posted on October 12, 2000 09:47:24 PM
I am new to this site and have seen plenty of people talking about the illegal videos being sold on Ebay and how they personally have a problem with it. What I don't understand is why it is any concern to them. First, I would like to state that I don't sell any of these videos, but 99% of the videos I have noticed for sale on EBAY aren't being sold anywhere by the ones who actually own the copyrights. Lets take a couple examples. One thing I see being sold a lot is all 130 episodes of the Thundercats. Now whoever made that cartoon (which was great by the way) isn't selling the complete sets anywhere so they can't be losing any money by people selling it on Ebay. If somebody out there wants to pay $75.00 for it and this is the only way that it is available, I see nothing wrong with it. On the other hand I see people selling all copies of stuff like Highlander, which is available through their catalog. I think this is wrong because they are blatantly ripping off the creator of that great show. A lot of people are complaining about these types of auctions and I don't see anything wrong with them. So please everybody that reads this please give me your take. I would love to know what everybody else thinks. Thank you.
posted on October 13, 2000 05:06:06 AM
taker ... I don't see anything 'wrong' with these types of auctions either. I also don't see anything 'wrong' with going 90 mph on a deserted highway on a clear day
Unfortunately, both of these activities are against the law, and unless you are in a position to change the law, you have to follow the rules. A judge doesn't care what you 'feel' about the law.
Now, before all you usuals start taking this analogy apart (the good old "have you never broken a law?", or "laws were meant to be broken" type response), I need to add that I agree with what taker has said about the stuff that is not available anywhere else. My rant with eBay is the SELECTIVE way they seem to deal with these types of auctions. I have been watching them very closely during the past 4 months, and guess what? The listings by small time sellers like me ALWAYS get canceled - identical listings by eBay PowerSellers NEVER get canceled.
posted on October 13, 2000 05:33:16 AM
Sorry taker about getting off subject, but I have noticed a couple of powersellers displaying what I "think" to be oversized graphics, too. I know if I did that.....
posted on October 13, 2000 06:22:09 AM
That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that there are millions of items listed on ebay, now, could it? Hey, you're more likely to get your pocket picked while shopping around Christmastime, but it's not because it's Christmas. It's because there are more people, more crowds, more wallets, and therefore more opportunity.
posted on October 13, 2000 07:19:49 AM
The reason it is illegal is because it is theft. Only in this case it is theft of something that is intangible – namely intellectual property (IP).
We often see the concept of damage used to determine if something is right or wrong. In threads on these boards in the last week we have had many examples. Selling Thundercats videos isn’t wrong because the owner’s of the IP aren’t selling them and therefore we are not taking money out of their pocket. Taking items from a Goodwill donation site isn’t bad because the organization throws stuff away or because they make so much money in their thrift stores that they don’t need these items.
Using the concept of damage to determine if a wrong has been committed is a convenient rationalization. It allows one to feel better about doing something they shouldn’t because no one was hurt by the act. In some ways the damage measurement is the substitution of a commercial ethic in place of a moral ethic. A commercial ethic allows wrong acts (i.e. theft) if there is no identifiable damage. A moral ethic doesn’t allow a wrong act because the act is intrinsically wrong.
A real problem with a commercial ethic is that we can’t know all of the facts. By this I mean that it is almost impossible to determine if we are truly causing damage. For example, the owners of the Thundercats IP might start selling videos tomorrow. If that happens then the sellers of the illegal copies have indeed stolen money from them by diminishing their potential market. But at the time they were engaged in selling the copied videos there was no identifiable damage being done.
Since we can’t know the ramifications of our actions the use of a commercial ethic is nothing more than a sop to our conscious. It is a rationalization that allows us to commit acts that we shouldn’t without feeling guilty about our actions.
posted on October 13, 2000 12:15:13 PM
First I would like to say that I agree with RB, there is a clear discrimination going on at Ebat. They never ever cancel a power seller's auction. But if I was to put one up with my whopping 3 feedback, it would get yanked real fast. Next to Dr. beetle, wow that was a great response. That was the kind of discussion I was looking for and I salute you to thinking that up. But I have to disagree with a couple points. I don't think this would diminish the value of these goods at all in the event that the copyright holders decided to start selling them. There is somebody out there selling a boxset of one of the items I mentioned earlier and everytime his auctions go for ridiculously higher than all other auctions of the same item, look it up yourself. People see this and they think that they are getting real videos, even though they are not, so the bidding goes nuts. But everybody else will get around $75.00 because they are not as creative and can't design a fancy box to go with their bootleg videos. My point is, when people think that they are getting real videos they are willing to pay a heck lot more than they are for the bootleg versions. If the creators of this show were to release such videos they would have a very high price tag that only a few would be able to justify spending that kind of money for it. I don't think they would lose any customers at all. All the people buying bootlegs at $75.00 are very unlikely to be able to spend the $350-$400 that the producers would likely charge for the same item, so they wouldn't lose them as customers. Just look at the prices that the real looking bootleg videos of this same item draws on ebay, it proves that if people think they are getting real videos they will still pay for them even if there are inferior bootleg versions available. Once again thanks to everyone for weighing in on this topic. I hope that more of you that read this will give me your 2 cents. What do you think?
posted on October 13, 2000 01:54:47 PM
The intellectual property still belongs to the copyright holder. Use of that property without the permission of the copyright holder is still theft. The commercial argument of "no harm" doesn't alter the first two facts. I still think it is wrong.
posted on October 13, 2000 02:59:14 PM
taker ... What you need to do before placing a bid on any video tape that does not clearly state it is a factory original release is ask the seller. If the seller does not respond, chances are s/he is a bootlegger. If the seller does respond, the next thing you need to work out is the 'quality' of the copy. Is it an SP (best) or EP (worst) dub? Hi-fi or mono sound? How many generations down from the original? What was the source of the master?
etc.
There are a lot of very poor quality copies being sold on eBay. Some are missing teasers and credits, others are so grainy that it gives you a headache trying to watch them. I feel sorry for buyers who don't know what to ask before committing a large amount of dough.
And, in spite of the sellers who come here and say "gee, I didn't know this was illegal", you'll see these same people pop up on eBay under different names after they have been caught and NARU'd. Ever wonder why most of them use an aol or hotmail address as their ID? It's so collectors can contact them off eBay to see what else the seller has to offer.
If you are placing a bid on this type of item, it would be a good idea to record the seller's info before the auction gets canceled
Of course the best way to get copies of your favourite teevee series is to go to the video trading groups. Although trading a tape for a a tape is still technically illegal, the MPAA have not gone after the traders. It's the sellers they want, and believe me, it ain't pretty what these guys do to a person's collection, not to mention the fines that go along with it.
As to whether or not a person will pay big bucks for a series if it is released by the studios, that depends on a few things. How 'rare' is the series? How many episodes aired? How much $?
There is a person who lists complete series quite frequently over at Yahoo. Costs for an 80 episode series could run you around $600.00. These, btw, are tapes made from studio film so the 'quality' is impeccable.
Then there's the guy who sold the entire first season of The Sopranos on 3 tapes last year on eBay for over $300.00. That's 13 hours of programming crammed onto 3 tapes - you can imagine the quality of the episodes and the disappointment when the buyer received them.
posted on October 13, 2000 07:28:01 PMYep, but the difference is if you report the pickpocket to the police, they will do something about it
Point taken. Of course, the police don't make any provision for reimbursing you for your stolen goods. If the goods are gone, you're SOL unless you can obtain court restitution or want to file a civil suit.
Unfortunately, both of these activities are against the law, and unless you are in a position to change the law, you have to follow the rules. A judge doesn't care what you 'feel' about the law.
posted on October 13, 2000 09:25:55 PM
Well first to the doc, there is no question that it is illegal so technically it is wrong, but there are alot of things that are illegal but we all do anyway, I think I don't need to name a list. My original reson for posting this topic was as I was looking around I saw at least 20 other topics on this site blasting these type of auctions and I didn't completely understand why for the reasons I have mentioned in my previous posts above. 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. 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. How many of you write down people that spped license plates and turn that over to police? If you see a j-walker, how many of you stop and call the police? I'd love to bet that none of you do. So obviously you all must think that this is a bigger law being violated so you must report it (even though I can probably name 25 bigger laws that are violated everyday that you do nothing about) But as I pointed out earlier, and noone has yet disputed my claim, that this is as victimless as say j-walking. So once again why do you people care? Now I'm not posting this to sound like a jerk, though I might, but I am just curious. If there is something that I'm missing and somebody points it out to me I'll be the first to say you're right this is wrong. But noone has done that yet. Next to RB, I agree the quality of these tapes can be bad sometimes, but I actually do get all my tapes from a video traders web ring. It is considerably cheaper. Most of the times you can just send in 2 blank tapes for every tape that you buy and its yours. Compare spending say $5.00 on blank tapes to spending hundreds on ebay or yahoo for the same item, it would be stupid to get them any other way. Then if the quality is bad, I'm out $5 for blank tapes instead of $300. Cuz we all know that when it comes to asking for a refund these people on ebay or yahoo suddenly don't answer emails anymore, it's amazing. I'm actually an astute video collector, I have thousands of tv shows and stuff that is selling on ebay (I probably should cash in and sell these myself)so I know a great deal about this stuff. Though I don't sell these I would be angry if I could no longer buy them or trade for them so that I can acquire some more of my favorites. By the way I have been looking for all episodes od Dinosaurs for quite some time, I found somebody that has it but he wont respond to my emails. So, RB, if anybody on the ring that you visit has it let me know. So what do you all think about this? Sorry about the long post.
posted on October 14, 2000 12:51:05 AM
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.
They do suffer loss, it is wrong, even though it appears to be "okay." Just because people don't "get" copyright law doesn't mean that it's okay to break it.
Look up copyright in the search engines, you will be busy. There are tutorials and definitions. If you ever create content, Taker, you might understand.
Civil disobediance over ripped off media is not exactly what Thoreau had in mind.
It's not even worth the moral argument.
Content of the IP is not at stake here, because it is a moot point, so I won't address it as a qualifier.
Capriole
(only here)
(typo edit)
[ edited by Capriole on Oct 14, 2000 01:02 AM ]
posted on October 14, 2000 05:14:46 AM... there is no question that it is illegal so technically it is wrong.
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.
posted on October 14, 2000 05:29:11 AM
I wish the owners of the copyrighted shows not available on video would release them! I would love to have copies of the old "You Can't Do That On Television" and "The ABC Afterschool Specials". I know I am not alone as there are copies of these floating around on eBay (at least the You Can't Do That on TV show until it was reported that is...) and they go for big bucks.
posted on October 14, 2000 06:14:47 AM, I do believe that tape trading falls under the heading of civil disobediance. Anybody ever read Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451?"
Do you mean that you believe that copyright law is a form of oppression and censorship?
posted on October 14, 2000 06:42:05 AM
I personally think some forms of copyright law are oppressive and censorious.
Presumably for legal reasons, eBay has taken the position that copyright law needs to be enforced by the copyright owners. I know of some cases in which the copyright owner does not care about enforcing the copyright or has informally told the sellers in question to go ahead and sell what they sell. Technically, it's illegal, but the copyright owner tacitly supports the seller.
________
I never had one, and I didn't want one, and I don't, so now I do...
posted on October 14, 2000 07:02:02 AM
Hi, HCQ. Yes, I do think there is an element of oppression to it. At least, there is more to the issue than blind obediance to the law. The whole idea of "legal therefore ethical" is narrow and culturally defined.
posted on October 14, 2000 07:02:37 AM
netlawhopeful - "I know of some cases in which the copyright owner does not care about enforcing the copyright or has informally told the sellers in question to go ahead and sell what they sell. Technically, it's illegal, but the copyright owner tacitly supports the seller."
Spot On! This is almost exactly my situation with the item that got me kicked off eBay. I actually did it one better tho - I have permission from the copyright owners in writing on their letterhead. Included in their letter was their suggested wording on how I should describe the item. eBay, in their infinite wisdom, read the description and decided that the auction was illegal. They canceled it and they canceled me! They did not contact a VeRO member nor the copyright owner (they have no idea of who these people area!).
Yet they continue to allow very obvious infringing items to be sold on their site ...
And, they continue to refuse responding to my queries using real words - all I get is their canned 'bot responses.
taker - sorry, but your argument is exactly what I was hoping we could avoid here. Believe me, after 16 years of trading tapes all over the world, your argument ("it is against the law, but should't be" has been stated, analysed, taken apart, etc. ... but the bottom line is IT IS AGAINST THE LAW
I have had numerous 'heated' discussions with the MPAA. They are not going to change their mind, and my collection is too important to risk it by being a rebel. Their lawyering power is a lot greater than mine!
If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you write the MPAA (not email - they ignore those for obvious reasons), state your logic, and see where it goes. Be careful how you word your letter tho - you don't want the MPAA police knocking on your door
posted on October 14, 2000 07:40:50 AM
In my opinion, copyright laws will not be enforceable in the future. The internet and various sources on it will diminish the value of the copyright.
I have never sold a bootleg anything. I think that perhaps the biggest culprits in this game are the foreign countries that allow copyright infringement on a massive basis. As long as these countries are allowed to get away with this, there is no hope for copyrighted protection. Shared music, jpg's, videos, computer software, etc., will be commonplace.
It will be interesting to see how the Napster lawsuit plays out. Personally, I don't think that the Music Group initiating the suit will win.
Of course there is a big difference between copying videos for resale on Ebay and sharing music for your own personal use.
The above are my opinion only. I may well be wrong.
It is interesting to note how the online auctions have decimated the used book bricks and mortar industry. I list primarily books on Ebay, and I always like to compare what I get for a price with the B&N OOP site. I have never realizde the prices in my auctions that these bricks and mortar sites ask for.
^The internet is changing the world and the dynamics of business. JMHO.
posted on October 14, 2000 08:01:22 AMTaker you seem to have missed the main point I was trying to make, either that or I was unclear. My objection to theft was not due to the technical grounds of it being against the law. My objection to theft is based on moral grounds. I believe it is wrong to steal.
I used the phrase commercial ethic to illustrate that sometimes it is tempting to use the concept of harm or damage as a guide in determining if an action is wrong. I also stated the belief that, in the case of theft, a commercial ethic is nothing more than a tool that allows someone to rationalize an action that shouldn’t be taken. It enables us to say that if no identifiable harm has been caused it isn’t really theft. We now feel better about stealing.
I am against theft because it is counter to my moral ethic. To me theft is wrong even if no one is identifiably harmed.
I am not saying that using the concept of harm or damage isn’t a valid tool for judging how right or wrong an action may be. There are always gray areas in which we are unclear if we should do something and making certain an action is harm free is not a bad thing. But, at least for my basic moral system, it is not a valid tool for actions such as theft.
There will be those that will paint extreme scenarios and ask if I would steal in those instances: My family is starving, etc. I can’t honestly say I wouldn’t steal in extreme instances. But I would know it was wrong and I would feel badly about having done so. I can’t honestly say that I haven’t used the concept of no harm to justify my own immoral actions. I can say that when I reflect on those instances that I now know it was wrong and that I regret those actions. I can also see how, at the time, I used the harm concept to rationalize the actions so that I felt justified in committing them.
posted on October 14, 2000 08:17:54 AMYes, I do think there is an element of oppression to [copyright law]. At least, there is more to the issue than blind obediance to the law. The whole idea of "legal therefore ethical" is narrow and culturally defined
Couldn't the same be argued about any point of commercial law? I own half an acre of land. My neighbor decides to plant a vegetable garden (he has a stand at the farmer's market) on my half-acre without obtaining my permission. If I litigate to get him off my property and recover the profits of his vegetable sales, am I oppressing him?
I own a rental house which at present is vacant. Squatters then occupy the house. Are my efforts to evict them oppressive?
posted on October 14, 2000 09:36:49 AM
I'm going to keep this one short because I just woke up and I'm still tired. This argument is not headed in the direction that I wanted it to go in. I know that in legal terms it is wrong to sell these tapes, I am not questioning that. My point is why are there several people on this forum who have made it a personal mission to end all of these auctions. Do we all not break laws from time to time? There is still yet to be a claim that I was incorrect in my previous post above that the copyright holders don't really suffer a loss. We have also heard 2 separate claims in which people said that they either had permission to sell these tapes or that they they were told by the copyright holders that they don't care if they sell these kind of tapes. You want to know why copyright holders don't care if you sell these tapes? There's 2 reasons: 1) They know for the reasons I mentioned earlier that they don't lose money when people sell inferior copies of their stuff. They know that if they do decide to sell it themselves people will still go for it because the quality will be better. 2) In most cases they will never release any of these videos so they will never have anything to lose. Think about it, how many TV shows in the history of television have been released in complete sets for sale. Off the top of my head I can name like 10. I'm sure there are more, but regardless it is a very small number. These companies just simply don't release them. So please take this into account and let me know why you personally care and try to end all these auctions. I suspect that in RB's case he's mad because his auction got cancelled and now he just wants to make sure that nobody else can do it either. He'll claim that he's only mad at the double standard that ebay uses, but if they did respond to his emails and cancel everybodys auctions what would that prove? Why even concern yourself with this? So what if they shut your auction down, so what if there is a double standard. You can protest that double standard in a way other than reporting all these people selling this stuff. That's why I suspect you are only partially mad at the double standard, but your major beef is that other people are selling stuff and you couldn't. If I'm wrong I apologize. I don't mean to single out RB cuz there are 100's of you out there. There have been dozens of topics on this stuff on this messageboard so there is more than just him. I repeat I don't want to discuss if its illegal or if it should be that was never my intention. I want to know why some of you have made it a personal mission to end all these auctions. Please take into account everything I've said in this message and my previous ones in this topic. Some of you aren't reading the whole message, you read one sentence and comment on it, but please read the whole thing. Somebody wrote this:
... there is no question that it is illegal so technically it is wrong.
"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."
Well if he would have read that entire post instaed of one sentence he would have seen that my point was that morally it wasn't wrong. So please don't do what this guy did and waste everybodys time by posting a reply that I already wrote. Please read the whole thing and give me a response. Thanks. Wow I guess I didn't a good job of keeping it short after all. Sorry
posted on October 14, 2000 09:55:01 AM
HCQ, let me answer your question by asking another. In this country, a work is copyrighted for a period of 70 years. Is it unethical to copy the work in the 69th year and 364th day, and ethical to copy it the very next day? If so, what is the difference between the two dates, other than a strict adherance to the law?
I am not trying to say that there should be no rights and no copyrights. On the other hand, I think that trademark law has gotten out of hand. As for Dr. Beetle's comments, I believe his ideas of copyright law and "theft" are overstated. Take a hypothetical situation. Two men are sitting at a bus stop. One man has a million pieces of gold in his pocket. The other man has one piece of gold. The second man takes a piece of gold from the first. Where is the injustice? The injustice lies in the fact that the first man, who probably never worked a day in his life, has a million pieces of gold, while the other has none. That is my opinion.
As far as "bootleg" audio and video recordings, 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.
posted on October 14, 2000 10:07:04 AM
Taker, I read your post. Did you read mine? I realize you quoted another poster and my comment was not directed at you as much as the person you were quoting. Chill out. You asked "please give me your take" and "I would love to know what everybody thinks." Now you have insulted RB and you've insulted me. What's your point? Stop playing message-board cop.
Look closely and you will see that I'm agreeing with you. I'm sorry you feel that is "wasting everybody's time."
posted on October 14, 2000 10:07:12 AM
Using that logic, TS, why couldn't the copyright holder demand his copyright PAST the 70-year period? Right - because the law says otherwise.
The "injustice" lies in that the second man has determined it is appropriate for HIM to judge whether the first man "deserves" what he has.
What's your income, TS? I'm bringing in about $600/month these days. Surely you have more than that, which IMHO is just plain unjust. So how about sending some my way?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 14, 2000 10:12 AM ]
posted on October 14, 2000 10:21:36 AMTwinsoft, you said: As for Dr. Beetle's comments, I believe his ideas of copyright law and "theft" are overstated.
Any particular item or my whole philosophy in general?
posted on October 14, 2000 10:30:08 AM
> My point is why are there several people on this forum who have made it a personal mission to end all of these auctions.
My reason was twofold:
1. To ‘get even’ with the rat who complained about my auction to eBay, which subsequently got me NARU’d. I know this person is an eBay member, and did he ever whine when he got the 'letter'!
2. To try to get eBay to admit they have a double standard. Some sellers get away with moider and others get tried and convicted in absentia!
I have ended my campaign though. I was successful with my first 'reason', and the second one will never be resolved.
> Do we all not break laws from time to time?
Irrelevant
> how many TV shows in the history of television have been released in complete sets for sale.
In North America? You’re probably close with your estimate.
In Europe and the UK? Hundreds of full-set uncut series have, and continue to be released on PAL tapes and Region 2 DVDs, including current series (Farscape, Buffy, Friends) and great cult series (The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic ‘Babe’, The Prisoner, The Avengers). Most of us cannot enjoy these series’:
Unless we are able to buy a multinational VCR (don’t need a convertor) which runs around $1300.00 Canadian (AIWA unit),
Unless we know someone in the UK who will make us NTSC copies in trade for stuff airing on North American teevee.
Unless we buy illegal ‘conversions’ (copies) on venues like eBay.
Unless the LAW changes. And, it won’t unless people who are ‘serious’, start writing letters and publishing logical arguments against the current practice.
> These companies just simply don't release them.
Although you and I are avid teevee fans, we are in the minority. It would not be financially feasible for Warner Brothers to release their stuff in North America. There is a much larger market for this stuff across the ocean.
> I suspect that in RB's case he's mad because his auction got cancelled and now he just wants to make sure that nobody else can do it either (etc.).
See above.
> If I'm wrong I apologize.
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.
> "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.
This is an old argument. I suggest this one be taken to some theology type forum where it can be done justice
> Wow I guess I didn't a good job of keeping it short after all. Sorry
Don’t be sorry This is an interesting and timely topic. It would be much more interesting though, if someone from eBay would jump in and justify the inconsistent ways they deal with this problem.
has been stated, analysed, taken apart, etc. ... but the bottom line is IT IS AGAINST THE LAW