[LINK] More about iiNet suit - legal opinion on their side it seems

[Jan Whitaker]

At 07:41 PM 26/11/2008, Chris Gilbey wrote:
>* Public performance of copyright works is permitted for any work.
>
>* APRA collects the public revenues from public performances of songs.
>
>* The artist performing does not pay to perform a work. The venue pays. It
>is part of the license provisions that they have.
>
>* The artist is obliged to fill in a report noting the works performed.

Thanks for that, Chris, and welcome to link.

What if there is no money collected at the door? Is there still a 
charge to the venue?

How is that calculated if it's not a 'venue' like a nightclub or a 
concert hall? Does the performer get charged by the space providers, 
and in essence are the ones who pay ultimately?

If I understand this model correctly, it's ultimately the listener 
who is expected to foot the bill, either through:
entry charges [tickets]
bar prices [built into the cost of operating a venue]
purchase of recordings

There's a gap in there somewhere that I can't quite pick re the big 
storm over presenting/playing/distributing the films or music over 
electronic means. Seems the parallels aren't adding up. Perhaps 
Professor Klerphel has an analysis or can just tell me I'm not bright 
enough to figure it out.

Jan



Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
personal: http://www.janwhitaker.com/personal/
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

Writing Lesson #54:
Learn to love revision. Think of it as polishing the silver for 
guests. - JW, May, 2007
_ __________________ _


-- 

Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1811 - Release Date: 25/11/2008 8:29 AM