posted on October 16, 2000 06:27:00 AM new
TRC - "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."
This is the type of correspondence I have had with many of these studios, although I have not asked for permission to become a licensee. In the case of the auction that got me NARUd, I did receive a response stating I could sell my masters (not copies). The owners made it very clear to me that I was not permitted to sell copies.
taker - why not use TRC's ideas in your correspondence with the copyright owners, and use pen and paper instead of email? You will probably get a higher response ratio if you try to work with these guys instead of against them
Here's a question for you taker: "Are you currently listing tapes on eBay that may be illegal?" If you are, then I can understand why you continue to try to legitimize this. If you aren't, then what is your point???
posted on October 16, 2000 06:32:20 AM new
Here's another question for you Taker... Are you currently writing a term paper? Like RB I wonder what your point is. You have obtained objections to this practice on moral/ethical/legal grounds... what more do you need?
posted on October 16, 2000 07:43:49 AM newWe'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.
Actually, I have read the whole thread. My point is simple... It doesn't matter whether or not the copyright holders know about these auctions, or what they do (or do not do) about them. It also doesn't matter whether or not you think selling these videos causes them any financial harm, since you are not the owner, and are in no position to be making marketing decisions for them.
Unless you are the creator of these videos (and by that, I do not mean one who tapes them from a broadcast program, but rather, the people who thought up the program and paid to produce and air it), they are not yours to do with as you please.
For the life of me, I'll never understand why it is that some people feel that if they want something badly enough, they somehow have a right to have it. As much as you (and other collectors) may want to obtain these videos, there is nothing in the Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence or Constitution that guarantees this.
As an aside, doesn't anybody else find taker's choice of ids here on AW oddly appropriate for this thread?
posted on October 16, 2000 07:48:55 AM new
Well stated (again!) mrpotatoehead.
Not meaning to be disrespectful, or in violation of AW guidelines, I believe 'taker' may be one of those sellers who has been 'taken down' by a VeRO member and is now looking for some support
Unfortunately the only support for his/her stance will come from the bootleggers, and as taker has suggested, it is very unlikely that these folks will come here to state their case - too much at risk.
posted on October 16, 2000 07:51:48 AM newMrPotatoHead, I think Mao's Little Red Book might allow them to collectivize the videos for the good of the masses.
posted on October 16, 2000 10:35:22 AM new
This has been a very interesting thread. I have read the copyright laws. Of course selling unauthorized copies violates the law. Taker is not disputing that it is illegal. On a moral level, perhaps one could ask how redistributing something that was free is theft. I know this is a tenuous argument, as only the "watching" was free, not possession of the actual material but I think this is where many feel a justification.
And to be slightly off topic, do these agruments translate to the sale of Emmy tapes?
posted on October 16, 2000 10:44:43 AM new
Well actually the viewing wasn't free. An advertising sponsor paid the fees for those shows to be broadcast. In the case of public television donations from viewers paid those fees. In either case someone pays. The Emmy shows are also copyrighted.
posted on October 16, 2000 10:53:36 AM new
Another consideration to put in the mix: One must remember that Hollywood would prefer that you not even rent movies...just buy them outright. There was a big to-do about video rental stores once that market started to take a big bite out of Hollywood's film-making and exhibiting arm.
They wanted to take the teeth of that disclaimer at the beginning of each videotape literally...the only person who could show that movie was to the owner and then only to himself. And still, if you read the legalese, that is still the law...renting a movie to someone else can be considered an unlicensed performance for profit, which infringes on the rights of the creator's/copyright holders of that film (I think it is always important to make sure that "creator" and "copyright holder" are two distinct terms. Paul McCartney may have created a lot of Beatles' songs, but last I heard Michael Jackson had the rights to them...a significant difference).
I suppose rental outlets were just too big of a litigation opportunity that they couldn't ignore it with minor stop-gap measures that they would take against the average bootlegger. Now most studios have cut deals with the major chains to purchase massive amounts of videotapes of new releases. Easier to watch a few chains than hundreds of small operations...and easier to put the screws on them if push comes to shove in the industry.
Now they seem to focus their legal legerdermain fighting bootlegs from China or kids with Napster.
posted on October 16, 2000 10:55:39 AM newI know this is a tenuous argument, as only the "watching" was free, not possession of the actual material but I think this is where many feel a justification.
I think many feel a justification because it is the only way they can do what they want (sell copyrighted material) without having to concede the fact that they are indeed taking something that does not belong to them for their own use- a sort of civil disobedience, except for profit (their own, of course). But that's just my opinion...
posted on October 16, 2000 10:57:03 AM new
Yes, and the sponsors got what they paid for, the viewers attention during the programming. And the viewers paid the price of programming interruption, so everyone is square. I meant, of course, that the viewers did not have to pay to watch the program.
Not to derail the thread to the Emmy tapes, but I was asking about the sale of these tapes that were distributed by the legal copyright holder. How does their re-sale fit into this argument (if at all).
Edited for grammar.
[ edited by hopefulli on Oct 16, 2000 10:59 AM ]
posted on October 16, 2000 11:00:31 AM new
"And to be slightly off topic, do these agruments translate to the sale of Emmy tapes?"
Actually, this is dead on topic! The legality of selling Emmy Consideration tapes, or allowing someone a venue in which they can be sold is not even in a gray area.
These tapes are produced solely for the use of Academy members. Most of the tapes include a statement like "Not for rental or resale".
Further, the eBay legal team includes this statement on their site:
"Each promotional item is a copyrighted work. When they initially are distributed they are not sold. They technically remain the property of the record company or the studio that distributed them. The radio stations, movie theatres, etc. that receive them are only licensed to use the promo materials for limited promotional purposes. They are prohibited from selling them or giving them away; the materials themselves often state right on them "Not For Sale." Demo videos are given to video stores so they can decide how many copies of a particular video title they want to buy. Such demo or "screener" videos often say on the package and on screen "Not for Sale or Rental." Movie studios virtually never permit the sale of movie trailers. If your item has such warning language it is probably an infringement to list it on eBay. Sale or distribution of "awards" videos, such as Academy Awards or Emmy Awards promotional "screeners," is considered by movie and television studios to be a copyright infringement."
I don't think it can be made any more cut-and-dry that this.
The interesting part, and something that could tie in with the court case mentioned in HCQ's current thread "Suit filed against eBay for bogus items", is the fact that in spite of notifications sent to eBay from studio lawyers, members of their own VeRO program, and other 'experts', eBay continues to allow the sale of these tapes on their site! If you search under 'emmy videos', you will probably find several hundred of these tapes listed at any time of the day.
One seller of Emmy Consideration tapes even went so far as to post a bogus listing that included a word-for-word copy of the cease and desist email s/he received from the law firm representing Warner Brothers out of Beverly Hills. Needless to say, that 'auction' was pulled by eBay (there wasn't any item being sold). Not sure about the seller tho ... s/he may be in jail by now (the lawyers gave this person until the end of September to turn in all his/her Emmy tapes, name the sources, and provide a list of eBay members that these tapes were sold to - watch out if you bought one from this person!).
And eBay continues to ignore some good heads-up advice from their own lawyers! They will not be able to claim ignorance, or the fact that they cannot police their site when this issue surfaces.
posted on October 16, 2000 11:09:17 AM newHopefulli, I understand that the viewer didn't have to pay to watch the program. But everytime a program is broadcast someone is paying the copyright holder a fee. So the concept that because a program was viewed for free in no way means that it can be redistributed for free.
The owner of the copyright deserves compensation for the use, or sale, of their property. This even applies to the copyright holders of Emmy Awards productions.
posted on October 16, 2000 11:37:14 AM new
Dr Beetle, I am not at all attempting to defend the practice. I work in the financial end of this industry and am very familiar with the licensing requirements. I am just pointing out that to the average viewer the perception is that it was free and hence the justification. It is not my justification.
posted on October 16, 2000 11:44:13 AM new
"I am just pointing out that to the average viewer the perception is that it was free and hence the justification."
Good post hopefulli
I believe the intent of this discussion (and similar discussions) is to inform the average person what is justifed and what isn't in the eyes of the law. What they choose to do with this information is up to them ...
posted on October 16, 2000 01:24:18 PM new
This one is going to be very brief. I will comment on all new posts when I get home tonight, but my name "taker" isn't meant to imply what some people have decided it was, but it is just short for the Undertaker who is one of my favorite wrestlers. RB, here you go again not reding my posts before you comment. I clearly stated a long time ago on this thread that I was not selling these videos, I was only looking for all the motivations behind reporting them. I actually do plan to write these companies, but I emailed in hopes of getting quicker replies so I can comment better on this forum. By the tiem I got answers in the mail this topic will be dead in this forum and I was looking for their take now so I can post it here. As for your VERO argument it still doen't hold a lot of water. Their may be members, but none of them actually ever shut auctions down. I am discussing this matter via email with several of the bigger sellers of this stuff on Ebay, (who I will keep nameless for now) and everyone of them has said that out of all their auctions that got ended never once was it through Vero, it was always Ebay acting on their own. I got one case of Vero member shutting down an auction and that was Castlerock entertainment for Seinfeld episodes. So I restate what appears to be fact, THEY DON'T CARE. If they did they would ask for the auctions to be shut down themselves, not just hope that Ebay does. They know they are up there and they do nothing about it, because they don't care.
Last point for now, I said that I will not discuss possible defenses that the letter the way I wrote it would bring in the event they decided to crack down. Obviously some people don't care and post their comments on it anyway. I will not reply on this comment because I don't want to turn this into a thread full of legal mumbo jumbo, so to those who decided my letter was not good enough email me and I will bore you with why not getting a response is in the best interest of the seller, and will lead to the smallest possible punishment, if any at all, for them. But the average reader here doesn't know a whole lot about law so I'm not going to contribute to that on this forum. So if that's the discusion you want, and if you want a reply from me you will have to email me. If I have to repeat my point one more time I'm going to kill myself. Please read posts, RB, befor you ask me what I have stated 30 times. My point is to see why other than "it's illegal, that's why" you people decide to make it your lifes work to end all these auctions. If you don't have anything other than "it's illegal that's why" then I'm not looking for your opinion. You keep posting the same question over and over again and I keep answering it the same way, if you have nothing further then you are only turning this into 3 pages of the same posts. This is getting very boring. There have been some good posts from some people who have stated reasons outside of the legal scope, but you are not one of them. You are a broken record who must love to type the same thing with different wording over and over again, cuz that's all you are doing. If nobody has anything further to say, or can offer what I'm looking for I will gladly let the topic die. I will not answer any more questions as to what my motives are, I have done that enough, and it's always the same. I'm tired of retyping what I've said 50 times already. Read before you write. So if you want a response from me please meet my criteria, otherwise I will not respond. Sorry I got a little wordy after all, but I'm getting aggravated by answering the same questions.
posted on October 16, 2000 01:44:22 PM new
Do you really believe that the Thundercats creative people would ever get any mone from it? Most likely they were paid outright at the start and it is now owned by one of the Viacom type places who distribute it over and over when they decide to haul the old thing out again. These companies don't lose nearly what they estimate. So often, the money they are "losing" would never have come in anyway, i.e. kids making copies of software (who couldn't actually afford more than 3 at $50 each), 3rd world pirate operations (who in Bangledesh can afford the pirated version-much less the imported "genuine" version), some African guy driving around displaying it on a TV in the back of a pickup truck ($6 paid to a US company for a matinee? Isn't that a month's wages?) Get a grip. Go fight some real battle like world peace or starvation! YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK. I am so glad we have you folks to be "right" and "moral" so that the big corporations can have their way.
posted on October 16, 2000 01:47:11 PM new
DR Beetle and RB- It is just your kind of "legal" thinking confused with "moral" thinking that is running this world straight to Hell.
posted on October 16, 2000 02:02:28 PM newDo you really believe that the Thundercats creative people would ever get any mone from it?
I don't know- they just might.
Most likely they were paid outright at the start and it is now owned by one of the Viacom type places who distribute it over and over when they decide to haul the old thing out again.
Maybe, maybe not. You know what happens when you assume, don't you?
I am so glad we have you folks to be "right" and "moral" so that the big corporations can have their way.
If "having their way" means that they are allowed control over their own property, I have to wonder why anybody would disagree. Or is it okay to take from them because they are a "big corporation"? What about a small corporation? A mom-and-pop operation? You? Where do you draw the line? At what point does one's property become fair game, free for the taking? Who gets to make that decision?
It is also interesting that some want to separate the "legal" issues from the "moral" ones, and in the process of doing so, find that it makes the taking of another's property acceptable. I'm wondering under what sort of moral code this is considered proper.
posted on October 16, 2000 02:20:40 PM new
Well Skyscout, I would never ever accuse you of moral thinking. If you bother to read my earlier posts you will see that I made a clear distinction between the two.
I have noticed that anger is often the first reaction of people when their rationlizations have been shown to be nothing more than excuses for serving their own interests despite legal and moral ethics. This is usually followed by a request that they take their legal/moral flashlights elsewhere so that those who scurry in the dark can continue their deeds unobserved. Scurry on my good man.
posted on October 16, 2000 03:17:29 PM new
> just short for the Undertaker who is one of my favorite wrestlers.
That explains everything! (btw - ever try to sell illegal copies of this "wrestling" stuff? You think the MPAA are hard asses with no sense of ha ha ...)
> I actually do plan to write these companies,
Good idea, but, based on your attitude here, don’t expect a nice response from them. They don’t generally respond to whining about why they do what they do. If you can present your argument using logic (stay away from the cartoon analogies, and don’t belittle the laws that they have to follow same as you and I, and, say hello to them from me), you may get a response. If you don’t, I can share some of the responses I had received over the years with this group.
> By the tiem I got answers in the mail this topic will be dead in this forum
Then start another thread …
> I was looking for their take now so I can post it here.
I have already done the work for you. What makes you think their ‘take’ to your letters will be any different than their ‘take’ to mine? I have been in contact with the MPAA and several major studios for longer than you have been able to walk! They DO care about people pirating their stuff, they are NOT about to change their policies, and as a matter of fact, you will soon see them take even a more active role in the area of stopping the sales of bootlegs and illegal copies of their stuff from being sold. You are, however, on the right track. Hint: Don’t waste your time writing to Fox, ABC, NBC etc. - they will either not respond, or they will direct you to contact the actual owners of the material. I will let you enjoy the experience of doing hours and hours of research to find out who these people/organizations are. You may also want to check out some of the informational sites where people just like you have complained and see where it got them. Finally, whether you want to hear this or not, check out copyright law.
> As for your VERO argument it still doen't hold a lot of water. Their may be members, but none of them actually ever shut auctions down. I am discussing this matter via email with several of the bigger sellers of this stuff on Ebay, (who I will keep nameless for now) and everyone of them has said that out of all their auctions that got ended never once was it through Vero, it was always Ebay acting on their own.
Very interesting, considering that all auctions ended on eBay are ended by … ready for this … eBay! VeRO does not cancel auctions on behalf of eBay (I don’t think they can), nor do their members contact the sellers (at least in this category).
> that was Castlerock entertainment for Seinfeld episodes.
So, who shut down The West Wing, Buffy, Malcolm, etc. etc. auctions? Why did Warner Brothers have their lawyers send a cease-and-desist letter to an eBay seller who was selling this stuff?
> I restate what appears to be fact, THEY DON'T CARE.
NOT fact, which will be confirmed to you in their responses (assuming you don't piss them off from the onset and they ignore you), but if it makes you happy to think that, enjoy!
> will lead to the smallest possible punishment
Well, I guess that’s better than the largest possible punishment. (Is this like being partially pregnant, or breaking the law just a little bit???)
> If I have to repeat my point one more time I'm going to kill myself.
[no comment]
> you people decide to make it your lifes work to end all these auctions
Not my ‘life’s work’, and not ‘all these auctions’.
> You keep posting the same question over and over again and I keep answering it the same way,
You're the one asking the question here, and there is only one answer taker. You have heard it in several different forms from several different people in this thread. Again, don’t ask the question if you are not prepared to accept the answer. It’s really simple.
> You are a broken record who must love to type the same thing with different wording over and over again,
posted on October 16, 2000 03:43:26 PM new
Does being a loyal fan of "Law & Order" count? If not, then no, I am not a lawyer. And, I'm too old to start a new career
Nice to hear again from Robin Hood, er, I mean skyscout.
posted on October 16, 2000 03:46:15 PM newespecially the poor people of the world
And I'm sure it's those living below the poverty level who have the equipment to copy videotapes and then list them on ebay.
RB et al., you're going to get nowhere with these characters. They honestly believe that pirating is some sort of act of civil disobedience, and that THEY are taking the moral high road here.
posted on October 16, 2000 04:02:35 PM new
I stand corrected. I forgot that one requires even a minimal set of ethics before they find the need to rationalize. I freely concede that you are not rationalizing.
Dr. Beetle
Edited to point out that this post was in direct response to one that has been deleted and therefore might be misconstrued as being directed at someone else.
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Oct 16, 2000 04:14 PM ]
posted on October 16, 2000 04:10:16 PM new
skyscout,
Your post has been deleted because it was vulgar and a violation of the CG's. I am issuing you a formal warning and remind you that if you post again in that manner, your posting privileges may be jeopardized.
Please familiarize yourself with the CG's before posting again.
posted on October 16, 2000 04:25:19 PM new
Everyone,
I realize most of you feel strongly about this matter and I suggest you take a few seconds to review your words before posting. Remember, address the topic not the individiual.
posted on October 16, 2000 04:56:38 PM new
I wasn't suggesting that people on Ebay are poor. If you'd bothered to read my previous post you'd see what I meant. Dr Beetle, thanks, I am not much on ethics.
