1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Trading

Discussion in 'Audio' started by thargor, Feb 2, 2003.

  1. thargor

    thargor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Admin: My last posting to the thread ref Album cover was not a trade but a link to where it may be found
     
  2. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Album covers are copyright protected material, and therefore we can't allow linking to them. It is not a decicion by us, but we have to live with it.
     
  3. thargor

    thargor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Surely then any reference to software and the copying of Cd's and DVD's is covered by the same principal, as in the strict sense of what you are saying, that copying is illegal and has been for many years even for your own use. If this is not so then please direct me to the legal ruling that says otherwise. Therefore recommendations by admin to those programmes that copy or could be used for copying must come under the same banner as you are labeling me. Also I would like to point out that cover sites also have covers that are customed designed and put on the site for anyone to use, so do I take it that you also deem copyright free material is also illegal.
     
  4. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Providing assitance or guidelines for using software to dublicate something is way different from providing the copyrighted material itself. I am no legal expert, but my understading is that the copyright laws generally accept copying in terms of "fair use". At least in Finland it is generally legal to make a back up copy for your own use and even for your closest people. Software end user licenses may limit you further so that the license is for a limited number of workstations.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2003
  5. dRD

    dRD I hate titles Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1999
    Messages:
    8,650
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    143
    cd-rw.org is correct -- in various, countries, including the home country of most of our staff members, Finland, it is perfectly legal to make backups of software, videos, CDs, etc to your own use. This is even if you don't own the product -- you can copy rented DVD movies for your own use freely, as well as loan movies/CDs/etc from libraries and make copies for your own use freely.

    Even downloading from P2P networks, whether you own the original or not, is perfectly legal. But _DISTRIBUTING_ through whatever channels, is illegal and broadly speaking sharing URLs to album covers, etc can be considered distributing and has been considered so in various courts and therefor it remains (as well as linking to any pirated material) forbidden on our forums.
     
  6. thargor

    thargor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I agree that some of what you say is correct, but you must agree that if a site has legal content, then it cannot be illegal to access that site to download the legal items?
     
  7. dRD

    dRD I hate titles Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1999
    Messages:
    8,650
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    143
    True, the fact that I tried to state is that the site's owner violates the law by providing such material. And also there are several cases been in court where sites who link to this type of sites, have been found guilty in "assisting in distributing illegal material". So, if you or anyone links to such sites from our forums, there's a risk that we, site's admins, can be held responsible of the material found from the site that the link directs to.
     
  8. thargor

    thargor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I can see where you are coming from, and as usual this is another infamous legal grey area.
    I am sure that if it were taken to the EU court of Human rights, the punter would win, In my case I would probably be well into drawing my pension before it got there!
     
  9. dRD

    dRD I hate titles Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1999
    Messages:
    8,650
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    143
    True, only problem really being the fact that even in EU the litigation costs -- not as ridiculously as in States, but a lot anyway -- and AfterDawn.com isn't exactly a million-dollar-a-month biz :) So, if some annoying DMCA or EUCD letters come in, we kinda have to bow and not to take it to the court (unless something absolutely ridiculous).
     
  10. glenn-Oz

    glenn-Oz Guest

    What an interesting thread this is, its good to see peoples ideas on these things and the way they vary,I by no means am an expert on Euro law but the genereal rule in the USA and Canada and Aus is that Assuming, for the moment, that the end user's activities are deemed to be direct infringements, does the linking party act in such a way as to satisfy the elements necessary to establish contributory infringement? In certain circumstances, it may. The relevant inquiry becomes: what type of link is involved? Arguably, where the linking party sets up a remote invoke-to-load link to copyrighted material on a Web page, it seems plausible that the linking party no more "participates" in or "materially contributes" to the acts of the user than the author of a traditional paper-based article who provides a footnote to a supporting authority or an entry in a bibliography.recent opinions dealing with on-line service operator liability for a user's infringing acts seem to imply that simply providing the facilities through which infringement is committed is not the "substantial participation" needed to support a participatory infringement claim. Here, the linking party seems to have even less involvement. Certainly, then, for an invoke-to-load link, at least, simply establishing the link seems equally unlikely to meet this threshold
    If the link in question is an auto-load link, however, it may be the case that the link looks and functions more like a "means to infringe" or that the linking party so substantially participates in the user's acts that the linking party can be deemed a participatory infringer. The end user need not act at all here - his or her browser is directed to act by the HTML coding implemented by the linking party. This HTML code could very well be deemed a means-to-infringe. Also, the provision of this code approaches substantial participation in a way that providing an invoke-to-load link does not.

    hope this adds further to your disussions, but in all cases I advise if you are not sure about something, dont do it
     
  11. thargor

    thargor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Glad to have you on board, Glenn-Oz. I would like to find out other peoples opinions on this, as a discussion point. I am not questioning the stand point of the forum admin, as when the proverbiable hits the fan they get covered. As I mentioned earlier how does the law stand if you are directing someone to a site that carries material that is not copyrighted in amongst copyrighted material. If your intention is to look for what may be free, and only download that then the authorities are taking away your right of "Innocent until proved guilty". Any ideas.
     
  12. glenn-Oz

    glenn-Oz Guest

    Basically copyright laws are very similar all around the world, but with the introduction of the internet and file sharing it has become somewhat clouded, I was extremely suprised to see what cd-rw.org & dRD stated, in that copying for personal use and closest (people)friends or family I am thinking is what they meant to say is allowed in their country, as in most countries copying of any copyrighted material is prohibited, as for linking to a site there a various ways this can be done, but for simply giving an address to a site (link) on a message forum, the administrators can feel safe against prosecution in most developed countries that i am aware of, it becomes clouded when the site actually has a hyper link that is permanantly on their website as this is then substantial participation, But on the other hand if cd-rw.org and dRD feel uncomfortable allowing links of any kind upon their site to known sites that have copyrighted material on them, they are justified in not allowing it
     
  13. dRD

    dRD I hate titles Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1999
    Messages:
    8,650
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Yep, this is correct -- in the country where aD originates from, Finland, and where all of our Admins/owners except me live, copying for personal use is perfectly legal as well as copying for your closests relatives and friends (normally the "moral limit" is set to around 3-5 copies) -- with an exception of computer software which is only allowed to be copied for yourself. Law also allows renting movies/music/books or loaning them from library or from your friends and making copies for your personal use. Obviously copying an already-copied material is prohibited. As well as distributing copied material is illegal.
     

Share This Page