Debate about this licensing system finally being enforced.

[Calgon]

So, what are your thoughts of this? Discuss it here, seeing as nobody made a topic on the exact same wave length of this, I decided to do so.

I think, good, at last.

[awelsh]

I really dont care. People are making a fuss about it now but its always been the case that a license has been needed.

Its just the odd few who think "OMGZ HABBOZ IZ MESSIN FINGZ UP AGEN 4 US LOT, OMGHGHGHGHGHGHG"

[Calgon]

I really dont care. People are making a fuss about it now but its always been the case that a license has been needed.

Its just the odd few who think "OMGZ HABBOZ IZ MESSIN FINGZ UP AGEN 4 US LOT, OMGHGHGHGHGHGHG"

Exactly what I was thinking when I heard first about it.

[Source]

Anybody with more than half a brain would know that broadcasting copyrighted music without a license is illegal. Its common sense, everyone knows the sending mp3's or uploading them is illegal, and your practically doing the same when broadcasting to a shoutcast - you are still uploading a tempory physical copy of the song (all be it mixed into your stream) for people to stream (download).

Idc if people "lol" at me for this, but its about time these "radios" are shutdown. Years have gone by when they seem to think they are not allegable to pay royalties when other online radio stations have been going bust because they have and always did pay the fees. Good riddance.

[iUnknown]

How about hosting it on an offshore server and make a proxy on it and make all your listeners tune in through that? A server where these laws don't exist, and everyone listening through it means that they're listening where these laws don't exist as well, right?

[Knuxxy]

How about hosting it on an offshore server and make a proxy on it and make all your listeners tune in through that? A server where these laws don't exist, and everyone listening through it means that they're listening where these laws don't exist as well, right?

You are amazing... could you send me a pm on how the whole proxy thing would work?

Thanks,
Knuxxy

[Gangster]

I think it should be liek this

If the owners are 8 - 14 they should charge £50 for the license.
If the owners are 15 - 21 they should charge £100 for the license.
If the owners are 22+ they should charge £200+ for the license.

Because every single habbo fansite is opened for fun, so you have something to do, it's not a paying job, its for fun, and especially as we're all children/young adults we shouldn't be charged £200+.

But as people would pretend to be 13 or something, you should have to copy your birth certificate and send it to them.

[Stability]

If the owners are 8 - 14

I loled, I doubt you would get an 8 year old Fansite owner :S

Anybody with more than half a brain would know that broadcasting copyrighted music without a license is illegal. Its common sense, everyone knows the sending mp3's or uploading them is illegal, and your practically doing the same when broadcasting to a shoutcast - you are still uploading a tempory physical copy of the song (all be it mixed into your stream) for people to stream (download).

I agree with this
How long has this been a Law though?

Some good radios gone now because of it, but I guess that is what brought me here so

[MashiV2]

Its actually around 2000 pound

[awelsh]

I think it should be liek this

If the owners are 8 - 14 they should charge £50 for the license.
If the owners are 15 - 21 they should charge £100 for the license.
If the owners are 22+ they should charge £200+ for the license.

Because every single habbo fansite is opened for fun, so you have something to do, it's not a paying job, its for fun, and especially as we're all children/young adults we shouldn't be charged £200+.

But as people would pretend to be 13 or something, you should have to copy your birth certificate and send it to them.

But then people could just get younger brothers/sisters to pretend they own the site