posted on October 16, 2000 05:50:29 PM
I pretty much agree. Not to mention that just because 100 people want to buy a fake Rolex for $75, doesn't mean those people would have ever considered laying down $5000 for a real one. A cheap knockoff captures a seperate market. As long as the seller doesn't mislead buyers and saying it's the real thing, what's the problem?
posted on October 16, 2000 07:52:02 PM
I realize that this might not inspire much sympathy but having tapes of series' circulating could lessen the market for syndication sales. This is not only lost money for the studios, but for the thousands of small independent television stations that depend on this fare to fill their time slots. And the residual and participation rates for even legitimate video sales vs domestic syndication are considerably less, cutting into the income of the actors, directors and writers-and they are not all rich.
posted on October 16, 2000 08:07:53 PM
RB here is part of your last post,
"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?
It seems I didn't state my point clearly, let me try again. I know that Ebay is the one who shuts the auctions down, but when a vero member requests that they shut them down a different email is sent to the seller saying that their auction was cancelled by request of A vero program member. That's what I was trying to get at earlier when I said that the vero members don't shut the auctions down. They don't contact the sellers directly, but the seller will know that they were the ones responsible for the auctions being cancelled. I assume you have seen these emails before, but if not I had the guy forward me the one from Seinfeld and I will be happy to post it here (obviously taking out stuff like his name) I'm positive you've seen the standard ebay email, but I will also post that if you wish to compare the differences between the two. I actually have been contacting someone who sells Buffy and he tells me that every single time his auction has been shut down it was by Ebay and not a Vero member so that might be a bad example. But regardless your other examples could be correct, but I never said that they don't happen I just said that 99% of the time the copyright holder doesn't attempt to stop it. I also said that if there is a vero member trying to stop it that the seller shouldn't sell it. So please reread my last post with the clarification I just added and give me your take. If you want to see the Vero email let me know.
posted on October 16, 2000 08:38:29 PM
Also I know better to write fox, nbc, abc, etc. I know the majority of the copyright holders. I know a whole lot more about the copyright law that probably anybody that posts here. The last 6 years of my life I've had my head dug in law books pursuing my degree. I can come close to reciting the whole thing off the top of my head, no joke. No I don't think I deserve a prize or anything for being able to do that, but when you tell me maybe I should go read a law that I know backwards and forwards I feel I have to defend myself.
Regardless, I've stated a couple times that I don't want to discuss the legal aspect, we all know that "legally" it's wrong. I've never disputed that. I want to discuss the moral aspects, such as why you people decide to play cop and turn them in. If it is based solely on a legal reason then it is not your opinion that I'm after. I want the people who have a different take, if there are none, so be it.
To Dr. beetle, I sure hope this wasn't intended for me,
"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."
I know you titled that to someone else, but you seem to leave it open to others, and since I'm the main person defending my belief, I feel safe in assuming that it was also targeted to me. I've only gotten mad when somebody decides to ignore my many requests and wants to tell me for the umpteenth time that "its illegal, that's why I have a problem with it" Everybody that has brought up a moral issue I have responded in kind to that post. I once even commended you for good posts, (back when you used to have them, it sure does seem like a long long time ago) I've only gotten angry when the posts started to lack any relevance to the topic I started. Then people like you want to come and blast me when its you that isn't defending your position in the manner in which I request. I have never told anybody who has posted a reply that was relevant to stop posting. This is what you get when you don't read responses and you post stuff anyway. I have only said that people who can not give me the discussion that I want, I will no longer reply to them. I can count on one hand the amount of people that have brought up a moral response, it has been of legal nature every time, which I say again, I'm not looking to discuss on this particular thread. If you wish to start a new thread for the legal issues on this topic, I will gladly come over there and discuss it, but this thread is not the place. And every moral argument I've made has still yet to be disputed, I just get that standard legal reply that I don't want. So please before you decide that I'm just serving my own interests (which I would love to know how this is serving my own interests, please explain this. I would love to hear you explain this, cuz there is no way I have any real interests in this. This thread is purely for educational purposes.) read my previous posts before you sound foolish by saying outlandish things like this, and by saying that I'm serving a purpose that I have said that I'm not at least 10 times. Thank you.
posted on October 16, 2000 08:41:13 PM
Hopefulli you said,
"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.
I'd love to hear what the licensing requirements are. I must say I don't know fully, I have heard things and I have an idea, but I would like to know for sure. Thanks.
posted on October 16, 2000 10:17:01 PM
Hello taker. I can answer your question from the financial perspective (why to I think I am being baited?) but I'm sure the intricacies will bore the other readers to tears. You can probably fill in the blanks from your entertainment law resources.
First of all, since all contracts are negotiable, I am just giving a typical scenario so I don't have to keep saying "usually".
The network pays the producer a license fee which covers the initial airing and sometimes a 2nd run-that is it grants them the right to air the program, although the network is not obligated to air it. For a television series, the license period is one year. For a movie of the week, the network has up to 5 years to air the 2nd run-use it or lose it. The license fee is initially negotiated at the beginning of series for 5 years with the understanding that if a series bombs, all bets are off. For a hit series, it is renegotiated to cover the increased fees demanded by the newly created stars. It is an accepted quirk of the industry that contracts are not worth the paper they are printed on (and in fact a number of contracts are never actually executed).
The license fee may or may not actually cover the full cost of production. Until it does, the producer is in deficit, and will rely on syndication revenue to recover the rest of its costs and become profitable.
After the initial network contract period, the distributor has the right to license the programming to the territories indicated in their contract. These stations then have the right to air them as many times as indicated during the contract period, typically 4-5 years. If there is still consumer interest in the series, there can be a second sales cycle. Of course, to sell a series into syndication, you have to have a good number of episodes available, which is why you see all of the 100th Episode celebrations-100 episodes is considered to be the minimum amount required since the shows will air 5 days a week.
On a periodic basis, the stations have to report to the distributor how many times they have aired a particular episode. This is important because the residuals decrease for each run. The distributor has to report and pay the residuals to the appropriate guild members. The distributor reports the sales to the producer, takes its cut via a distribution fee (25%-30%), pays the residuals and other distribution costs (prints, ads etc) and then pays the producer what is left over.In many cases, the producer then pays a percentage to key cast members-points.
Perhaps you can see how a series could be compromised if a large number of viewers are in possession of the entire series on videotape. The television stations want to buy a series that their audience will watch, because that is how they can sell their commercial time(ratings). Who would watch a program on TV when they can watch it at their leisure whenever they want?
posted on October 16, 2000 10:45:49 PM
Hopefulli, do individuals such as the ones selling on ebay ever get licensee rights? Or is it only reserved for TV stations, etc. I wasn't setting you up for anything I am genuinely interested. I don't believe that if somebody owned the episodes of a show that they wouldn't watch it on TV. I know that all the episodes I own I still watch on TV whenever they came on. That is a very good argument though and one that I feel merits responses from other people. I have another question. Lets say that USA network buys the rights to a TV show, do they get a guarantee that official videos will not be released that might have the effects you discussed? I have two arguments to defend my position that it still doesn't matter, but I'd like to see your response before I decide which argument to post.
Thanks for that topic. This is the kind of discussion I'm looking for. It's glad to see that someone can bring up something other than it's illegal. Thank you.
posted on October 16, 2000 11:48:22 PM
Taker, typically episode television programming is not released to video, except for a sometimes a limited number of special or commemorative episodes so the guarantee you asked about isn't an issue. The licensee is guaranteed broadcast exclusivity in its territory.
I do not know specifically how it is determined that a series has become stale, saturated or otherwise unmarketable but when consumer interest dies, the sales department will sell something else in the inventory until interest is revived for that series.
As far as licenses being awarded to individuals, this is sometimes done for merchandising of program-related items such as tshirts and mugs. Some of the smaller production companies will even license video sales, if they do not have a major distributor. I imagine it may even be possible for a larger company to grant a license on some restricted basis. I've never seen it but I am not prepared to say it never happens.
I don't know how typical you are as a viewer, or how typical I am for that matter. I just know that when a movie comes on television and I own the video, I'll watch something else.
posted on October 17, 2000 06:11:31 AM
[this should not be a violation of AW guidelines ... I hope!)
All posters - go to eBay and do a search under 'buffy episodes', then come back here and talk about the 'legality' of these. eBay is VERY reluctant to deal with these, and I am trying to figure out how they can justify their continued listing ...
posted on October 17, 2000 07:06:18 AM
Better yet, do a search for any of these:
complete X-Men
complete Thundercats
Thundarr
Justice League Pilot
Fantastic Four movie
Generation X movie
Witchblade movie
Nick Fury movie
Charmed TV show
Dawson's Creek TV show
Lord, we could go on forever.
There are some legal Buffy episodes on video now, so you'd have to search for Unaired Pilot or Buffy Dailies to get the bootlegs from that show.
posted on October 17, 2000 08:33:39 AM
Just to clarify a misunderstanding from earlier in this thread:
(NOTE: I am speaking as a librarian, not as an attorney.)
Prior to 1976, a work of intellectual property (most commonly a printed book) could be copyrighted for an initial period of 28 years, which could be renewed for an additional 28 years. Thus, works copyrighted prior to 1976 had a potential copyright period of 56 years. (The copyright period for works prior to 1976 has been increased to a total of 95 years by successive revisions of the law, most recently in 1998.) The copyright period is that period during which the copyright holder certain exclusive rights, including the right to license the work, to distribute the work, to reproduce the work, etc.
The 1978 Copyright Act states that an "original work of authorship" is copyright for the life of the copyright holder plus 70 years. Under the Bourne Convention (March 1, 1989), a copyright notice is not necessary for a work to be protected by copyright.
Another feature of the new law is that "Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a tangible form for the first time." This means it does not have to be formally published in order to be protected, but may be in manuscript form.
One of the two general principles about copyright states that 1) "Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright."
"Public domain" means a work for which the copyright has expired, or which has been specifically released into the public domain. A rule of thumb is that anything published before 1900 is in the public domain. (However, a 20th century edition of a pre-1900 publication could be copyrighted as a separate work of authorship.)
For more details, refer to a pamphlet entitled "Copyright Basics" published by the U.S. Office of Copyright, and available at this URL:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html
El
"The customer may not always be right, but she is always the customer."
(edited to correct typos)
[ edited by eleanordew on Oct 17, 2000 09:18 AM ]
[ edited by eleanordew on Oct 17, 2000 09:57 AM ]
posted on October 17, 2000 09:05:09 AM
TRC ... NTSC conversions of commercailly released PAL tapes are NOT legal.
A 'conversion' is identical to a copy, only created in a different format. This would be like 'converting' a commercially released BETA movie to VHS and selling the converted copy.
Of course, even if the eBay CyberCops don't understand what a 'conversion' is, they should at least realize that the seller has misrepresented the product (it is NOT an "original" release!).
I don't want to go too far here in fear of violating AW regulations, but I can tell you that the current seller (with the shades) is the same seller who recently had his/her 'conversion' auctions shutdown by eBay ...
posted on October 17, 2000 09:58:56 AM
[quote]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.[/quote]
posted on October 18, 2000 11:02:05 AM
Well it appears this topic has finally died. So I would like to thank all that participated in this sometimes heated discussion, and when I get replies to letters I have sent to various companies I will come back and start this discussion over. I know I didn't get to all the replies like I said I would, but since it appears that this topic is dead, I don't want to waste my time by talking to myself. If thi does miraculously pick up again I will come back to continue to defend my position, but my gut feeling is that this is played out for now.
