Oh dear!

Richard your first contribution to this thread started by saying

"I am a copyright lawyer, but this is not solicitor-client advice (for that, there are fees, and what our law society calls a "client care" letter (translation, contractual terms of business))."

Thank goodness for that. Please keep your advice, free or otherwise. For as you are pointed out above all you are expressing here is basically a personal view, no more valid than anyone else's view in this thread. From what you have demonstrated here, if I were going to pay any lawyer for any advice on this subject, it certainly would not be you.

I feel that, if you wanted to, you have may be able to provide some helpful advice on this issue. As it is, your patronising contributions and simplistic definitions, seem to demonstrate that you have failed to grasp the implications of this issue or even to have actually read the wording of the law you referred to.

In my view, your insultingly short and long-suffering sounding, definition of the word public, over a issue of music in a PUBLIC house, even if they had been intended to be helpful, was a definition that was totally unnecessary. It appeared to me to be stating the 'bloody obvious ', just to further your apparent need to exercise your sense of superiority over those poor non-legal people in trouble and asking for help. You have gone on to produce yet another post, in the same patronising tone.

The clear and simplistic view of this or any other law, that you stick to, is the type of sure and certain interpretation, that some solicitors tend to give to prospective clients before they start to take their money. After that point they tend to give a less sure interpretation and things tend to become more complicated and expensive.

I would like to thank all of those who have seen the implications of this issue and have contributed helpful suggestions in this thread with a view to get a common sense view and solution to this problem.