posted on October 14, 2000 10:49:33 AM new
taker said:
Just because something is legally wrong doesn't mean that it is wrong. So far I'm yet to see an argument that says to me that it is, outside of legal terms, in fact wrong. There were previous posts on similar topics where people were talking about how this is like the biggest crime in American history and I just don't understand why. I have already stated my position that I don't think that the copyright holders suffer any kind of loss and noone has yet to dispute that, so my argument seems to hold at least some validity.
Nope, no validity at all.
I'll use a few analogies. Let's say you work nights and during the day your neighbor *borrows* your car and runs a taxi service with it. without reimbursing you. Aside from the wear and tear on the vehicle and possibly gas use, does he have the right to use your vehicle without your permission and without reimbursing you if you want reimbursement? You aren't using it anyway, any harm done (again, aside from wear/tear/gas/possible accidents, etc.)?
Here's another analogy. Let's say you have tickets to a sporting event. Before you can use them, you become very ill. You're too sick to CARE about selling or giving them to someone else. Your neighbor helps himself to the tickets, sells them and keeps the money. You weren't going to use them anyway, any harm done?
One more. You've written a novel. You're convinced it's a loser and you haven't done anything with it. Your neighbor picks up the ms., shops a few agents and sells it under a pseudonym. Any harm done? After all, you weren't doing anything with it.
Your argument seems to rest on the notion that unless the copyright infringer is actively taking sales away from the copyright holder, no harm is done. I think these three analogies might convince you otherwise. Intellectual property is still PROPERTY -- it's just quite often intangible.
Using something which someone else owns without permission and (if asked) royalties, fees, whatever, is STILL stealing. Doesn't matter whether they ever intend to do anything themselves with their own property, if you're benefitting (esp. financially) from their work (property), they deserve something for the work they did.
There are times when mere permission from the copyright holder is sufficient, plenty of times. But if they want more than just to give permission, they're fully entitled and fully justified. If what they want is more than you want to give (pay), then you don't happen to have a willing buyer, and the deal (transfer of rights) falls through.
More from taker:
This is to everyone- My other issue for posting this is why do all you people care? I've seen posts where people say they notify ebay, police, mpaa, copyright holders and so on. So why do you take so much interest in this? I don't want to hear you are filling your civic duty and trying to uphold the law because that's a lie.
I personally haven't had the occasion to do this, but if I did see copyright abuses you darned well bet I'd report them. Why? Just because I personally can't / won't profit from stolen intellectual proeprty? No. Because those who look the other way are complicit in the wrongdoing. Because copyright is difficult to find and sometimes difficult to enforce and so it behooves those of us who believe in its importance and necessity to help. Because it's stealing and the copyright owner deserves his/her lawful rights and I would certainly appreciate someone looking out for my best interests in a similar situation.
Twinsoft said:
I personally own a number of rare recordings, including rare Beatles studio recordings. I think their importance as both art and historical documents outweighs the importance of copyright law. And yes I do consider the fact that the remaining Beatles are all richer than Midas. I do not sell the recordings at eBay, but I have been known to make copies for my friends.
Well, the Atlanta Journal tried to print Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech without getting the permission of the King family and used this very argument as their (ultraweak) defense. They lost, big time. I thought it was an outlandish action on their part and a particularly embarrassing and hypocritical defense. If I wanted to reprint some of their best editorials or features in a publication of MINE because I considered them of such great historical significance, they'd be all over me like white on rice. Pitiful.
By the same token, I can't imagine that your sharing these with friends (by which I presume you DO mean a few select actual friends, for free) would be a copyright infringement -- depending on how they're used thereafter and whether you're charging or not. There is such a thing as Fair Use Doctrine in copyright law which allows you, for example, to make photocopies of several pages from a book for your own use or for use in your class, to dupe tapes for yourself, to tape TV shows for your own use, to quote excerpts (not overly long) from a book in a book review or article, etc.
I also agree with the comment made that if Taker were a creator of intellectual property, he probably would be a little less antagonistic toward copyright law.
posted on October 14, 2000 10:50:00 AM new
HCQ and Dr. B, you both make good points, but my main criticism is that (I believe) your ideas of "right" and "wrong" are based more upon cultural definitions than what is just.
HCQ, the problem is that there is really no mechanism in place right now to "share" the goods. Even so, steps such as national health care are moving in that direction.
I imagine that in the days when kings sent out tax collectors, there were those who felt it was the king's right to impose any tax HE felt was appropriate, and that the king "deserved" to live in a palace while the rest labored for his benefit. I wonder how history will look upon our privileged classes that can afford to buy their own laws.
I'm not suggesting that there are cut-and-dried answers. I am also just saying that there are vast gray areas.
posted on October 14, 2000 10:56:17 AM newYou've written a novel. You're convinced it's a loser and you haven't done anything with it. Your neighbor picks up the ms., shops a few agents and sells it under a pseudonym. Any harm done? After all, you weren't doing anything with it.
Plus, your neighbor sells the book for only $5. If you did decide to sell it, you would probably charge $20, and most people just can't afford that, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. All wrongs reversed.
posted on October 14, 2000 11:13:21 AM new
CleverGirl, I am a content owner registered with VeRO. I have on occasion ended auctions, when I found that my customers were selling my own products IN DIRECT COMPETITION with me at eBay. That is where I draw the line. (On the other hand, I have a few free programs that I offer as well. Do with them what you will.)
As for the King speech, if Dr. King knew of the actions of his family, I think he'd roll over in his grave. His "I Have A Dream" speech IS an important historical document, and for his family to try to profit from it is awful.
Now, it's been a long night and flea market this a.m. I'm going to bed.
posted on October 14, 2000 11:17:48 AM new
amalgamated ...
irrelevant
What happens if you DO publish the book and it becomes a hit a la Harry Potter? You sign a deal with your publisher, and just before your sequel manuscript is ready for the final proofread, someone beats you to the draw. They submit their final manuscript (using your characters) to your publisher, and ask for 1/2 of what your contract states. The publisher can now offer the 'sequel' in one of two versions: the $20.00 original author version or the $5.00 rip-off version. Both are just as good.
Who's version do you think would sell the most copies, and as the original author, how would you feel about that?
Again, please don't get me wrong. I believe the current laws are a bit strict, and they do tend to stifle a person's hopes of getting a copy of something they loved to watch as a kid. I have, and continue to do my part with organizations like the MPAA by writing them and just generally keeping up to date on the various rulings. As long as there is money involved, or even the potential for money if they ever decide to commercially release stuff, they are not about to be easily convinced to change the laws.
But, taking a "I don't agree with the law, so screw them ... I'll do what >I< think is morally right" stance certainly won't help 'the cause'.
posted on October 14, 2000 11:18:36 AM newTwinsoft, well aren’t all of our moral and ethical judgements based on our cultural definitions? Aren’t the laws we enact based on those same definitions? And even more so, wouldn’t someone’s concept of “just” be based on the same definitions? How do we divorce our culture from our judgements? I don’t see a practical way to do so.
Do you truly feel that the creator of an intellectual property, such as books or music, shouldn’t be entitled to determine how the property is used or how they wish to profit from it? I think one theme that has been common across a wide range of diverse cultures is that one should be entitled to the fruits of their labor.
Where do we set a limit with how much fruit someone is allowed to have based on their labor? In your earlier example one guy had a million fruits and the other had only one. I can’t see that it is legal/moral/ethical for the one guy to take a fruit from the other.
I think that there is a mechanism for sharing the fruit. It is the graduated tax system, those with more fruit pay more taxes. We have collectively empowered our government to act as our agent in determining how the collected fruit will be dispersed. If we feel that our agents are not responsibly discharging their responsibilities we should take action. If we feel that those with much fruit are unduly influencing the government we should act to change this.
But we shouldn’t use the defects in the system as justification for independent redistribution attempts (i.e. theft).
posted on October 14, 2000 11:28:06 AM newTS, sounds like your problem isn't with copyright law in particular, but with the culture and its values as a whole. For you, it appears NObody has exclusive right to ANYthing, whether the item is of his own creation or not. Everything belongs to all..
Spend a month in an anarchist collective and see how that idea plays out in real life. BTDT, for well over a month. It cured me of any illusions I had about "from each according to his ability...".
BTW, I'm still waiting for you to take me up on my offer to redistribute some of your wealth my way. Or does that only work with nameless copyright holders?
posted on October 14, 2000 11:31:39 AM newAs for the King speech, if Dr. King knew of the actions of his family, I think he'd roll over in his grave. His "I Have A Dream" speech IS an important historical document, and for his family to try to profit from it is awful.
If Dr. King knew of the actions of his family re his intellectual property, he'd be in 100% agreement.
For commercial interests to try to profit from that speech (or anything else he produced) is what's REALLY awful.
The copyright law protects ALL, equally. To suggest that someone should forfeit their rights under the law because a work is espcially noteworty (*important,* *historical,* whatever) is ludicrous. Do YOU forfeit YOUR rights to your vintage auto if it's especially unique, important or *historical* in some way? Of course not.
posted on October 14, 2000 11:56:33 AM new
Okay, another issue to throw into the mix.
I had going a while back a Metallica Import CD from Sweden. There were around 5 more auctions of a similar nature.
I then find out, eBay canceled my auction, and tells me the item is illegal, due to the fact the item came from England.
There is a rule on eBay where you CANNOT sell CD's from England. Why, I don't know, but what I do know is the RIAA has a hand in this. And why they canceled my SWEDISH CD is also a mystery. I can be led to believe Metallica, thru their VERO, axed the auction, or the Label saw it as a threat to their profits.
Let's turn to Napster. Many contend that since they buy the songs and CD's, they have the right to do to the CD as they wish.
The RIAA contends this is stealing, and that they want a cut in this. Napster Users say a whole host of arguements. Many cite "we bought it, we own it" mentality. A few cite clauses in the DMCA and Copyright law, and a few have gone so far as saying the RIAA is engaging in Monopoly-type tactics.
True, I agree some limits need to be placed, but where is the line in some cases?
That is one question that may never be answered fully. Because there is none.
:\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on October 14, 2000 03:43:52 PM new
First to twinsoft you did write,
"I'm sorry but that's not quite right. Because an act is illegal doesn't mean that it is necessarily wrong, bad or immoral. Conversely, because an act is legal doesn't mean that it is "right." And yes, I do believe that tape trading falls under the heading of civil disobediance."
To say that something is civil disobedience doesn't appear to agree with my opinion that there is nothing wrong with it. If I am misreading it and it means that you do agree I apologize. I didn't mean to insult you or RB. In Rb's case I was theorizing his motives, which perhaps is out of my scope. Out of thirty some odd replies to the message there are several that their whole basic message is it's illegal that why and I'm tired of reading that. I want actual opinions to my post not a simple its illegal. That's what I meant to get at when I said stop wasting peoples time. I meant to talk about people posting stuff like...
"So if you go to work one day and your boss says "today you work for no pay" what would you say? Or if you work for yourself, your client says, "I want your services, but for free."
It's the same thing as ripping off the people who create the shows."
I commented on this kind of stuff at least 10 times and this person still posts this same argument that I already discussed. This was wasting everyones time. This person obviously didn't grasp my argument, or didn't read it. The person who wrote it appears intelligent so I assume that they did not read my posts. That's why I made the plea to read my whole post.
But if I truly misread your post I apologize for what you feel was an insult.
Next to RB, sometimes it appears you are on my side and in your previous posts it was obvious that you were clearly against it, so where do you stand? In either case you are helping me prove my case so I must thank you. The hole point in saying that these videos were not available here, which you agree with, is to make another argument that there is nothing wrong with this. You later support my argument when you say that it would not be commercially feasible for them to produce these videos here. I wholeheartedly agree. If they felt they could make money on it they would obviously make it. They don't think that they can make money so what's wrong with John Doe making a buck off it? Do any of you actually think that they don't know these videos are being sold on ebay or yahoo? Of course they do. They don't care cuz they don't think that they can make money. So why do all of you? Why do you all want to basically lynch these people when the copyright holders, the ones they are supposedly stealing from, could care less?
RB you said, "You are wrong. My auction was for 100% copyright owner ‘blessed’ tapes. Comparing mine to the copies that are being sold is like the apples to oranges thing. The problem is (was) that even though I could add "I have permission!" to the description, the eBay SafeHarbour program allows ANYONE (not just an eBay member) to submit an anonymous complaint about someone’s auction, and in most cases, get the auction canceled. Sorry, but eBay does not ‘investigate’ for the same reason they don’t police their site for illegal items. They simply don’t have the expertise or the staff to do this." The fact that your tapes were authorized is irrelevant to my charge. I still think that you were upset because they shut down your perfectly legal auction so you decided to try to take down all the illegal ones. When you complain to ebay and list peoples auctions that are illegal that will never lead to anything. They might shut their auction down or they might not. But all you are doing is causing trouble for the seller who you and I appear to be defending. Ebay will NEVER EVER admit to a double standard. So all you are doing is further proving the point to yourself. But I'm pretty sure that you didn't need the proof to be sure of the double standard. So all you are doing is hurting the sellers that you seem to be defending. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The fact that you claim you stopped the campaign is a good thing, but it was a campaign that I think was based on spite, not on trying to prove a point.
Ther have been some great posts and I commend everyone who has added great thoughts to this forum, Dr beetle, twinsoft, RB, etc. Keep them coming!!!
posted on October 14, 2000 04:32:27 PM new
How about a scenario in which the bootleggers in question are selling something that is obviously still available from mainstream sources?
Case in point: The Thundercats or The X-Men cartoon series. You will find umpteen dozens of auctions for either series on eBay. Both were in partial release by mainstream video companies (i.e., you can get most if not all of the episodes of each on factory prerecorded tapes).
One show is from the 1980s, the other the 1990s. Almost every bootleg auction will have the disclaimer "believed to be in the public domain" or, even better, "I bought these at a sci-fi/comic convention a few years ago"...which of course makes it okay. I love the last one since you'll see duplicates of the auction by the same people at the same time - must be mighty wealthy to afford that many copies at convention prices.
I often get legal, factory prerecorded videos of both series and put them up for auction. Sure, each tape is only for one episode, but do I try to get the bootleggers' auctions booted off? Damn straight I do...because they are in direct competition with an obviously illegal product.
Here's my own personal rule for turning in auctions to eBay for questionable videos: If I know for a fact that an item has been released on a prerecorded tape from a major studio, or if I know the show/movie is still being made or shown, I will turn the bozos in...simply for their own basic stupidity in not checking that sort of thing out.
If a videotape is for a movie or television show that has never been released professionally, who cares? I bought a copy of an old TV show called "Legends of the Superheroes" on eBay last year. I think it cost me about $25 and was really poor in quality, but personally, I was happy with it because I wasn't able to find it before and hadn't seen it in over 20 years.
If people want to actually pay exorbinant prices at auction for material they could probably get in the trading circles, more power to them...they deserve exactly what they get.
posted on October 14, 2000 08:16:57 PM new
taker ... "Ther have been some great posts and I commend everyone who has added great thoughts to this forum, Dr beetle, twinsoft,
RB, etc. Keep them coming!!!"
This will be my last one on this thread. I have made my comments, stated my beliefs, and stated the reasons for doing what I did. You have responded by taking shots at me in every case.
posted on October 15, 2000 01:03:14 AM new
Well I really am going to keep this one short, it's 3:00 in the morning and I'm just returning from a night at the clubs so i won't be able to make any rational arguments right now. I didn't realize that this went over to a second page before I wrote my last reply, like I said I'm new to this forum. I'll address the rest of the arguments that I missed tomorrow. But to the red circle you stated that most of these tapes were available commercially, or at least most episodes were for stuff like thundercats and x-men. This is actually very wrong. For Thundercats you can find maybe 20 out of the 130 on commercial videos, the rest were never released, trust me. X-Men I don't know the exact numbers, but I guarantee for the 76 episodes there are no more that 10 available. These videos are not available here in the US whch is part of my argument that it is ethical, but I'll touch more on that after a good night sleep.
posted on October 15, 2000 01:11:15 AM new
I'm sorry, I'm guilty of what I've been asking people not to do, but like I said I'm just getting home from the clubs, and that is to read an entire post before posting a reply. Red circle, I wholeheartedly agree that it is 100% wrong to sell videos that are available commercially. That is without a doubt theft. I also feel that it is wrong to sell videos still in production. So it appears we are in complete agreement as to what is right and wrong. My beef is with people that have a major issue with people selling stuff like lets say He-Man which isn't available commercially. I have no problems with people like you that only monitor people ripping off companies by selling bootleg videos of things that are available for sale.
posted on October 15, 2000 05:01:17 AM new
Actually I did say that those two series were in partial release...not all were available. I don't really care if ALL the episodes are available or not...if some are out on legal, prerecorded videotapes, and if I have those particular tapes, then the bootleggers are doing me a distinct disservice, and I'll do my best to shut the bastiches down.
These videos ARE available here in the US. You just have to know where to find them. They may not be in CURRENT release, but they HAVE BEEN RELEASED...and rather recently in most cases. I can still find X-Men videos at department stores, and Thundercats and, unfortunately taker, He-Man videos at flea markets and video stores.
Hell, I've seen bozos come on here and whine about the fact that eBay or Amazon shut down their auction for a complete run of Seinfeld or Third Rock. Well, duh...like The Sopranos, it's kinda hard to claim something that stopped production in the nineties, or is still in production as we speak, is in the public domain and legally salable. Do a search right now for Witchblade and I bet you will find at least a dozen auctions for the Witchblade movie, which was just on TV last month.
I tend to take a very elitist view of this...if a bootlegger is competing with me, I turn his ass in. If he isn't, I usually don't bother...unless his stupidity factor is so high that I am just goggle-eyed seeing a listing while I'm searching for something else. Like Witchblade, which I saw think I saw auctions for the same night it was broadcast.
posted on October 15, 2000 08:07:42 AM new
I'm Back - Bigger and Badder than ever!
I have reinitiated my campaign with eBay by turning in bad sellers, only this time I almost feel like I am on eBay's side!
Here's why:
A couple of days ago I reported an illegal auction. The seller was attempting to sell copies (cleverly disguised as "conversions" of a teevee series that has been commercially released on PAL tapes for the UK market only. I contacted the seller first to give her a heads up that her item was illegal. When she responded with her potty-mouth words, I reported the item to eBay. It was subsequently canceled by eBay.
Today, the same item (identical artwork etc. in the description) is up again, only this time, the seller has changed her ID (with the sunglasses logo). This is a very obvious case of a seller knowing damn well that what she is doing is illegal. I have reported her again, and this time I hope eBay NARUs her for good. She obviously did not learn her lesson the first time
posted on October 15, 2000 08:25:27 AM new
I suspect, RB, that your last post is going to elicit responses like "Boy, you're mean", "Get a life" "Sucking up to ebay again, eh?" and "You're just a tool of the capitalist system".
posted on October 15, 2000 09:18:14 AM new
First to RB, I'm glad you came back, I wasn't intending to insult you, I was merely questioning your motives, please don't take it as an insult. For your example, it all depends on certain criteria if I have a problem with what you did. If the TV series is still in production then I have no problems with what you did. I do believe that people selling lets say Sopranos, Buffy, Charmed, Simpsons, stuff like that, is breaking the law and should be shut down. In my entire collection I have never paid for or traded for anything that is still in syndication. In those cases I will record it myself, if I miss an episode oh well, I better wait for the re-run. If the TV show has long been cancelled I might have a problem. I think that the seller should not sell these tapes to anyone in the UK. I think he should clearly state that he will not ship to the UK, or if he was from the UK then it is definitely wrong. But if it is a long cancelled show, he isn't from, or he won't ship to the UK then I don't think that what you did was right. I don't know the exact details so I'll wait for you to give me more information until I pass judgement.
A short question for the red circle, I know that the shows we brought up in example are available in partial release in the US, but it is in a very small quantity. So if, let's make up a number, 25 out of the 130 Thundercats episodes were available commercially, would you ever have a problem with somebody that sold the other 105 episodes in one of these auctions. I just want to fully understand your position before I comment on it again.
Lastly to clevergirl, you wrote a great reply and I will respond to that one later, I do have a few peoblems with what you wrote. So after football I'll reply to that post.
posted on October 15, 2000 10:03:47 AM new
Taker, even if someone comes up with an auction for all 105 unreleased episodes, I'd still do my best to take it down, if I was trying to sell a prerecorded video from the same television series. It would be an illegal recording of part of a series that would be competing with my legal prerecorded tape of part of the same series.
It's all a moot point. The whole situation we are describing here is ILLEGAL under current copyright law. Although I agree with Twinsoft's views (now there's something I'd never thought I'd be saying ) on the spuriousness of copyright law in general and that tape trading is more of a form of civil disobedience (in this case against the entertainment industry instead of the government), it still is against the law to make copies for profit.
One would think that the entertainment community would occasionally look at auctions in this vein and see them as a profit area for themselves rather than as a venue for litigation. Can you imagine how much moolah they'd rake in if they started releasing all of the Thundercats, Thundarr the Barbarian, X-Men and similar series right now? The RIAA and the MPAA are far too concerned about the meager ripoffs that occur from these things rather than looking at the big picture...if there wasn't a market for the items being traded and sold in this manner, it wouldn't be happening.
posted on October 15, 2000 05:22:09 PM new
taker ... it IS a series that is currently airing, and, I could care less if you 'pass judgement' on what I have done (and will continue to do) ...
No matter how you try to justify selling these tapes, or any tapes that were not released officially by a studio (your Thundercats argument), it is ILLEGAL.
It doesn't make it any less ILLEGAL if you state you are selling your PAL conversions outside the UK only.
That's it, that's all.
Now, a question for you taker ... Which part of the term "ILLEGAL" are you having difficulty understanding?
If you believe you have a valid argument, instead of repeating it here ad nauseum, why not send your concerns to the MPAA.
posted on October 15, 2000 05:50:04 PM new
Gee, look like this thread is still alive.
Taker, by civil disobediance I mean taking an action that violates a law you disagree with. Depending on a person's political beliefs, redistribution of copyrighted materials MIGHT fall into that category. Doing the same solely for profit would not be civil disobediance.
I'm not trying to debate either morality or legality. My main point is that cultural values are not absolutes. I will grant that it is a trivial point. I personally feel that copyright and trademark law are restrictive, but I do not have any solutions that would be acceptable to most. Certainly not to the billionaires that are behind the trademarks.
I am pretty much with TRC on this one. I would draw the line at copying works that are available through commercial avenues. Or using an unauthorized trademark to promote my own sales. When other sellers at eBay are offering bootlegged softwares that impact my sales, I do have a problem with that. At the other end of the spectrum, if Deadheads want to trade Grateful Dead concert tapes, who cares? Jerry Garcia has done all the coke he's going to do in this world. No harm, no foul.
My main objection, and the reason I posted here, is just to say that the blind obediance to laws which I see many posters taking ... illegal therefore wrong therefore you're bad ... is just too short-sighted. I'm not going to argue it, just state my opinion.
posted on October 15, 2000 09:09:01 PM new
SNITCHES!! That's all the world needs is more tattle tells. People who can't manage their own affairs want to protect the world from (fill in blank line_______)! I remember those kind of people when I was in grade school.
Teachers weren't even impressed with them, who would be now???
posted on October 15, 2000 09:15:36 PM new
To RB, I have repeatedly said I was lookin for a discussion other than it's illegal that's why. But that is all you seem to give, and then you tell me I should stop repeating my message ad nauseum, but it's you that makes me constantly repeat myself. If you are unable to come up with something other than it's illegal than why don't you stop posting. You are the one reapeating yourself "ad nauseum." Why write over and over again that its illegal thats why its wrong. I have said at least 10 times that I wanted to discuss issues past that, if you do not wish to discuss it past that point than this topic doen't apply to you. I'm looking for people to tell me why, outside of the law, that they feel it is wrong. You seem unwilling to do this. So please discuss the issue outside of the legal scope or at least stop asking me what I don't understand about it being illegal. I know it's illegal, I've said this 6 dozen times, but I want to discuss why you personally think it's wrong. If alls you got is its against the law then I would rather discuss this with people that can provide a more intellectual viewpoint. Also I don't write to MPAA for the reasons we discussed before, I have hundredsof these videos and I don't want them to get a letter and then decide to give me a visit. I should stand up for what I believe but it's not in my best interests at this time.
Twinsoft, I cannot tell you how much agreement we are in. I have said in this topic a few times that selling of videos that are commercially available is wrong, I just think that selling of unavailable videos is ok and that was my purpose for starting this topic. So me, you, and the red circle are pretty colse to an agreement on what is right. I have some minor differences with what TRC said and I'll get into that later, but we all pretty much have the same idea. It's good to see there are some sensible people out there You said,
"My main objection, and the reason I posted here, is just to say that the blind obediance to laws which I see many posters taking ... illegal therefore wrong therefore you're bad ... is just too short-sighted."
I totally agree with this whole statement. I have asked 10 times for people to give me another argument, yet they wont. That's why I'm getting a little testy with RB in this post.
I also agree that if somebody swipes your software and sells it that that is wrong. There is some stuff on yahoo that I think is very wrong. For example you can buy CD-R copies of any playstation game you want. This is clear cut theft. Companies like EA and squaresoft are trying to make money off this stuff and these people are digging in their pocketbooks.
So to everybody that reads this please give me a reason why these videos are wrong other than "it's illegal therefore it's wrong." If that's all you have I'm not targeting you in this topic. I'm looking for people that can go deeper on this subject. I would also love to hear from all that agree with my viewpoint. Thanks.
posted on October 15, 2000 09:31:06 PM newSo to everybody that reads this please give me a reason why these videos are wrong other than "it's illegal therefore it's wrong."
OK- here's one.
How about allowing the people who actually own the rights to the videos to make the determination of whether or not the unauthorized sales of these videos is causing them any harm?
It seems awfully arrogant for one to assume that one's actions are okay because in their opinion, they have done no wrong. How do you know that the true owners share your point of view? Or do you even care?
I'm looking for people that can go deeper on this subject.
It doesn't have to any deeper than what most people were told when they were four years old... if it's not yours, ask before you take it.
posted on October 15, 2000 10:34:10 PM new
Suddie I agree with you most of these people do remind me of grade school also. They've grown up to be what everyone despises and they don't realize it. Note this isn't meant as an insult to everyone posting that it is wrong but only to the "watchdogs" out there who try to have these auctions ended cuz they have nothing better to do, you know who you all are.
Mr potato head, thanks that's more of the kinda post I'm looking for. You said,
"How about allowing the people who actually own the rights to the videos to make the determination of whether or not the unauthorized sales of these videos is causing them any harm?"
We've actually discussed this briefly already, but since I don't remember your name I'm going to assume you haven't read this whole thread, I don't blame you that would take awhile. We discussed earlier that the copyright holders more than likely know that these auctions take place and they don't care. If they did they would sign up for Vero and have them ended. There are dozens of people, who have admitted that they report all these auctions to the appropriate copyright holder, but yet they make no effort to stop these auctions. The reason being is they are doing no financial harm and they know it. If you read my earlier post on this thread about the prices that auctions go for that contain items that either are, or have the appearance of official items than you will know further why they don't care. As a matter of fact, since I've posted this, I've emailed the major studios and asked what their take was, I only got one response and it was, to paraphrase, they could care less. I'd be happy to post an edited copy of this email if you would all like to see it, just let me know. Yes, I do care greatly if the copyright holder would object to their items being sold. I do think it is wrong to sell items where the holders are Vero members and make efforts to shut these auctions down. But those are about 1 in 200 so it's not really relevant. Even RB said that he was able to get permission but his auction was still ended which I theorize is why he is on his campaign. So 99% of the copyright holders truly don't care.
Your last point is a very good one. These people probably should ask before they sell these items. But my main point for writing this was mainly to question why people were making it their lifes ambition to end auctions that did not have any concern with them what so ever. They do not know if they have written the people and asked for permission or not, they just assume that they didn't. Yes, they likely did not ask for permission but we all know what they say when you assume something. There is some complications with asking for it though. Take my case I emailed 10 major figures just asking for their opinion on some of the things that we have discussed and also on these auctions in general. I only got 1 response. If people ask for permission they are likely to get the same lack of response. I don't want to justify this as right, but I think it might give an indication that the companies don't care. In this case only, please don't bring up obscure examples of similar cases where it is wrong, I said in this case only, I think it is right if they ask for permission and are either told they don't care, or if they get no response for them to list the auction. But if they are then told that they do care and please don't sell it, then they should not sell it, plain and simple. I do think that the letter for permission should be written in a way that clearly states their intentions, i.e.
"I am writing you to inform you I would like to sell your episodes of so and so. Please respond if you have any objections to me doing this and I will not. Thanks."
Something like that. Also if they wrote it like this they aren't likely to get in as serious trouble if they crack down. But I don't want to discuss any possible legal defenses on this forum because it is well beyond the scope of the average reader and I don't want the topic to die because people are too bored from reading the replies to comment. But I am a law student and about to graduate, so any fellow law buffs, or lawyers who would like to discuss that particular matter in further detail please feel free to email me and I'll discuss it further with you.
So does my points make sense? Do you all agree/disagree?
As the resident nerd here on this forum, I need to clarify some things.
For the Thundercats, according to many sources, only 24 episodes of the Thundercats have been released, and a respective 10 for the X-Men. Both were released in a 2-episode, 30-minute Format.
Thru some groups, there are reports of several "Master" copies in private hands of all the Thundercat episodes consisting of 4 episodes per tape.
The X-men is tied up in Legal Limbo, because a new X-Men Cartoon is gonna appear on Kids WB, while the original reportedly is still under the control of Fox Kids.
As for the "I got it at a Comic/Sci-fi Convention" nonsense...If it's Comic or Sci-Fi related, it's gonna be a bootleg sometime or another.
CBS is figuring out howcome their test pilot episode of the Justice League of America got into collector's hands. Ditto for unrelased and horrible Fantastic Four Motion Picture (I've seen it myself, and it is gross, coming from the mouth of a Fantastic Four fan...). I'm sure RB would have a field day with this one...
:\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on October 16, 2000 03:19:06 AM new
C'mon CS, the FF movie isn't THAT bad...better than that lousy cartoon they had on TV a few years ago. And I really wish CBS would release or broadcast the JLA pilot...it was pretty good actually.
I think there were at least 14 X-Men tapes released, but the last few were single episode videos.
There are a load of "master copies" out there, especially of the slightly older cartoons (like the Marvel ones from the sixties) because they were shot on 16mm, and the 16mm masters either got found, bought or stolen.
posted on October 16, 2000 03:24:43 AM new
Speaking as a Fantastic Four Fan, that movie isn't even worth a mention as "tacky" in my collection. It was outright horrible. Wizard Magazine own rendition of Doom was even better that that freak on tape!!
As for the JLA pilot...campy, kinda in the homage of the Batman TV series...I liked it, but one gripe; could they have at least stuck some comic book tie-ins, or some references once in a while? I know this has to appeal to the general media, but come on...
:\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on October 16, 2000 05:08:44 AM new
taker: "We discussed earlier that the copyright holders more than likely know that these auctions take place and they don't care. If they did they would sign up for Vero and have them ended"
In fact, they have, and, we have mentioned their VeRO presence here several times. I suggest you check under their VeRO name, contact them, and see how many of the studios you have contacted are on their list. I'll bet ALL of them are ...
"The reason being is they are doing no financial harm and they know it."
Not the ones I have been in contact with for many, many years!
"As a matter of fact, since I've posted this, I've emailed the major studios and asked what their take was, I only got one response and it was, to paraphrase, they could care less."
I guess it depends on who you get to respond. For every one "it's OK and we don't care" email you can produce, I can produce 10 letters that say the opposite. (Can't really tho as I don't have a scanner!).
"So 99% of the copyright holders truly don't care."
Absolutely not right, and a very poor leap in logic!
"But my main point for writing this was mainly to question why people were making it their lifes ambition to end auctions that did not have any concern with them what so ever."
If you don't like the answers you are getting here, why do you keep asking the question? I have told you what my reasons are and it seems that the majority of responders agree with me.
"Take my case I emailed 10 major figures ... I only got 1 response."
As I mentioned earlier, the major studios do not generally respond to email questions like this. Consider yourself lucky that you got even one response. OTOH, if you list an item that infringes on their (any one of theirs) copyright, I can almost 'guarantee' that the next piece of correspondence you get will not be an email or even a letter from the studio. It will be a letter from their lawyers. Trust me on this!
"If people ask for permission they are likely to get the same lack of response. I don't want to justify this as right, but I think it might give an indication that the companies don't care."
Could be. In that case, it could be said that eBay doesn't care either ...
"I am writing you to inform you I would like to sell your episodes of so and so. Please respond if you have any objections to me doing this and I will not. Thanks."
And if they don't respond, does that make it OK???
posted on October 16, 2000 05:53:15 AM new
""I am writing you to inform you I would like to sell your episodes of so and so. Please respond if you have any objections to me
doing this and I will not. Thanks."
And if they don't respond, does that make it OK??? "
Obviously not...and hopefully the person emailed is having the company's lawyers draft a very nice letter in response to it.
It shows a person with chutzpath...but a lot of stupidity too.
Now if the letter were to say "I would like to inquire about becoming a licensee to sell episodes of your television show", then you might get a more palatable response, and a possible business deal if you work it right. Unfortunately, most of the real bootleggers out there aren't going to spend the kind of money needed to go legit like that. The profit margin goes down considerably when you have to pay for more than a blank tape.
of a teevee series that has been commercially released on PAL tapes for the UK market only. I contacted the seller first to give her a heads up that her item was illegal. When she responded with her potty-mouth words, I reported the item to eBay. It was subsequently canceled by eBay.