[GERGE]

What we are just doing here is just a gedankenexperiment, don't forget that. Laws are unenforceable sometimes, we have a law in Turkey saying that all male public servants must wear hats to work. Bowler hats.

Sometimes being against the law doesn't really means being against the law. As I am saying, even if readings in libraries are considered public performances (which I disagree) and even if UK wasn't a member of EU, this law (act of 1988) cannot be enforced in this case.

You are reading to children, in a library. Law isn't just about what is written down, it is all about a balance between good of the state, public good and private rights. If there is a law that prohibits reading to children in a library, it would be very much unenforceable therefore any discussions are actually moot from a lawyer's point of view. So, what we are just doing here is just a gedankenexperiment in the field of jurisprudence.

In this light, it we consider it a public performance, the law should prohibit the reading, in a world where noone cares about the children. What must be decided is what constitutes a public performance.

Public performance means a performance to public. Therefore public must be defined first. So, let's do it! (I do enjoy interpreting words, we always used to do this in our jurisprudence classes)

Public comes from latin publicus which means common, general and vulgar. Which in turns creates a connection to mobile by the way of vulgar. By that, mobile also might be interpreted as an unruly crowd. All together, public means an open, general crowd. That is: a large number of common people gathered openly. Ten or so children in a children's room of a library does not fulfill this requirement. A hundred children does.

Thus, whether our situation is or isn't a public performance depends on the scale. I am curious to see why you think I am wrong in my interpretation.