On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
> Some more:
Right. The musician's chose the venue as well as the volume to play
at. If they don't want people in a nearby public location to hear them
then the responsibility starts and ends with them to act within the
law to accomplish what they want to accomplish, if they can. Sound
proof the venue. Play somewhere else. Petition the police to legally
remove people within 1000 yards. The are any number of practical and
unpractical things they could try. Of course, they may find it costs
too much money, they might lose future customers or find they cannot
get a permit the next time they come to town.
> 3b) Musicians are playing a live show for a standing audience. You are not
If you were given 'reasonable public notice' that the even would take
place then 'right', but it's wrong on so many levels, isn't it? Lady
Gaga even in just the newspaper is even enough for me to vote 'wrong'
but I just have to let it go. ;-)
> Maybe we could get paid if we are forced to consume a copyrighted work
I love your idea but fortunately we can just walk away and not
consume. I really don't like that my neighbor rides a Harley and comes
home at 3AM waking me up 3-4 nights a week, but the bike is legal and
he's operating it legally (it's legal to drive it at 3AM) so it's my
choice to continue to live in this house. I could sell and go
elsewhere but that's the 'devil you kow for the devil you don't know'.
Linux-audio-user mailing list