Another case whereby the lawyers will get rich and everyone else will still "infringe" copyright.clicky

Only in america? cant stand yanks and their stupid dumb ideas

It's bad enough over here with the whackjobs at PRS charging shops for "licenses" to play music.

The PRS once tried to insist to us that an employee using an MP3 player counted as "public peformance" - they went away unhappy when they learned that even if it did, the music being played was out of copyright (classical)...

Musicians can't win.
If they're not money grabbing whatsits for thinking people sharing their work for free without permission is a Bad Thing, then the PRS are a shower of hardline lunatics for trying to make sure the small guys get their royalties.
Who'd want to get into music if this is the attitude of the public?
I have a few friends who make a small income from PRS royalties.
Yes, I agree, the mp3 player incident sounds heavy handed, but they're technically right if the public were able to hear it, unfortunately.

That may well be correct on a technicality, but no-one is going to tell me that it's within the "spirit" of the law.

Sorry but a few seconds of song, particularly when it is a poor rehash of the real performance, constitutes fair use to me. This is plain stupid much as I want musicians to earn a fair pound for their work. I'd also be a little more sympathetic if I had any confidence the bulk of the money collected went to the artist concerned. Since there is ample evidence that is very far from the case I have no sympathy for the likes of the PRS, RIAA etc.

Richard.