|
09 Dec 10 - 05:52 AM (#3049458) Subject: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldordpap.htm Question in the House of Lords re 'Lowlands Away' from Lord Colwyn: 'to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the entertainment licensing implications of the Susan Phillips Turner Prize winning installation, Lowlands Away", at Tate Britain where the galleries are not licensed under the Licensing Act 2003 to play recorded music.' HL5087 |
|
09 Dec 10 - 05:58 AM (#3049462) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: doc.tom Oh goodee! I wonder what the answer will be. They can hardly claim it's incidental to the primary purpose and therefore not licensable - it is the artwork itself. |
|
09 Dec 10 - 05:59 AM (#3049464) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: Sailor Ron Wonderful! Who says the House of Lords is a waste of space!?! |
|
09 Dec 10 - 06:28 AM (#3049484) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: GUEST But surely the song is copyright free so no licence is required? |
|
09 Dec 10 - 07:27 AM (#3049510) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: GUEST Guest, this is not a question about PRS licensing for copyright, but about the Licensing Act 2003 - an entirely separate issue which covers the provision of "regulated entertainment", which includes both live and recorded music. |
|
09 Dec 10 - 07:33 AM (#3049513) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: MGM·Lion The House of Lords is certainly not a waste of space: but the Turner Prize is ~ see my post on the other Turner Prize thread ongoing [which one? Can't remember: ~ try them all!] As Ricky Tomlinson would have remarked in The Royle Family ~ "Works of art, my arse!" ~Michael~ |
|
09 Dec 10 - 08:04 AM (#3049534) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: Manitas_at_home They can't very well get round the act by claiming it as a work of art as everyone will be able to use the same excuse. All music is art anyway. |
|
09 Dec 10 - 08:13 AM (#3049537) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: Jim McLean I recorded Lord Colwyn and his band many years ago so he has an agenda, being a fine musician himself. |
|
09 Dec 10 - 08:49 AM (#3049560) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: Jim McLean See here. Lord Colwyn's 3B Band |
|
09 Dec 10 - 12:37 PM (#3049743) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: GUEST From Hamish Birchall For some reason two key links in my Turner Prize licensing piece yesterday are not working today. Here are updated versions as Tiny URLs: Daily Telegraph coverage, including video of the Turner Prize winner's sound installation: http://tinyurl.com/39dph26 Tate Britain Turner Prize exhibition info page: http://tinyurl.com/2whxezo Note that entry to the Turner Prize exhibition is ticket only (£8, or £6 concessions). ENDS |
|
09 Dec 10 - 03:17 PM (#3049851) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: Richard Bridge It seems (wholly incredibly) that Westminster is indeed claiming that it is "incidental". Watch this space. |
|
09 Dec 10 - 03:45 PM (#3049878) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler So, we venture forth to perform art installations instead of music? |
|
09 Dec 10 - 03:48 PM (#3049884) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: Charmion Sure, why not? Might as well, can't dance. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." |
|
10 Dec 10 - 06:02 AM (#3050227) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: GUEST,The Shambles The point about the incidental exemption is that - as it up to the local licensing authority (in all practical effect those who are employed by it) to interpret what is and is not to qualify. There is no formal application application process. So in practice - the law is what those who are paid to enforce it, say that it is. The vast majority of councils simply ignore the fact that such an exemption exists. Rarely - and this would seem to one of those cases - in order to get them out of hole a council will find something form of music to qualify. As the situation stands - on the rare occasions, usually due to avoiding embarrassment to them, when those employed to enforce licensing legislation wish an activity to take place (or already have allowed it to slip past them) - they will scrape around to find some bizzare interpretaion to pemit it. This situation offers no protection to the public, it must be ended and all music must be finally taken out of the hands of council employed vandals - while there is still some left. The Tate Gallery, like many other places (pubs. clubs, schools, hospitals etc.) have already been made safe for the public. It is plainly nonsense for the LGA Group lobby to continue to claim and advise that the introduction of any form of live or recorded music will change this and will require the expensive process of additional entertainment licensing under the Licensing Act 2003. |
|
10 Dec 10 - 07:19 AM (#3050259) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Good old House of lords! By 'eck, they do a good job! What? Never said anything different! Whoever I am, ignore what I said in all the BS threads about the lazy rich work shy privileged buggers.... ZZZZZ |
|
10 Dec 10 - 07:34 AM (#3050265) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: Richard Bridge No ROger that is not right. THe law is what the law is, not what councils say it is - but if the councils do not instigate proceedings a case is very unlikely. I suppose that the Tate could seek a declaration that it was not licensable, btu I'm not sure that they want to know the answer accurately either. |
|
10 Dec 10 - 09:08 AM (#3050308) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: GUEST,The Shambles I stand by what I said, for as court proceedings are so very unlikely - "in practice - the law is what those who are paid to enforce it, say that it is." And after 5 years of trying and failing to get our weekly session exempt under this exemption - I can speak from practical experience of trying to get this law to actually protect those it was intended to protect. Thus the Council concerned with the Tate Gallery will no doubt try to maintain and enforce an interpretation of law, where an advertised (and ticket only) peformance of a recorded version of Lowlands Away, by a named performer is exempt as the playing of recorded music that is incidental. And at the same time, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council Council will continue to maintain maintain and enforce an interpretation of law, where a live version of Lowlands Away, by an advertised but un-named member of our weekly session is NOT exempt as a performance of live music that is incidental. The law, I suggest, is an ass, where it is allowed to be so selectively used or ignored by those who are paid to enforce it. It is dangereous in such circumstances for us to pretend that there is still a rule of law. If there were - such a situation, as we may expect in an undeveloped or openly corrupt country - would not exist in a country which has largely provided the world with the whole concept. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 12:24 PM (#3052541) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000552/2010/12/09/£24,600+Costs+Against+Council+in+Licensing+Appeal.html Where such things as this case do reach the courts - the outcome should be encouraging. However, I find that it just adds to the frustration that so little does get tested. Hopefully this case may encourage others to challenge current local enforcement practice. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 08:55 PM (#3052904) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: GUEST,Guest But can they afford to? |
|
14 Dec 10 - 02:02 AM (#3053034) Subject: RE: Lowlands Away Question in Lords From: GUEST,The Shambles Can we afford not to? |