ATTN JMS: RealVideo Cruasde Episodes on the web
Chris Schumacher
among us who do:
Since TNT is almost certainly not going to rerun the Crusade episodes, and we
don't known when (or ever) we'll see them on video, would you give us the
permission to encode the Crusade episodes and put them up on the web, until such
time as they become available to the audience in some other form?
South Park gained a much larger audience due to RealVideo due to the fact that
many of its fan didn't get cable, or their local cable company didn't carry
Comedy Central. And at the moment, I don't really see how doing this could cause
any harm.
-==Kensu==-
Jms at B5
>don't known when (or ever) we'll see them on video, would you give us the
>permission to encode the Crusade episodes and put them up on the web, until
>such
>time as they become available to the audience in some other form?
No, because I can't give that permission, the show is owned by WB, and that
would be massive copyright infringement, and deny actors their residuals.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Tammy Smith
copyright-thing is pretty strict. So if they won't show episodes at a
con, they certainly won't show them online!
Tammy
J. Potts
Actually, the way to get around it at a con is to make the viewing open to
anyone walking by regardless of whether they have a membership or not. Then
it just becomes someone and 200 of his (or her) closest friends viewing it
together. I've been to several cons that have video rooms that have operated
in this way as a means of getting around that sort of prohibition (not
specifically for B5 but for videos in general).
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Iain Rae
> In article <26382-37F...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> Tammy Smith <gka...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>We couldn't even show B5 episodes at Agamemcon when I was there. The
>>copyright-thing is pretty strict. So if they won't show episodes at a
>>con, they certainly won't show them online!
> Actually, the way to get around it at a con is to make the viewing open to
> anyone walking by regardless of whether they have a membership or not. Then
> it just becomes someone and 200 of his (or her) closest friends viewing it
> together. I've been to several cons that have video rooms that have operated
> in this way as a means of getting around that sort of prohibition (not
> specifically for B5 but for videos in general).
Ermm not in the UK, the copyright statement in the uk does not allow you to
broadcast the material, the definition of broadcast being showing it to
(from memory) 5+ people,
I would strongly suspect that it's the same where you are, unless you have
local laws which limit copyright. In fact I think you'll find that even
lending the video to a friend is a breack of copyright.
Historically, in the UK, the only way to get round the copyright act is
to get both houses of Parliament to believe in Fairies (and we're not
talking about Mr Portillo).
J. Potts
Tammy Smith <gka...@webtv.net> wrote:
>We couldn't even show B5 episodes at Agamemcon when I was there. The
>copyright-thing is pretty strict. So if they won't show episodes at a
>con, they certainly won't show them online!
J. Potts <nav...@xnet.com> wrote:
> Actually, the way to get around it at a con is to make the viewing open to
> anyone walking by regardless of whether they have a membership or not. Then
> it just becomes someone and 200 of his (or her) closest friends viewing it
> together. I've been to several cons that have video rooms that have operated
> in this way as a means of getting around that sort of prohibition (not
> specifically for B5 but for videos in general).
In article <7tanj5$kvu$1...@glencoe.hw.ac.uk>,
Iain Rae <ia...@rm322a.civ.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>Ermm not in the UK, the copyright statement in the uk does not allow you to
>broadcast the material, the definition of broadcast being showing it to
>(from memory) 5+ people,
>I would strongly suspect that it's the same where you are, unless you have
>local laws which limit copyright. In fact I think you'll find that even
>lending the video to a friend is a breack of copyright.
>
>Historically, in the UK, the only way to get round the copyright act is
>to get both houses of Parliament to believe in Fairies (and we're not
>talking about Mr Portillo).
U.S. laws aren't generally as strict as those in the UK, nor do they seem
to be as strictly interpreted. IIRC in the UK you're suppose to erase a
tape of any recorded broadcast program after 10 days. We have no such
stricture in the U.S. Also, I've yet to find any place where it says that
a person can't loan a tape they legally own to someone else. They can't
(legally) make a copy of the tape for another person (though it's highly
unlikely they'd be prosecuted if they did since the legal system is generally
only interested in large scale violations of that aspect of the law).
The extent to which copyright law is applied to the owner of the copyright
can, in many instances be a mutable thing in the U.S. The U.S. legal system
is constantly reversing itself in the interpretation of the law, appellate
courts overturning lower courts, Supreme court over turning appellate
courts, etc.
In some cases, there is no clear line established and until someone challenges
the law, it's difficult to delineate what's right and what's wrong. Heck
even if there *is* a fine interpretation, that won't necessarily stop someone
from taking the issue to court and possibly getting the law changed.
Iain Rae
> In article <26382-37F...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> Tammy Smith <gka...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>We couldn't even show B5 episodes at Agamemcon when I was there. The
>>copyright-thing is pretty strict. So if they won't show episodes at a
>>con, they certainly won't show them online!
>>Historically, in the UK, the only way to get round the copyright act is
>>to get both houses of Parliament to believe in Fairies (and we're not
>>talking about Mr Portillo).
> U.S. laws aren't generally as strict as those in the UK, nor do they seem
> to be as strictly interpreted. IIRC in the UK you're suppose to erase a
> tape of any recorded broadcast program after 10 days. We have no such
I've not heard of that one, I know a UK comedian (well Bob Monkhouse)
was taken to court some years ago over his video Collection (he'd been taping
programmes from before the first VCR's appeared) and he won on the basis
they were for his own use as a reference, I also seem to remember that
the marketing Dept. of the BBC freaked when they got a listing as he had
material they'd been looking for for years.
> stricture in the U.S. Also, I've yet to find any place where it says that
> a person can't loan a tape they legally own to someone else. They can't
> (legally) make a copy of the tape for another person (though it's highly
> unlikely they'd be prosecuted if they did since the legal system is generally
> only interested in large scale violations of that aspect of the law).
>From the copyright notice on River of Souls:
".....Any unauthorised copying, editing, exibition, renting, lending, public
performance, diffusion and/or broadcast of this VHS or any part thereof is
strictly prohibited......"
I've seen other notices list example venues (buses, oilrigs etc).
Personally I think that WB are doing themselves no favours in blocking the
material being shown at cons which are run for charity or where any profits
go to charity. It helps broaden the audience and it's poor PR when it's
announced that "X has been pulled because the big bad men at WB/whoever
have said no" for me this passes onto guilds/unions/whatever if they're the
ones being sticky. Hell the politicians will bend over backwards to bend the
rules if it's "For charity or in a good cause" and I'm cynical enough
to know that there's a goodly percentage doing it becuase it makes them
look good.
"For profit" cons.....well you wants to be in business you pays the going
rate for a license, you can't afford the license you don't do it.
Jms at B5
>material being shown at cons which are run for charity or where any profits
>go to charity. It helps broaden the audience and it's poor PR when it's
>announced that "X has been pulled because the big bad men at WB/whoever
>have said no" for me this passes onto guilds/unions/whatever if they're the
>ones being sticky.
>Hell the politicians will bend over backwards to bend the
>rules if it's "For charity or in a good cause" and I'm cynical enough
>to know that there's a goodly percentage doing it becuase it makes them
>look good.
Except, of course, that a number of conventions use the charity flag to cover a
multitude of sins, often illegitimately...which also compromises the cons that
ARE sincerely raising money for charity. And that a con is giving money to a
charity doesn't really mitigate the legalities involved; if I steal your car,
sell it, and give the money to charity, the government isn't going to go
"awwww" and let it go because the money ended up in a worthwhile cause.
A secondary concern is that if ANY kind of money is involved, for a group
screening, it can be legally constituted as a theatrical exhibition if any of
the actors or others involved choose to press the point. In fact, that
happened to WB, after an episode of Lois and Clark was screened at a con. One
of the actors apparently took the position that this was a theatrical
exhibition, and if you show a TV program in a theatrical venue, it triggers
*substantial* payments per the various unions involved...and in this particular
case, it cost WB in the vicinity of six figures.
J. Potts
Iain Rae <ia...@rm322a.civ.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>Personally I think that WB are doing themselves no favours in blocking the
>material being shown at cons which are run for charity or where any profits
>go to charity. It helps broaden the audience and it's poor PR when it's
>announced that "X has been pulled because the big bad men at WB/whoever
>have said no" for me this passes onto guilds/unions/whatever if they're the
>ones being sticky. Hell the politicians will bend over backwards to bend the
>rules if it's "For charity or in a good cause" and I'm cynical enough
>to know that there's a goodly percentage doing it becuase it makes them
>look good.
>
>rate for a license, you can't afford the license you don't do it.
What you're talking about is where the members of the con (who must pay
a membership fee) are given the right to view the work at the con. The
sort of thing I was talking about is a video room that runs video after
video for anyone who walks by whether they're attending the con or not.
No money is required and attendance to these aren't generally that large
(at least it never seemed like more than a dozen or so people whenever
I checked it out). Granted this may be pushing the limits of legality
a bit. It's not unlike a fan having a party in his/her room that anyone
walking by can join and running videos during the party.
When money is exchanged in order to view the video at a con, then you've
got what counts as strictly a public performance of the video. You've
not received permission from the owner of the video or all the performers
(who normally get a residual from public performances of their work) to
do this. In this respect, you're denying them their income.
Someone who gives away copies of a broadcast to others is also denying
the owners of the broadcast income. Now if you do it for a couple of
friends it's highly unlikely that you'll get in trouble for it. (Just
as it's highly unlikely that you'll get into trouble lending your
copy of a videotape to a friend). However, if you advertise the fact
that you'll do it for anybody who sends you a blank tape, then you're
much more likely to get prosecuted because these people won't be buying
the commercially produced tape which provides revenue for the owner of
the material. In large enough quantities, this means a substantial loss
of income for the owner of the copyright. The same goes for lending a
video tape out to a large number of people. Generally, you're not going
to get into trouble unless you're doing it in substantial numbers and/or
advertising that you'll do it for anybody who asks.
As for bad PR, it's not like WB has either asked for or wanted your
"assistance" in promoting their material. WB is protecting itself from
getting into hot water with the actors who aren't getting their contracted
residuals for a public broadcast.
J Bertilson
for it at other peoples expense. The film, video has already been made and people
compensated. This is a prime example why I will never support Pay-per-view nor buy
a video (sorry JMS) even though I love B5.
J. Potts
J Bertilson <Jim.Be...@qm.yale.edu> wrote:
>This is just another example of people suing to grab a buck without having
>to work for it at other peoples expense. The film, video has already been
>made and people compensated.
Uh, what you may fail to realize is that by contract actors make residuals
on every broadcast of a show that they are in even if it's being broadcast
on cable TV. It's how they can continue to eat when they aren't employed.
Acting, by it's nature is very transitory. You are contracted on a piece
by piece basis with no guarentee that 1) the show will continue to be
produced, 2) they'll keep you on the show and 3) that you'll find another
job after you've finished. Without the residuals it would be very hard for
a lot of actors to continue to make a living. In reality it's not unlike
an author continuing to make money on sales of his/her book. Most
publishers give the author an advance. Once they've recouped that money,
then the writer shares in the continuing profits. Besides, who would you
rather the money go to, the studio execs or the actors who did all the
work?
>This is a prime example why I will never
>support Pay-per-view nor buy a video (sorry JMS) even though I love B5.
I suppose that means you never watch a re-run of show that's been put in
syndication either? The actor is getting paid for those additional
broadcasts.
Iain Rae
>>Personally I think that WB are doing themselves no favours in blocking the
>>material being shown at cons which are run for charity or where any profits
>>go to charity. It helps broaden the audience and it's poor PR when it's
>>announced that "X has been pulled because the big bad men at WB/whoever
>>have said no" for me this passes onto guilds/unions/whatever if they're the
>>ones being sticky.
>>Hell the politicians will bend over backwards to bend the
>>rules if it's "For charity or in a good cause" and I'm cynical enough
>>to know that there's a goodly percentage doing it becuase it makes them
>>look good.
> Except, of course, that a number of conventions use the charity flag to cover a
> multitude of sins, often illegitimately...which also compromises the cons that
> ARE sincerely raising money for charity.
I can't argue that there arent crooks out there, all you can do is report
the buggers and hope the local Fraud squad will do something about it.
>And that a con is giving money to a
> charity doesn't really mitigate the legalities involved; if I steal your car,
> sell it, and give the money to charity, the government isn't going to go
> "awwww" and let it go because the money ended up in a worthwhile cause.
Not quite the model I had in mind :)
I'm not in the car business, I'm a sysadmin/sometime programmer, I've worked
gratis for local schools/charities in the past and would do again. Some of
the stuff I've written I've GLP'd and yes I suppose I would reach for
the lawyers if someone violated any licenses.
If you were going to do something like this you'd have to do it properly
with permissions, waivers etc.
I guess the Hacker ethic doesn't run strong with the TV execs, though most of
the artistic folk seem to measure up fairly well.
What I'm trying to say is that as it stands everyone loses out,
(sorry, got distracted Scotland have actually scored against Bosnia)
there's no way fan led events can afford performance licenses so they don't
show tapes or risk the alternatives, whoever is marketing the vidoes is
losing a chance at showing their wares to the ideal audience as do the
performers.
I guess it boils down to the fact that WB/whoever find it more cost effective
to crack down ( or turn a blind eye to) such happenings.
And yes, I am hopelessly idealistic :)
> A secondary concern is that if ANY kind of money is involved, for a group
> screening, it can be legally constituted as a theatrical exhibition if any of
> the actors or others involved choose to press the point. In fact, that
> happened to WB, after an episode of Lois and Clark was screened at a con. One
> of the actors apparently took the position that this was a theatrical
> exhibition, and if you show a TV program in a theatrical venue, it triggers
> *substantial* payments per the various unions involved...and in this particular
> case, it cost WB in the vicinity of six figures.
Ouch , so the person involved is paying it off at how many $ per month for
the next 500 years?
Iain Rae
>>Personally I think that WB are doing themselves no favours in blocking the
>>material being shown at cons which are run for charity or where any profits
>>go to charity. It helps broaden the audience and it's poor PR when it's
>>announced that "X has been pulled because the big bad men at WB/whoever
>>have said no" for me this passes onto guilds/unions/whatever if they're the
>>ones being sticky. Hell the politicians will bend over backwards to bend the
>>rules if it's "For charity or in a good cause" and I'm cynical enough
>>to know that there's a goodly percentage doing it becuase it makes them
>>look good.
>>
>>rate for a license, you can't afford the license you don't do it.
> What you're talking about is where the members of the con (who must pay
> a membership fee) are given the right to view the work at the con. The
> sort of thing I was talking about is a video room that runs video after
> video for anyone who walks by whether they're attending the con or not.
Which in the UK would be classified as broadcasting and you'd still be in
violation of copyright.
> No money is required and attendance to these aren't generally that large
> (at least it never seemed like more than a dozen or so people whenever
> I checked it out). Granted this may be pushing the limits of legality
> a bit. It's not unlike a fan having a party in his/her room that anyone
> walking by can join and running videos during the party.
> When money is exchanged in order to view the video at a con, then you've
> got what counts as strictly a public performance of the video.
ISTR it's not that simple, if any money changes hands with the people
involved with showing the videos (i.e. if the con is selling T-shirts)
then it mght be classed as a public performance (witness the debacle with
the ITB premier in the UK) for the same reason I believe you need to have
a performance license to show TV in pubs etc. For that matter one of the
explicit examples I gave was an oil rig, I've never known anyone actually
charge to get onto an oil rig :)
>You've
> not received permission from the owner of the video or all the performers
> (who normally get a residual from public performances of their work) to
> do this. In this respect, you're denying them their income.
which is not something I'd advocate or encourage.
> As for bad PR, it's not like WB has either asked for or wanted your
> "assistance" in promoting their material. WB is protecting itself from
> getting into hot water with the actors who aren't getting their contracted
> residuals for a public broadcast.
word of mouth is the only assistance I can give and historically word of
mouth is the one type of publicity you can't afford.
J. Potts
Iain Rae <ia...@rm322a.civ.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>ISTR it's not that simple, if any money changes hands with the people
>involved with showing the videos (i.e. if the con is selling T-shirts)
>then it mght be classed as a public performance (witness the debacle with
>the ITB premier in the UK) for the same reason I believe you need to have
>a performance license to show TV in pubs etc. For that matter one of the
>explicit examples I gave was an oil rig, I've never known anyone actually
>charge to get onto an oil rig :)
I read that the US recently found in favor of small business owners not
having to pay a licensing fee to play TV or radio. It appllied to
restaurants and abars under 3,750 square feet or retail establishments
under 2,000 square feet. Also, regardless of size all restarants and
bars that have no more than 6 external speakers total with no more
than four per room or 4 televisions total with no more than 1 per room
will be exempt from paying fees. They added these rules to the new term
extentions law that was recently passed.
Paul Harper
>We couldn't even show B5 episodes at Agamemcon when I was there. The
>copyright-thing is pretty strict. So if they won't show episodes at a
>con, they certainly won't show them online!
This whole "can't show episodes at a convention" is such a short-sighted
policy. I *know* there are rules formed by the various trade unions to
protect their members, and these are fine, but in the case of fan-run
conventions - quite frequently run for charitable reasons - there surely
has to be a good case for making exceptions.
Over here in the UK we have celebrated significant live transmissions of
both Babylon 5 and Crusade by gathering together and watching these
tranmissions "en masse". It's a wonderful experience, and in no way hurts
sales of the shows in question, or video tapes of them either.
A real missed marketing opportunity, all in all. :-(
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality.
"I don't want your proof. Not interested"
Yet another inaccurate SFX quote.
(E_Mail: Remove "NOSPAM" from e-mail address when replying)
Corun MacAnndra
>
>Iain Rae <ia...@rm322a.civ.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Historically, in the UK, the only way to get round the copyright act is
>>to get both houses of Parliament to believe in Fairies (and we're not
>>talking about Mr Portillo).
>
>U.S. laws aren't generally as strict as those in the UK, nor do they seem
>to be as strictly interpreted.
[snip]
>In some cases, there is no clear line established and until someone challenges
>the law, it's difficult to delineate what's right and what's wrong. Heck
>even if there *is* a fine interpretation, that won't necessarily stop someone
>from taking the issue to court and possibly getting the law changed.
And the punchline of that old joke is the lawyer saying, "Who do you think
invented the chaos?"
Corun
Snibor Eoj
>Actually, the way to get around it at a con is to make the viewing open to
>anyone walking by regardless of whether they have a membership or not. Then
>it just becomes someone and 200 of his (or her) closest friends viewing it
>together. I've been to several cons that have video rooms that have operated
>in this way as a means of getting around that sort of prohibition (not
>specifically for B5 but for videos in general).
While this may or may not be technically legal (I'm not going to argue the
legal merits; I'd have no idea what I was talking about), what about the
moral issue?
Some time along the trail, people seem to have gotten the idea that it's
perfectly OK to screw a corporation, because they're big, so they don't
deserve respect, they don't have rights. Where did this mindset come
from?
For better or worse, WB owns Babylon 5, and it's up to them to decide
whether or not they want episodes to be shown at a con. If they decide
no, then it's their property, and their decision, and it just shouldn't be
shown.
A good parallel is on my mind because it's very recent, and it's a company
I care about: Last week, a couple of rumor sites posted pictures
purported to be the next generation iMacs. Apple immediately responded to
those sites, legally requesting that they remove these images
immediately. The sites did so, but the uproar from some readers was
shocking. There were actually people who claimed Apple had no right to
make the request! I couldn't believe it...
It's all good and well to want to protect the individual consumer from
getting fleeced by the big corporations; at the same time, though, we
need to remember that the corporations have rights too, and we can't just
go in and take advantage of them either. Hold them accountable when they
break the law, but respect their rights when they are within the law. If
you're not willing to do that, then what gives you the right to claim the
protections of the law yourself?
Snibor Eoj
jmro...@inch.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a member of the Non-Sequitur Association of America
There are three types of people in the world:
1) Those who can count.
2) Penguins.
J Bertilson
"J. Potts" wrote:
> I suppose that means you never watch a re-run of show that's been put in
> syndication either? The actor is getting paid for those additional
> broadcasts.
>
Not very many and only if I don't have to pay for them directly. Indirectly we
all pay through advertising for broadcast TV whether we watch or not, so I
don't count that.
Piers
J. Potts <nav...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> The same goes for lending a
> video tape out to a large number of people. Generally, you're not going
> to get into trouble unless you're doing it in substantial numbers and/or
> advertising that you'll do it for anybody who asks.
>
Excuse me?? Are you trying to say that if I validly purchased a commercial
tape and lent it to a friend or all of my friends so they could view it,
that the act of lending it is illegal?
I think not. If I choose to lend the commercial tape I own to others to
view it this does not break ANY copyright laws as the viewee does not retain
possession of the tape. I am not publicly broadcasting it, nor charging for
this service. Actually though, this is the very principle that a rental
store is based on. In fact in that case, they even charge for "lending" it.
If I choose to start a free lending service, such as a public library would
do, this would break no copyright laws as long as no copies are made and
distributed.
((This is stated hypothetically since I am a greedy bastard who hoards all
my (commercial) B5 tapes and would not let them out of my hands even if my
saintly mother wanted to watch them ... but I digress.))
Jaimie Winn
"This is a prime example why I will never support Pay-Per-View or buy a
video..."
Do you also refuse to buy any books or CD's (the author/artist got
paid an advance, how dare they expect to earn any royalties)?
J Bertilson also wrote:
"This is just another example of people suing to grab a buck without
having to work for it at other people's expense."
You need to check your premises.
Chris
Paul Harper
>Which in the UK would be classified as broadcasting and you'd still be in
>violation of copyright.
Unless you'd got the appropriate entertainment licence (like many pubs
have) in which case you'd be covered, I think. Big grey area!! <g>
Iain Rae
> J. Potts <nav...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>> The same goes for lending a
>> video tape out to a large number of people. Generally, you're not going
>> to get into trouble unless you're doing it in substantial numbers and/or
>> advertising that you'll do it for anybody who asks.
>>
> Excuse me?? Are you trying to say that if I validly purchased a commercial
> tape and lent it to a friend or all of my friends so they could view it,
> that the act of lending it is illegal?
According to the Copyright blurb on the back of River of Souls yes.
> I think not. If I choose to lend the commercial tape I own to others to
> view it this does not break ANY copyright laws as the viewee does not retain
> possession of the tape. I am not publicly broadcasting it, nor charging for
> this service. Actually though, this is the very principle that a rental
> store is based on. In fact in that case, they even charge for "lending" it.
> If I choose to start a free lending service, such as a public library would
> do, this would break no copyright laws as long as no copies are made and
> distributed.
But AFAICR authors are paid royalties based on the number of times books are
lent (at least they are in the UK) I imagine it's the same position with
videos somehow and again you'd be in breach of copyright.
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: But AFAICR authors are paid royalties based on the number of times books are
: lent (at least they are in the UK)
Not in the US.
: I imagine it's the same position with
: videos somehow and again you'd be in breach of copyright.
However, there's no violation of any law in the US in lending a single
copy of a book to anyone.
--
Copyright 1999 by Gary Farber; For Hire as: Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; Northeast US