Reply to post: Re: The government gave a specific reason when they created the exemption

Re: The government gave a specific reason when they created the exemption

When I buy the right to listen to some music it makes no difference to the musician what technology I use to listen to that music. The musician has not lost anything, so the correct amount of compensation is 0. That was the government's clearly stated reason for the lack of compensation from the beginning.

"Thanks to this ruling, we must now fund a quango to calculate"

Er. No.

"Time for Orlowski to demonstrate the value of a compensation scheme..."

Time for you to calm down a little, I think. Any mention of paying musicians seems to send some Commentards round the bend.

"When I buy the right to listen to some music it makes no difference to the musician what technology I use to listen to that music. The musician has not lost anything..."

<slaps forehead>

The state has stepped in and removed a property right. A commercially valuable property right. Which is also your right (and you would care if you were creative in any way). Under international treaties this can't be done without compensation. There are good reasons for this, even if they escape you.

"...spent on their behalf on tasks like pointless litigation and lobbying for more pork"

I do suspect that if Herr Kroes found himself being paid as reliably as musicians get paid for use of their sound recordings, he would be noisily backing a lot of "pointless litigation" on behalf of Herr Kroes.