![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldListening to CBC Radio One's long-running interview show As It Happens Wednesday night, I was surprised to learn about the case of the copyright-violating Scottish singing clerk.
One blog commenter went on to observe that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is actually held under copyright despite serious doubt that the agency claiming the song may not have the rights to do so.
Other people have gone into much greater detail about the controversy over intellectual property than me. Some, perhaps most famously Lawrence Lessig in his book Remix, argue that intellectual property laws as currently constituted sharply limit the ability of people to recycle and recombine different elements of culture that are themselves products of past recycling and recombinations, threatening a culture's vitality and capacity for innovation. Others argue that intellectual property laws help protect the producers of cultural goods, ensuring that they'll receive proper credit and compensation for their works, and in so doing creating an environment where up-and-coming writers and musicians and artists and other such people won't be afraid of penury.
Where do you stand on this issue? As a consumer, what do you do? If you are a producer of cultural goods, what's your stance on the matter? Does it matter to you that different countries have different stances on the issue? Et cetera.
Sandra Burt, 56, who works at A&T Food store in Clackmannanshire, was warned she could be fined for her singing by the Performing Right Society (PRS).
However the organisation that collects royalties on behalf of the music industry has now reversed its stance.
They have sent Mrs Burt a bouquet of flowers and letter of apology.
Mrs Burt, who describes herself as a Rolling Stones fan, said that despite the initial warning from the PRS, she had been unable to stop herself singing at work.
"They would need to put a plaster over my mouth to get me to stop, I can't help it
The village store where Mrs Burt works was contacted by the PRS earlier this year to warn them that a licence was needed to play a radio within earshot of customers.
When the shop owner decided to get rid of the radio as a result, Mrs Burt said she began singing as she worked.
She told the BBC news website: "I would start to sing to myself when I was stacking the shelves just to keep me happy because it was very quiet without the radio.
"When I heard that the PRS said I would be prosecuted for not having a performance licence, I thought it was a joke and started laughing.
"I was then told I could be fined thousands of pounds. But I couldn't stop myself singing.
One blog commenter went on to observe that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is actually held under copyright despite serious doubt that the agency claiming the song may not have the rights to do so.
Other people have gone into much greater detail about the controversy over intellectual property than me. Some, perhaps most famously Lawrence Lessig in his book Remix, argue that intellectual property laws as currently constituted sharply limit the ability of people to recycle and recombine different elements of culture that are themselves products of past recycling and recombinations, threatening a culture's vitality and capacity for innovation. Others argue that intellectual property laws help protect the producers of cultural goods, ensuring that they'll receive proper credit and compensation for their works, and in so doing creating an environment where up-and-coming writers and musicians and artists and other such people won't be afraid of penury.
Where do you stand on this issue? As a consumer, what do you do? If you are a producer of cultural goods, what's your stance on the matter? Does it matter to you that different countries have different stances on the issue? Et cetera.
