In the UK you are supposed to get a license to have a public performance of copyright materials, including the public radio stations. If other blokes are hearing your “broadcast” then you need a license. Ars Technica brings up the point that this could eventually be applied to cubicle farms, but I get the impression that groups like the Performing Rights Society want to charge for anytime anyone even thinks of a song. I mean, what is the point of a radio if it’s not to listen to music?! I mean, what would happen if I was in a park and had my radio up loud enough for someone else to hear? Am I conducting a public performance of *gasp* copyrighted materials?! They might as well attach a Jolly Roger to each and every device that can potentially conduct one of these open air piracy buffets!

This is laughably stupid, a fact supported after briefly explaining the facts to my wife, who, being smart but not a total geek (I’m still working on that), came to the same conclusion I did. I think her exact quote was something along the lines, “That’s dumb.”

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, “When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Making “a copy” of a purchased song is just “a nice way of saying ‘steals just one copy’,” she said.

Combined with the shocking(!) revelation that the lawsuits are costing the RIAA more than they bring in, this jury trial is getting more and more interesting.

As a kid, I figured it was mandatory for adults to have boring discussions about stuff like politics. Nowadays politics is boring (although the 2008 is going to be an absolute entertainment goldmine!) but I find myself drawn deeper and deeper in actually caring about copyright law and piracy. I never would have guessed it would be this interesting. As Thom and Jeff would say, “Who knew?”