According to this website, “A public performance is considered under many national laws to include any performance of a work at a place where the public is or can be present; or at a place not open to the public, but where a substantial number of persons outside the normal circle of a family and its close acquaintances is present. The right of public performance entitles the author or other copyright owner to authorize live performances of a work, such as a play in a theater, or an orchestra performance of a symphony in a concert hall. Public performance also includes performance by means of recordings. Thus a musical work is considered publicly performed when a sound recording of that work, or phonogram, is played over amplification equipment, for example in a discotheque, airplane, or shopping mall.” Until reading this, I had never considered publicly playing a song to be considered a public performance. I guess this means that with the weather warming up, people who play music on the quad need to get some kind of permission from the artist to play their music.
Copyright is invading our public lives too? Wouldn’t we be protected with fair use for a lot of that stuff?
I had a thought like this once, but brushed it off with “no one is getting paid, so it doesn’t matter.” But now, I know that it still does matter. While it is possible to say that it is a “one time copy” due to it being a live “performance,” but I suppose the fact still stands that it was still a “public performance.”