This new thread is related to one recently closed to avoid legal problems.

I add this because if we are all informed, we can avoid personal or groupal problems.

The FBI page has published:

In the meantime, it is perfectly fine for anyone, without FBI approval, to use the following generic language on material protected under U.S. copyright law: "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

Even when it's stupid, the word unauthorized distribution could include trading. It doesn't say reproduction and distribution, it clearly says reproduction OR distribution.

This is another one from other source:

Warning the copyright proprietor has licensed this DVD (including its soundtrack) for private home use only. Unless otherwise expressly licensed by the copyright proprietor, all other rights are reserved. Any unauthorised copying, editing, exhibition, renting, lending, public performance, diffusion and or broadcast of this DVD, or any part thereof, is strictly prohibited. This DVD is not to be exported, resupplied or distributed by way of trade outside the EU without a proper license from Classic Entertainment. (Disc format DVD9).

This one is even more clear. So it's 100% illegal to trade DVD's with people outside USA and the interpretation of distribution in the first screen MAY include trading inside USA.

Iván

cobb wrote: So what you are saying Ivan, is that it is both ethically and legally wrong to share, copy or distribute copywritten material - wow, that's a surprise!

I don't talk about ethics, but my obligation as member of Prog Archives is to avoid risks being RIAA and their associates in other countries so strong lately.

Of course the law may change from country to country, but the FBI warning ckearly states this.

Being that Prog Archives doesn't encourage or allows illegal activities, I believe this policy must be informed.

Iván

Ivan,

It's great that you are keeping an eye on such things on behalf of the site. I must admit, i find it astonishing that offering to sell CDs or DVDs you have legally bought may be illegal. There must be second hand CD and DVD shops world-wide. Are they really technically breaking the law every time they buy or sell a CD or DVD?

The other thing you could perhaps clarify. Does the site have any responsibility if people chose to trade in CDs and DVDs (legitimate ones, not bootlegs, copies etc.)? I.E. If the site is not actually offering to buy or sell the CDs itself, can it be implicated because someone posed a message here?

Snow Dog wrote: I never did understand why its illegal to copy a CD for someone and yet ok to sell it second hand.

You bought the CD - so you can also sell it. Same as when you buy an apple, a car our a house. But copying the CD ... in Germany it is legal if that "someone" is a relative, or a very close friend. Other than that, copying the CD and giving it to someone is essentially creating a second CD from the one you bought, and thus causing potential damage to the rights owners - because your friend might otherwise have bought the CD himself.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Snow Dog wrote: I never did understand why its illegal to copy a CD for someone and yet ok to sell it second hand. You bought the CD - so you can also sell it

Yes I know that obviously. I never said you couldn't. BVut why is it ok to sell it? Don't say its like an apple because its not.

Vompatti wrote: ^Copied CDs are pieces of plastic as well, yet selling them is illegal.

The copying is usually not illegal, just the selling. After all, you didn't buy them.

^theoretically it may be possible that even the artist him/erself is not authorized to sell those recordings, or to give them away for free. I remember that on the Devin Townsend homepage a link to a bootleg was removed a couple of weeks later "on request of the record label". Apparently sometimes the record label has more rights than the artist.

Empathy wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote:  Apparently sometimes the record label has more rights than the artist. Sometimes?

Sometimes the artists produce the music themselves and keep all rights - today more so than in the past decades, because today it's less expensive to record an album. Let's hope that this trend continues!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ sure it is - a compact disc is not virtual. It's a piece of plastic, some paper and a plastic case. Of course you can sell it.

Are you deliberately not understanding????

Its not just a piece of plastic, if it was we would have nothing to write about!

Snow Dog wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ sure it is - a compact disc is not virtual. It's a piece of plastic, some paper and a plastic case. Of course you can sell it. Are you deliberately not understanding???? Its not just a piece of plastic, if it was we would have nothing to write about!

About a month ago there was a lengthy article in my favorite computer magazine. From that I gather that it's absolutely legal (at least in Germany) to sell CDs and DVDs. Other countries might be different, but Germany is one of the most strict countries in terms of copyright ...

Why are you all so concerned about the word "distribution"? It hasn't got much to do with selling a used CD, has it?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Snow Dog wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ sure it is - a compact disc is not virtual. It's a piece of plastic, some paper and a plastic case. Of course you can sell it. Are you deliberately not understanding???? Its not just a piece of plastic, if it was we would have nothing to write about! About a month ago there was a lengthy article in my favorite computer magazine. From that I gather that it's absolutely legal (at least in Germany) to sell CDs and DVDs. Other countries might be different, but Germany is one of the most strict countries in terms of copyright ... Why are you all so concerned about the word "distribution"? It hasn't got much to do with selling a used CD, has it?

Mike..is this a wind up? At NO POINT have I said that its illegal to sell DVDs or CDs!!!

Many questions, will go 1 by one

1.-

Easy Livin wrote: Ivan, It's great that you are keeping an eye on such things on behalf of the site. I must admit, i find it astonishing that offering to sell CDs or DVDs you have legally bought may be illegal. There must be second hand CD and DVD shops world-wide. Are they really technically breaking the law every time they buy or sell a CD or DVD? IMO it's not a felony, this warning is wrong, illegal and attempts against the right of property. But the RIAA and their partners outside US created a legal fiction, you don't buy a CD or DVD, you buy the right to play it in your house for your personal use, that's why they say that even lending it ois a copyright infridgement. Probably with a good lawyer) any person would win the case, but RIAA and their friends don't want or need to win the case, the legal fees are so high that if they sue any person or small society, they will have to settle. Most of the people sued by the RIAA for downloadin could be forced to pay US$ 125,000.00 "PER SONG" but almost all the cases were settled in US$ 12,000,00 because nobody could afford a trial. Second hand stores may be acting against his rule, but we know RIAA doesn't care for this small traders, their enemy is INTERNET, not only for illegal downloading but because sites explain to the possible clients which album is good and which one is crap, they want people to buy blindly without any info. Plus probably 2nd hand stores have authorizatoion of the labels. The other thing you could perhaps clarify. Does the site have any responsibility if people chose to trade in CDs and DVDs (legitimate ones, not bootlegs, copies etc.)? I.E. If the site is not actually offering to buy or sell the CDs itself, can it be implicated because someone posed a message here? The site can't be considered responsible for what people do, but can be accused of encouraging or at least allowing illegal activities if WE don't block the threads and make an specific anouncement against this activities.

2.-

Snow Dog wrote: I never did understand why its illegal to copy a CD for someone and yet ok to sell it second hand.

Well if you copy a CD FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE it's legal (At least it was until a few months ago), but if you copy a CD for another person (with or without profit) you are duplicating copyrighted material without being owner and giving it to another person who won't buy it.

All started with the  famous process  called  The Betamax case (Universal Studios vs Sony Corporation of America -NOW PARTNERS WITH RIAA- ).

Universal studios sued Sony because they said that the Betamax would be used to make illegal copies of copyrighted movies, at the end the sales of Viedo players were so high and everybody had a VCR or Betamax, that it was futile (Both companies had illimited resources, so they were able to appeal and appeal and appeal and the trial lasted a long time), so they created terms, in which a movie could not be sold in Video Cassettes and a period in which it could not be showed on TV.

People was allowed to make personal copies, but not to sell them.

3.-

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ sure it is - a compact disc is not virtual. It's a piece of plastic, some paper and a plastic case. Of course you can sell it.

No Mike, you own the plastic of the CD and the plastic of the case, but the author and/or publisher owns the material recorded and the art on the cover, you are only granted an authorization to make personal use of it.

Silly, but that's the law.

4.-

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^theoretically it may be possible that even the artist him/erself is not authorized to sell those recordings, or to give them away for free. I remember that on the Devin Townsend homepage a link to a bootleg was removed a couple of weeks later "on request of the record label". Apparently sometimes the record label has more rights than the artist.

Not theoretically Mike it's  a fact, unless the author is the publisher, in USA, Canada, UK and in most of the world, the first 25 years after the release of an album, the owner was the publisher. After this period and for a lapse between then and 50 to 120 years (Depending on specific laws) the author or his/her family owns the rights.

Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works.         12.—(1) Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject to the following provisions of this section. Note: In USA the terms reach 120 years after the first publication in some cases. Duration of copyright in typographical arrangement of published editions.         15.    Copyright in the typographical arrangement of a published edition expires at the end of the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the edition was first published. This is the key article, the publisher owns everything for 25 years (Periods of time may change depending in the country) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_2.htm - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_2.htm

This is in UK, but it's similar in almost all the world, even though I believe some things have changed due to USA laws, but normally the new artist transfers his rights to a publisher during a determined period of time, because this lkabel assumes the risk, pays advertising, release the albums and organize concerts.

That's why Rick Wakeman couldn't release Criminal Record and No Eartly Connection until a few years ago. A&M owned the rights and was not interested in releasing them as CD's, but they didn't granted Rick the rights to publish it.

In some cases check Yes coppyrights, for example in Fragile songs appear Copyright Atlantic Records (Or their bussiness partners) but in later versions like Keys Live, you see the copyright in favour of Yessongs Ltd. or Topographic Music, because the publisher's right had already expired.

So maybe the author agrees to put his work in the net but the publisher says no, and it's no.

Geck0 wrote: But surely live recordings are separate to the record company?  Do record companies really have the right to the recordings of every live recording?  Even those ones done in a basement in the guitarist's house, to a small audience? The author can play in public his songs without asking poermission to anybody else, but if he makes a live album, he must include copyright ownership and pay royalties, UNLESS there's an agreement between the author and the publisher allowiing the band to own the rights of live albums. After the publisher right has prescribed, any co author can do whatever he wants with his music. That's why in Tokyo Tapes you can find Genesis, Asia and King Crimson tracks, because co authors of this works participated in the show. And previously Steve Hackett published Genesis Revisited with his own label.

Now the last one:

GoldenSpiral wrote: I have to ask this question:  is there an organization in UK and elsewhere that has as much political power there as the RIAA does in America?  I ask because the more you read, the more you find that the RIAA has several government organizations, particularly the FBI and FCC, in its front pocket.  the FCC is beginning to pass really oppressive laws regarding public broadcast (this affects me as an independent radio jockey).  Because of the RIAA, there are laws and hefty fines issued for playing too many songs from the same artist in a certain time span.  In essence, if I wanted to play a live album from a certain band in its entirety, I could be fined heavily by the FCC, all because the RIAA is afraid someone is at home recording the show.  This seems F-ing ridiculous to me, and I'm wondering if there are similar rules in other countries?

Yes there is, the laws I quoted above are from UK, the organization in UK is called BPI

The BPI is the British record industry's trade association. We have represented the interests of British record companies since being formally incorporated in 1973 when our principal aim was to fight the growing problem of music piracy. Our membership comprises of more than 320 companies including all four major record companies, associate members such as manufacturers and distributors plus hundreds of independent music companies representing literally thousands of labels which together account for over 90% of recorded music output in the UK.   The BPI secretariat, with the support of its committees, implements the BPI Council's strategies on behalf of the UK record industry as a whole. The Council is elected at the AGM by BPI members and comprises representatives from majors and independent record companies alike   http://www.bpi.co.uk/ - http://www.bpi.co.uk/ .

 

Don't ask me who enforces them, maybe Scottland Yard, but I honestly don't know the laws of UK.

Hope it helps, but remember, I'm not a USA, Canada or UK lawyer and of course I'm not acting as one, just telling you what I read and analyze according to international principles, my interpretation may be different in some cases and the Jurisprudence may say something contradictory (Remember, juries are formed by people who know a sh!t of law), but I believe the terms are clear enough.

Iván

Thanks Ivan, interesting an useful!

You even offer hope there that we might see a CD release of "No earthly connection".

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: 3.- MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ sure it is - a compact disc is not virtual. It's a piece of plastic, some paper and a plastic case. Of course you can sell it. No Mike, you own the plastic of the CD and the plastic of the case, but the author and/or publisher owns the material recorded and the art on the cover, you are only granted an authorization to make personal use of it. Silly, but that's the law. 4.-

Not in Germany. In German legislation there are some rights of the user that the publishers cannot take away. One of these laws is commonly referred to as "Privatkopie" (private copy) ... I can copy any CD or DVD for private use, even if the publisher says that I must not do it and threatens me with legal punishment. Currently there is some discussion about whether or not copy protection mechanisms may be circumvented in order to make the copy ... but still. And trust me: I am allowed to sell any DVD which I bought, unless that for some reason it is generally forbidden to offer this DVD in Germany (due to import restrictions or similar). 

Iván wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^theoretically it may be possible that even the artist him/erself is not authorized to sell those recordings, or to give them away for free. I remember that on the Devin Townsend homepage a link to a bootleg was removed a couple of weeks later "on request of the record label". Apparently sometimes the record label has more rights than the artist. Not theoretically Mike it's  a fact, unless the author is the publisher, in USA, Canada, UK and in most of the world, the first 25 years after the release of an album, the owner was the publisher. After this period and for a lapse between then and 50 to 120 years (Depending on specific laws) the author or his/her family owns the rights.

Surely that also depends on the contract between artist and publisher, but I agree that this is usually the case.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

stonebeard wrote: Ugh...this whole thing disgusts me.  In my mind, artist should be the sole owners of their music. I believe the Internet will kill off a lot of publishers. I personnally want to control my music, not my publisher. That is, if I ever get really into the swing of making music.

God and almost everybody here knows I'm not a fan of the Musical Industry, as a fact I consider then inefficient leeches that try to live from our money and the effort of the artists.

Normally this is a problem of their system, the rotation of artists and executives is very high. They want great and fast profit, disposable one hit wonders are the dream of Musical Industry, because this guys appear, release a multi platinuum album, and they disappear as fast as thet appeared.

Normally bands and artists accept bad contracts when they are nobody, but as soon as they have enough bucks, they create their own label and cut the publisher, as Yes (Yessongs Ltd or Topographic Music), ELP (Manticore Records) or  Genesis (Hit & Run Music) for example did.

BUT (There's always a but) without publishers, many bands won't ever be known, Charisma Records took the risk with a bunch of teenagers as Genesis and a weird band called Van der Graff Generator, so they have the right to own the music until they get their investment back, and of course gain money, because those companies are created to earn money.

So it's legal and fair that the one who risked his money owns the rights long enough to earn profit.

Mike en Regalia wrote:

Not in Germany. In German legislation there are some rights of the user that the publishers cannot take away. One of these laws is commonly referred to as "Privatkopie" (private copy) ... I can copy any CD or DVD for private use, even if the publisher says that I must not do it and threatens me with legal punishment. Currently there is some discussion about whether or not copy protection mechanisms may be circumvented in order to make the copy ... but still. And trust me: I am allowed to sell any DVD which I bought, unless that for some reason it is generally forbidden to offer this DVD in Germany (due to import restrictions or similar).

Talked about that previously, if you own a legal CD you're aparently entitled to make a copy for your own personal use, not sure about the DVD, but you can't sell, give it for free or share it with anybody with or without profit.

This is called FAIR DEAL.

I don't know German laws, and my Deutch is rudimentary, so I can't analyze that unless there's a page with a translation.

Mike en Regalia wrote:

Iván wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^theoretically it may be possible that even the artist him/erself is not authorized to sell those recordings, or to give them away for free. I remember that on the Devin Townsend homepage a link to a bootleg was removed a couple of weeks later "on request of the record label". Apparently sometimes the record label has more rights than the artist. Not theoretically Mike it's  a fact, unless the author is the publisher, in USA, Canada, UK and in most of the world, the first 25 years after the release of an album, the owner was the publisher. After this period and for a lapse between then and 50 to 120 years (Depending on specific laws) the author or his/her family owns the rights. Surely that also depends on the contract between artist and publisher, but I agree that this is usually the case.

As you say, on this days it's mostly based in priivate contracts, because with technology ispossible for almost anybody to make a good CD or DVD using almost home machines.

I have a DVD sent as a gift by EGGROLL and Jester (Member of this forum) made by them, and the quality is outstanding, they don't sell millions of copies, but all they get is for them.

This didn't happened in the 70's, studio time was really expensive, and the labels made long term contracts, for example ELP formed Manticore Records but still had to release Works Live and Love Beach for Atlantic, so they made twom mediocre albums.

There was another difference, today the labels are managed by  executives that have an office NOW, can be fired tomorrow if a band an executive promoted doesn't sell let's say 20'000,000 copies, so this guys create new artists, squeeze them and forget about them tomorrow, because if the executive won't be in his office in two years he doesn't care for the futureof the label.

In the 70's the labels were managed by the owners  Sir Richard Branson, and Nik Powell, who saw a future in Mike Oldfield and made a long term contract with him. Tony Stratton Smith managed directly The Famous Char9isma Label and he made a 7 years contract with Genesis.

This was because the owners wanted good artists, they knew they will always manage their label, so they formed real artists for a long terrm relation.

Today the business is dirty, executives who don't know how much time they are going to stay in the company make one album contracts with mediocre artists, because with the help of the radios and magazines they will sell at least one album of almost any artist. If the guy is a faillure, they don't care, because they will be fired and the artoist will go hoime with a couple million bucks.

That's why bands as The Rolling Stones continue touring and Peter Gabriel is recieveing the credit he deserved since a long time ago, because labels haven't formed real artists to replace them.

Iván

I'm 100% sure that you can sell any legitimate (that is: no bootleg or unauthorized copy) DVD that you previously bought. In Germany and most other countries.

Consider this: If selling DVDs was really illegal, don't you think that a) there would be clear warnings instead of words like "distribution" which can, under some circumstances and using legal "trickery", be interpreted to also include the sale of used DVDs by private persons ... and b) Ebay would be aware of this and prevent CD auctions like they prevent other legally questionable items and finally c) that there would be lawsuits or at least public discussions about the possibility of lawsuits?

Sorry, but for any other country than the U.S.A. (consider the Patriot Act, Millenium Copyright Act and Department of Homeland Security) this is pure paranoia. And even in the United States I'm 99% certain that nobody will ever be prosecuted for selling used CDs that they bought in legitimate stores.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I'm 100% sure that you can sell any legitimate (that is: no bootleg or unauthorized copy) DVD that you previously bought. In Germany and most other countries. Consider this: If selling DVDs was really illegal, don't you think that a) there would be clear warnings instead of words like "distribution" which can, under some circumstances and using legal "trickery", be interpreted to also include the sale of used DVDs by private persons ... and b) Ebay would be aware of this and prevent CD auctions like they prevent other legally questionable items and finally c) that there would be lawsuits or at least public discussions about the possibility of lawsuits? Sorry, but for any other country than the U.S.A. (consider the Patriot Act, Millenium Copyright Act and Department of Homeland Security) this is pure paranoia. And even in the United States I'm 99% certain that nobody will ever be prosecuted for selling used CDs that they bought in legitimate stores.

I agree with you, but there are some facts that could be important.

1. RIAA and their partners make lobbies and use obscure words so that they can include almost anything as illegal.
2. In one of the screens the word TRADE is clearly written, nothing obscure.

Probably nothing will happen, but INTERNET is the enemy of Music Industry, and we shouldn't take the risk.

Their fantasy scenario is like in the 70's, the radios played one song, no comments anywhere, so people bought anything.

• I heard Canario in the radio and bought Love Beach
• Thousand of Peruvians listened Guinivere from Myths & Legends (With a wrong name "Lady of the Lake" ) in every station and massively bought the album, after listening it they made a scandal in the door of the record shops.

So if they want to finish with places like ours, it's better not to give them an excuse.

Iván

^ about that "trade" thing: It is true that it is not permitted to sell North American DVDs in the EU (and vice versa). That also applies to audio CDs ... so indeed (like I also said earlier) I have to be careful in Germany if I choose to sell a CD which I bought through Caiman USA (amazon.de Mmarketplace merchant) ... I have to make sure that the exact same CD is available in Europe, or otherwise it would be possible that I might be sued. However, all that could happen is that I pay a small fine, because I would have no problem to show that I don't sell CDs for a living.

MIKE: Could find an analysis of German Copyright Act in English and could partially decipher it from German, and the limitations to transference of inytellectual property are very interesting and unique:

Ownership is different than authorship In some jurisdictions, for instance in Germany, copyright cannot be transferred at all. As a result, the owner of a copyrighted work needs to obtain the copyrightholder's permission for a number of uses of the work. The Rijksmuseum does not have to go through this cumbersome process, since the work of arts in its collection are no longer protected by copyright. They are part of the public domain.

You can buy a copyright from the author, but a aparently you have to ask permission to the author for many acts, probably to avoid cases as Paul Mc'Cartney vs Michael Jackson in which a copyright holder sold Beatles material to a third person (Wacko Jacko) without the permission opf the authors.

Interesting, will have to search more, I love laws as much as music, specially when they challenge my mental structures as in this case, that goes against evrything I took for granted.

I can't understand how a label owner will agree to hire a band with this limitations, unless they  submit themselves to a foreign law that is more permisive.

Holy God, I feel like a child with a new toy.

Iván

@Iván: I found a translation of German copyright law:

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm - http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm

 Only the latest amendments are missing - mainly that it is now illegal to circumvent copy protection in order to make a (even private) copy.

Thanks Mike, as i thought there was something strange with Germany Law, because there's an international Convention  (WIPO Copyright Treaty) adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996,  signed by almost every country (I believe Germany also as most countries from Europe, until today 123 countries signed the treaty). Plus there's a Convention for all Europe countries

It was extrange that a country may limit so much the publisher's rights, because no label would ever set their address in Germany.

The laws I read yesterday were almost as Sci Fi for me, too restrictive in comparison with the rest of the world.

They have some articles that can bypass the limitations:

2. Exploitation Rights Article 31 Granting of Exploitation Rights (1) The author may grant a right to another to use the work in a particular manner or in any manner (exploitation right). An exploitation right may be granted as a non-exclusive right or as an exclusive right. There's a chance to agree in exclusive exploitation rights by contract. This is a bypass as I told you, only that is different to the rest of the world's case that this exclusive transfer must be literal not automatic. (...) (3) An exclusive exploitation right shall entitle the right holder to use the work, to the exclusion of all other persons, including the author, in the manner permitted to him, and to grant non-exclusive exploitation rights. Article 35 remains unaffected.} Tjis one is harder than anywhere else in the world, the right holder can exclude any person EVEN THE AUTHOR. So the holder can prohuibit the author to perform his music if he has exclusive rights. (...) Article 34 Transfer of Exploitation Rights (1) An exploitation right may be transferred only with the author's consent. The author may not unreasonably refuse his consent. The owner of he right needs the author permission to sell the copyright, and the author can only refuse with a valid reason. (4) The holder of an exploitation right and the author may agree on different terms. This rule gives total freedom if different terms are included in a contract.

So the limits to transfer of property are only ficticious, because there are ways to avoid this limits.

Even if this laws could have been modified there could be another way, like making the publisher co-author of the work as in the 50's in USA, that's why Little Richard's songs (Tutti Frutti and Long Tall Sally) were sung by Pat Boone with a 1/2 cent (Yes, 50% of a USA cent ) royalty per 45 RPM disk for Little Richard. The label's owner was credited as co-author.

Believe me, Music Industry is like the casinos, they never loose, there are thousands of ways in which even a mediocre lawyer can avoid restrictive laws.

Iván

In my opinion the most important difference between German law and other countries is that personal copies are explicitly allowed (see the section about copyright limitations). So no matter what the publisher forbids us consumers, we can ignore it and make copies. The recent changes are in conflict with that ... no copy protection mechanisms may be broken in order to make the copy. So right now there is a debate going on about which of these two conflicting rules is "stronger". The consensus is that it is not a criminal offense to break copy protection in order to make a personal copy, but civil lawsuits may arise. But no such lawsuits exist, and there are no announcements or speculations in the press about such lawsuits.

Coming back to the initial topic - the sale of a used DVD: I wouldn't worry about that ... there are less far-fetched legal problems that IMO would cause problems far more likely than that. Example: The use of album cover art. See Roger Dean's website's legal notice:

http://www.rogerdean.com/copyright.htm - http://www.rogerdean.com/copyright.htm

Quote: "The owner of a registered copyright can enforce his rights by bringing a civil lawsuit in Federal District Court. In addition, the Federal government itself can act. Criminal actions can be brought by the U.S. Attorney; and Customs and Postal officials may seize and impound infringing articles that are being imported. Recovery of attorneys' fees is possible if the suit is successful. The penalties for infringement can be substantial. In civil actions brought by the copyright owner, the court may order forfeiture and/or destruction not only of all infringing articles, but also of any implements used to manufacture the infringing articles. The court may even order seizure and impoundment of such articles prior to trial, and in some cases, without prior notice to the alleged infringer. In addition to obtaining an order stopping the infringement and ordering destruction of infringing articles, the court can order payment of any provable damages, including lost profits. The copyright owner can elect to receive "statutory damages". The minimum amount of statutory damages that can be awarded for copyright infringement is $500; and the maximum is $20,000. If the infringement was willful, the potential statutory damage award is increased to $100,000 for each act of infringement. In addition, attorneys' fees may be awarded. In addition to civil penalties, copyright infringers can be prosecuted under the federal criminal laws. All willful copyright infringement is a criminal offense. The lowest penalty is conviction of a federal misdemeanor, with a prison sentence of up to one year and a fine of up to $5000.

More serious penalties are levied against infringers who make multiple copies of a work, or who copy expensive works. It is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 to willfully infringe copyrights of others by making, during a 180-day period, ten or more copies of a work which have a cumulative value of $2500 or more. Second and subsequent offenses carry a prison term of up to ten years in addition to the fine. Companies which willfully infringe can be assessed up to $500,000 in fines."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless the archives have a written permission by Roger Dean to display his album covers, those responsible could be in serious trouble ...

One would imagine that the law would say that the legal notice only applies to the actual artwork on his site.

The whole situation is begging for some commonsense - I mean unless you clear the Internet Cache on your PC everytime you finish surfing you are technically in breach of his copyright rules as you will have a copy of all the images on your hard drive!

Tony R wrote: One would imagine that the law would say that the legal notice only applies to the actual artwork on his site.

Sure, but the legal status of cover artwork is clearly defined. These pictures are a work of art like any other, and may technically not be published without prior written permission of the artist (or publisher).

Tony R wrote: The whole situation is begging for some commonsense - I mean unless you clear the Internet Cache on your PC everytime you finish surfing you are technically in breach of his copyright rules as you will have a copy of all the images on your hard drive!

I only wanted to show that these legal disclaimers can make you paranoid once you start to read them in detail, but usually authorities apply commonsense and don't rip your head off.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless the archives have a written permission by Roger Dean to display his album covers, those responsible could be in serious trouble ...

IMO no, the art of an album is copyrighted with all the album lyrics and text, is part of it, in other words, the author of the art (Roger Dean, inthis case) allows his art to be used to promote the album, The art is an integral part of the album.

All the sites in the Net publish the album photos to promote an album, including ALLMUSIC and 1,000 more places, but they are not promoting the drawing, they are promoting the music of the album for wich the picture has been created and for which the artist has been paid.

He can't prohibit the use of the COVER to promote the album, because Yes or the label bought that art work to be a cover of the album, not an individual and different work.

If you go to Roger Dean's site, he has original pictures of his artwork without the title of the album, that's another thing, all the photos of his site are his private property.

And even in the utopic and absurd case that Roger Dean (Who works with Prog Archives), decided to make a problem (He's a brilliant man so it's impossible) this site is subject to Canada Law, and Canadian Law clearly considers legal the use of an artistic work for citicism and review purpose:

Copyright Act (CANADA) C-42 PART III INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND MORAL RIGHTS AND EXCEPTIONS TO INFRINGEMENT EXCEPTIONS   Fair Dealing     Criticism or review 29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned: (a) the source; and (b) if given in the source, the name of the (i) author, in the case of a work, (ii) performer, in the case of a performer’s performance, (iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or (iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal. 1997, c. 24, s. 18. http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/230478.html - http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/230478.html

Prog Archives is a page created for REVIEWING albums, so it's fair deal, no infringement commited.

Even USA law has a similar regulation:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107 Prev | Next § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Release date: 2005-08-01 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html - 106 and http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106---A000-.html - 106A , the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.   http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_ 00000107----000-.html

Prog Archives is not subject to USA law, but the cover of an album is absolutely not significative in the content of an album (The album has been  copyrighted as an integral work, a whole unity, even in the case in which the    protecs the sound itself and © protects the Artwork, lyrics, credits and written material, a partial image of the cover represents almost nothing), but if you add the fact that this partial copy is being used  only for criticism and review purpose, there should not be a problem in any case, Canadian Law is clear.

Even newspapers who sell their copies are authorized to review an album using the cover. The stores have copies of the album in posters, and I'm sure Roger Dean doesn't give written consent to none of them.

But again, I'm not a USA or Canadian lawyer, but the analysis is clear IMO.

BTW: Personal copies are allowed in almost any part of the world, Canda admits it, USA is not clear (Prohibited when the work has copy protection systems) and Australia doesn't allow it.

So if you're in Canada, there's no problem, in USA probably won't, but there's a risk with CDR's and in Australia you're in touble, so if you're going to travel, better take your original albums with a DISKMAN instead of CDR's and MP3.

The question is why in hell is it legal toi sell Ipods or similar if the concept iis not clear?

Iván

I have no problem with publishers reaping partial profits from artists they take a risk on, but the artist should have most control over what happens to his music. Obviously the publishers have access to outlets that the artist needs, but the whole idea of "singing a contract" that implies that the company "owns" the artist for X amount of years is bloody insane!

Of course, the prog side of the music industry, not being concerned with radio play or incredible record sales, relies more on live performances and word-of-mouth than mainstream music. Therefore, it's much more leniant on most matters.