put in place to do" is a central debate of modernity that has shaped much of the history of the twentieth century. It is what this entire story is about, and why it is so controversial.

I'd be just as happy with:

Governments are put in place to do whatever it is they do and to encourage and facilitate the near-free distribution of valuable works by long-dead people that can benefit the public at large.

Re:The next logical step

[MightyMartian]

Most of those classical composers that the BBC is giving performances of away were themselves funded by various princes, kings and emperors. The value that Mozart, Beethoven or Bach produced, and continue to produce through performances is such that I can only nasty thoughts of those who think that the free distribution of this grandest of Western music is wrong, or that taxpayers of the present, like those of the past, should have to bear the the thought of actually putting a little culture into a world dominated by monosyllabic athletes and "singers" whose performances are possible only by sound engineers and computers.

My goodness, but what a small, greedy, mean-spirited world we've become if the BBC is attacked for giving to the public its performances of the great musical masters. Perhaps we should weed through university computers to make sure that there are no copies of Shakespeare or Chaucer (ala Project Gutenberg), because heaven forbid that a government-funded institution should ever compete with a bookseller.