Prog cd trades on the Forum?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 tonal wrote:

I think it's so funny that we pay for something legaly... therefore OWN it, but then we are not allowed to sell what we paid for!  I guess in a way it's sort of like you car, house, or land... you don't ever actually own it anyhow, right? 

Tonal: I don't agree with most of this regulations, I'm just playing the role of the Devil's Advocate, placing us in the wrst possible scenario to avoid risks for Prog Archoives.

The problem is that if you buy a house or a car you own them and you can do whatever you want with them (Of course with the limits established by law to real state property and traffic).

If you buy a CD or a DVD, you own the plastic BUT NOT THE MUSIC, the property of the music remains in hands of the copyright holder.

You only buy a licence for domestic use of this music, READ THE FBI WARNING, you can't play it in public, share it, lend it, trade it (which in some cases is mentioned) play it on festivals, hospitals, churches, schools, charity, etc.

If you owned the music you could play it anywhere without any limit, so it's obvious it's not the case.

Now Mike, I don't believe if you sell or trade an album you're a distributor, but in Civil law you don't have the advantages the accused has in criminal trials, they sue you and YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOU HAVE NOT VIOLATED THE COPYRIGHT LIMITS.

That's the power entities like RIAA have, in theory downloading is not a crime (You are using free and public media instruments), but uploading is (Because you're taking other person's property and giving it for free or for profit to a third part).

Despite this is clear, RIAA sues downloaders knowing that they can't afford the legal costs for a $ 500,000.00 trial, so probably innocent people has to settle with RIAA and accept to pay sums of money of US$ 12,500 as average.

I believe RIAA wanted to sue Microsoft for providing people with PC's capable of breaking the law (The precedent is in the Betamax case, Somy was sued by Disney studios among others for providing people with machines able to duplicate copyrighted material, the trial never really ended because both parts had enougyh money to make the trial last centuries and most USA citizens already had a VCR).

But they didn't sued Microsoft, because Mr. Gates has enough money and lawyers to destroy their claims and probably RIAA will end paying Microsoft money for harrassment, so RIAA went to the weaker link, the final user, the one that can't fight with them.

They have the power and the money, they don't have to win, they only need to sue you and judges must accept the cases even if they don't agree because everybody has the right to sue other persons.

Iván