Trading could be considered illegal

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

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.

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

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 ...

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.

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.

Again, no timeto read the whole thread today

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: 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.

In the meantime I consulted with German lawyers - I wanted to find out whether or not I'm allowed to show album cover art on my website. The result: It's not allowed. It *might* be allowed if I was selling the albums - shops are usually allowed to show pictures of the products they're selling.

But the point is: Using these pictures on a website like mine (or the archives) promotes the website, not the artist who created the picture. The lawyers meant that unless I have a written confirmation by the creator of the album covers, I cannot use them.

Of course that really sucks. And I can't understand it - on one hand all big sites (also German ones) use album cover art without even mentioning the copyright situation and obviously they get away with it. But every lawyer tells me that if I do it I can be sued for thousands of Euros just for *one* of these images.

Tony R wrote: But only a fool would deny us the right to display album sleeves... ...its called "cutting your nose to spite your face" Mike you are obviously correct but I wouldnt obsess about this. Easy for me to say because I'm not you or responsible for your site but c'mon!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: I believe that outside Germany this doesn't work because if that was the case, Yes should pay Roger Dean a Royalty for each album.

Everyone feel better now?  How anal can you lot get?

I'd rather the FBI worry about keeping us safe than to worry about this crap- pathetic.