In article , No Win No Fee
wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"No Win No Fee" wrote
Technically, what you basically proposed you would remain in the
clear, inasmuch if you were to make one copy for personal use and
donated the original copyright CD to a charity shop and they re-sold
the original "pre-owned" CD, that would not be a problem.


That *is* a problem since it is a clear breach of copyright law.

Do not forget we are talking UK law here, not US law.


Selling "pre-owned" commercial CD's/DVD's is no problem, pop along to
your local games trading store. It is long established.

Yes. But when doing so you may also pass on the publisher's kind permission
to have and use a copy *while you own the CD/DVD*. If in doubt, ask the
publishers of the CD/DVD.

But if Keef were to make a copy of a protected CD, and donate the *copy*
to his local charity store who then sold the copy, that would be an
infringement.

Yes. Just as it probably would be if he kept and used a copy when donating
the CD he'd copied to them.

In context of what Keef suggested, donating a CD to a charity shop which
then re-sold the CD marked up as "pre-owned" is 100% legal.

Yes. The actions of the charity shop would probably then be in conformance
with UK civil law and the permissions sold with the CD. But if Keith made
and kept a copy he continued to keep and use after passing on the CD, he
would probably be committing an infringement of the copyright.

As I said to Keith, if you think otherwise I urge you ask the publishers.
This will help avoid you unintentionally falling foul of the law and risk
being taken to court.

At present anyone who does as Keith has reported may simply be relying on a
combination of the publisher not knowing what they have done and deciding
not to bother with prosecution.

If Keith chooses to do this and confess it openly, that's his choice,
though. All I can do is warn. If you or he want to consul the experts, ask
the publishers of the works he (or you) have copied and passed on. Tell
them what you've done and see what they say. No need to believe me. :-)

As you can probably tell, I decided that Keith wasn't worth talking to a
long time ago. Despite that I felt it I should at least alert to him to the
risk he was taking by doing what he has said and then openly admitting it
here where it will remain on open record. Despite thinking him a
patronising and self-important dim bulb I have no wish to see him dragged
to court. But he makes his own decisions, so up to him what to now do. Not
my problem.

The key point about UK/EU copyright law is that it is largely a civil
matter and based on the idea of 'damage' to the rights owners. So any
publisher or author or artists have to make their own decisions what rights
they allow others, and when to take something to court to seek either
damages or some kind of restraint of breaches.

It seems unlikely they would bother to take to court someone who made a
copy of an old worn LP and then threw away the LP and kept the copy. No
real damage to them. Not worth the effort. But passing on a playable CD and
keeping a copy they may decide is a 'lost sale' and that they have been
damaged. If someone admits this is a *habit* or that they do it a lot, they
may decide to act. In each case, though, it will be a matter for the
publishers, etc, to decide what they are or are not content to allow.

If you or Keith don't believe this is possible having been alerted. then it
the problem isn't mine. :-)

If you doubt all this, I could contact some CD publishers myself and ask
them about it. Might make an interesting article. And might help others
from falling into a trap baited by their wishful thinking. Keith's problem,
though, is that I might be asked why I've contacted them and who thinks
that doing as Keith confesses is 'OK'... Fortunately for him I can try
pulling the 'journalist never gives aways his sources' tactic. ;- But
there is a risk they'd then do a search and find all these postings. Shall
I take it that is OK with Keith and yourself, unless you say otherwise?...

Since your usenet 'name' seems to imply you believe you are a legal eagle I
assume you will know the maxim, "Silence may be construed as consent".
;-

FWIW my personal view is that many aspects of current copyright law are a
PITA and I'd like to see various changes (although *not* one to allow what
Keith has confessed). But the current law and permissions may now allow
what he has described, like it or not. Courts generally don't care what
people think the law "should" be.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html