Commercial Radio Australia (CRA) has been denied permission to appeal to the High Court in an attempt to overrule decisions in lower courts that will force it to pay twice for music it broadcasts – once for over the air and another for simultaneous internet broadcast. The case over just how radio broadcasters should pay for …
Slow clap for the PPCA
Doing their best to ensure that their product remains unknown to their potential customers has long proved to be a spectacularly successful marketing strategy.
The PPCA has never had their fingers on my music.
Not certain what that means, but it's a fact.
So Australia is following it's colonial mother in screwing over it's listeners. Why do they need this law anyway? Copyright exists to punish people publishing things without permission? They could just offer a contract to say I won't prosecute you for playing records if you pay me x amount? STUPID laws.
Part from A and part from B
I would have thought that a live stream was a broadcast, but a 'podcast' was not. If you don't send it until I specifically ask for it then it is not a broadcast. If you are streaming in real time then it is a broadcast. I may not be listening at any particular time, but that is no different to a radio station that you only hear if you tune in to that frequency.
Opens the door for
No-music radio programming. Not Rush! Please!
- Analysis iPhone 6: The final straw for Android makers eaten alive by the data parasite?
- First Crack Bloke buys iPHONE 6 and DROPS IT to SMASH on PURPOSE
- First Fondle Register journo battles Sydney iPHONE queue, FONDLES BIG 'UN
- Early result from Scots indyref vote? NAW, Jimmy - it's a SCAM
- TOR users become FBI's No.1 hacking target after legal power grab