"Thomas, Ferris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The hurdle to winning the argument that trades are legal (and
>not infringement on copyright) would be to convincingly define a
>trade as a "noncommercial" exchange... This assumes that it is a
>product for product with neither parties coming out
><ahead--i.e>. profiting--from the exchange.
By that argument, it would be acceptable only if I gave you all copies of
an album so that I did not have a copy in my possession, and you gave me
all copies of another album. In that scenario neither party comes out
ahead and/or profits. However, when I give you a copy of an album and you
give me a copy of an album, we both come out ahead because we both have
an original album and a copy of another album. So we both now have two
albums whereas before we only had one each. That's "coming out ahead" and
profiting in my book <grin>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
