B5 Bootleg Ethics...
MikeDuell
question, however, the ferocity some on this newsgroup display on the issue of
B5 blooper bootlegs.
Allow me to elaborate so I am not being misunderstood. If I go see a movie,
such as Tom Hanks' CASTAWAY, I know that it will come out on video, which I can
then purchase. I will not buy some poor quality bootleg of the movie filmed by
someone in an empty theatre with a bouncy video camera. If I hear a great new
U2 song on the radio, I can go buy the CD, as opposed to taping a poorly
sounding copy of it off the radio. If I am made aware of a great new book, I
can go and buy it or borrow it from the library.
As it pertains to B5, I Love the series, and have purchased the episodes on
videotape, have recorded them off TV, and will buy the DVDs when released.
The question I present is this, why is it so evil to own a copy of the B5
bootlegs? It's in a sense a rhetorical question, as my brother is a patent
attorney, and has argued the legal matters with me on several occasions. I
understand the legalities, which in effect answer the question, though I must
state that, though I disagree with the selling of bootlegs, I don't see why
it's wrong to own the B5 bloopers.
Unlike all of the aforementioned examples, I cannot go out and purchase the
bloopers at Borders, Amazon, or thestation.com. The only means to viewing
them, was when jms would tour and attend sci-fi conventions. Unfortunately, he
no longer attends Marcon, which I used to attend because of the Babylon 5
appearances. I am left to no other option but to obtain and cherish the copy
of the bootleg bloopers tape. I do not own one, but have recently borrowed a
copy from someone, and I Loved every moment of watching it. I'm hopeful that
they will be included on the DVDs, but if they're not, why is it wrong to want
a copy for a personal collection? Again, I know the legalities, and know the
Napster arguments of stealing creative property. How can one steal it though,
if Warner Brothers or anyone else isn't making money off of it already?
I am throwing out these questions, much like a wolf howls at the moon. In a
sense, I know the answer, but am frustrated by it. I know that a lot of my
argument attempts to justify the means by the end. Flame away if You'd like,
and if You're so inclined, You may call me an "idiot." Trust me, I already
know my limitations. Ultimately, I wish the bloopers would be released by
means of some medium, even the Internet. They're a treasure for those who are
fans of the show, and open our eyes to the fun and the friendship shared by the
cast. Am I asking for too much?
Michael
<><
JBONETATI
industry is "Money".
Why aren't the bloopers available? Too expensive basically, to pay the actors
for what is a valuable collectable to only a few of us.
Why is it wron to buy one of the bootlegs? Because it's effectively stealing
from the actors and the people who put the reels together as a gift to the
other cast and crew since they won't get paid for what has become a commercial
item.
No flame from me. In fact, I ran across one of the auctions that was doing the
CCG with 'free' blooper tape in the last minute of the auction early last year,
misread the ad and thought that it was a legit copy of the tape and won the
bid. I was wrong, even though I never intended to buy a bootleg.
I, too, would love to see some of them 'in context' along with the episode that
the errors happened in.
Jan
B5 Merlen
>"Bootleg Ethics" is an oxymoron, and I offer no arguments to dispute it. I
>do
>question, however, the ferocity some on this newsgroup display on the issue
>of
>B5 blooper bootlegs.
<<Some snippage>>>The question I present is this, why is it so evil to own a
copy of the B5
>bootlegs? It's in a sense a rhetorical question, as my brother is a patent
>attorney, and has argued the legal matters with me on several occasions. I
>understand the legalities, which in effect answer the question, though I must
>state that, though I disagree with the selling of bootlegs, I don't see why
>it's wrong to own the B5 bloopers.
Hmmm. I understand your point. Allow me to elaborate my position. I,
personally, don't have a problem with someone who owns a copy having it. I
actually have a copy of the first two seasons of the bloopers that I bought at
a convention from someone selling them. I asked the person specifically if the
tape was a bootleg and he assured me it was a legal copy. Has a nice official
looking cover on it and was being sold at a convention with a significant
number of Babylon 5 people at it. It wasn't until 2 years later that I found
out it was a bootleg copy. When I offered to send the tape back to B5
productions, I was told I could keep it. I had paid for it, after all. I was
also told that, even though I had paid for it, that still doesn't give me the
right to sell it, make copies of it, etc. I understood, of course.
Now, where's my problem? My problem is with those selling the tapes, not those
buying them. Especially those people who I know have been told that their
product is illegal or already know it. For example; one person had as a title
of their auction "Bootleg copy of Babylon 5 bloopers". Another, more recent
one, is selling a blooper trading card for far more than it's worth and adding
as a bonus a copy of the bloopers cause they know they can't sell it. They say
so in their description for the auction. They say something like "I'm giving it
away cause I can't sell em."
I do hope people won't support these people by buying their product. I tend to
think that a person wouldn't keep selling a product if no one is buying. They
have to pay to advertise on eBay. I have given up on Warner Brothers ever
caring that people are selling these tapes. It's almost like they are looking
the other way to get the fans off their backs about making an official copy of
the bloopers. Note: I'm not saying that's what they're doing. It just seems
that way to me.
Well, this ended up longer than I planned. Thanks for listening.
B5Merlen
John Hudgens (Fenn)
About the B5 bloopers - you were never intended to ever own them...
they were done as an in-house party presentation for the cast and crew,
and it was only through the good graces of Joe or whoever showed them
that you were allowed to see them... but that's it as far as your
"entitlement" to them is concerned...
It's the same with my B5 music videos that I did for Joe... people
were *never* intended to own them... I did them for Joe's presentation
at conventions; that's it (except for when I'm asked to show them
<g>)... I certainly consider it stealing when I discover a dealer
selling tapes with my B5 videos, my work on them that I had no say-so
in; I've gotten quite a few dealers kicked out of conventions because of
that...
Just because something is out there doesn't mean you're entitled to
it...
Fenn
Jms at B5
>bloopers at Borders, Amazon, or thestation.com.
>of the bootleg bloopers tape.
>they will be included on the DVDs, but if they're not, why is it wrong to
>want
>a copy for a personal collection?
Okay, so lets say I want your car, but you don't want to sell it to me. By the
logic above, it's okay for me to steal it, as long as I'm not making any money
out of it and it's for my own personal collection of cars.
These tapes were made for the cast and crew in-house as a special gift to them.
A way to have fun at the wrap parties. In that respect they are very personal
to all of us involved. To have people making copies and selling them illegally
is just to tarnish that aspect.
And you say you want a copy..but the means of GETTING that copy 90% of the time
means somebody selling somebody else a copy, at 20-35 bucks a pop. This goes
into the hands of a crook. There is no other word for it. A person who takes
what is not there, duplicates it illegally, and pockets all the money, none of
which goes to the creative people and actors who made them.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
Eliyahu
"MikeDuell" <mike...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010420174936...@ng-de1.aol.com...
>
>
> The question I present is this, why is it so evil to own a copy of the B5
> bootlegs? It's in a sense a rhetorical question, as my brother is a
patent
> attorney, and has argued the legal matters with me on several occasions.
I
> understand the legalities, which in effect answer the question, though I
must
> state that, though I disagree with the selling of bootlegs, I don't see
why
> it's wrong to own the B5 bloopers.
>
> Napster arguments of stealing creative property. How can one steal it
though,
> if Warner Brothers or anyone else isn't making money off of it already?
>
that it's still their property, whether or not they choose to market it. As
an example, I've written two SF novels, neither of which is currently in
print. I may or may not market them in the future. Either way, making copies
of them without my permission, selling them or giving them away, is still
theft and a violation of copyright law. The reason it's wrong to own the B5
bloopers is because the person from whom you get them is a thief who had no
right to them in the first place.
I agree that JMS "ought to" market the bloopers, but that's still not our
decision and all we can do is request and encourage him to do so. Meanwhile,
we should not buy them simply because we're decent and honest people and, to
quote Shelley Duval as "Olive Oyl" in the Popeye movie, "Wrong is wrong,
even if it helps you."
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
WRWhite963
offering a personal illustration of how I both don't always live up to my own
standards (who does, unless they have no standards) but how I try to still find
some middle ground to inhabit.
Most of my bootleg collection involves Paul McCartney music - hundreds of songs
which never see the light of day, some of them better than his official
releases. I used to go to record conventions and buy bootlegs, but stopped
after reading his opposition to the bootleg industry in several interviews.
The things cost too damned much anyway.
The middle ground? Over the years, having formed contacts with various fan
groups, I've participated in several "trees" - ways of setting up distribution
on a pre-determined basis for the cost of the materials involved and postage.
No handling, no money padding, just fans helping fans. We have among us all of
the bootleg material anyway - so distributing these bootlegged bootlegs
wonderfully cuts the legs out from under the bootleggers, who will charge
30-40$ for a single CD of material.
The only way this even remotely remains an honest pursuit of arcane material is
if I honor (and being a fan, it's a given - and only a fan would go to all of
this trouble, anyway) that whatever legitimate releases see the light of day,
even if I have the material in question, I buy them. For collectors this isn't
an issue.
I know it isn't an example of perfect morality - but I think it is an example
of trying to do things in a more honorable fashion. Honor among thieves, I
guess. So if anyone already has this material (especially in MP3 format or
Video-CD - easier to duplicate and ship) it seems like the thing to do for
people who are thinking of buying these materials is to first see if some
at-cost copy is available from another fan, and (the hard part) if this fails,
to not go ahead and buy the item from a bootlegger. Making it unprofitable to
bootleg is the only way to stop bootlegging.
Of course, the best answer is to put this material out somewhere. Perhaps in
the age of increased bandwidth people could just download the materials from
the creator, who could then charge of legitmate fee. In the case of the
blooper material you still have contract issues with actors, but perhaps
someday there will be a way to streamline the legal issues, making it cheaper
and easier to obtain agreements.
Before anybody gets enraged at some of these suggestions, I know a lot of this
is dreaming, but whether the solution isn't tenable now, it doesn't hurt to
mull over possibilities.
Just some thoughts,
Walter R. White
Andrew Swallow
at B5) writes:
>
>And you say you want a copy..but the means of GETTING that copy 90% of the
>time
>means somebody selling somebody else a copy, at 20-35 bucks a pop. This goes
>into the hands of a crook. There is no other word for it. A person who
>takes
>what is not there, duplicates it illegally, and pockets all the money, none
>of
>which goes to the creative people and actors who made them.
>
> jms
>
Lets do some arithmetic. I half remember that 'The Gathering'
is costing 100,000 dollars to prepare for DVD, so I assume that
the blooper tape would cost the same. Allow a small amount
$100,000 for royalties and $50,000 for raw materials and
distribution giving a total cost of $250,000
It is a specialist market, so If WB could only sell 2,000 copies
they would have to charge $250,000 / 2,000 = $125 each.
Not impossible but the price is a little high.
If the aim is to sell it at $30 each.
Allowing $5 per copy for manufacturing and distribution.
($100,000 + $100,000) / ($30 - $5) = 8,000 copies
Any chance that 8,000 copies of the blooper tape can be sold?
Andrew Swallow
Joseph DeMartino
for DVD, so I assume that the blooper tape would cost the same. Allow a
small amount $100,000 for royalties and $50,000 for raw materials and
distribution giving a total cost of $250,000 <
It cost $100,000 to *prep* "The Gathering" - a ninety minute movie - for
DVD. No one had actually turned out any discs. This was just the man-hours
cost of transferring, compressing and/or tweaking the audio and video. And
we don't know how far along in the process they were when JMS realized they
were working on the wrong version. That $100,000 may have been
burned-through before much actual work was accomplished. <g>
Warner Bros. already *owned* "The Gathering", everyone involved in it had
been paid, and there were contracts in place that covered home video and
royalties. The gag reels were created by and for the folks doing the show.
Warner Bros. doesn't own them. They have no rights to the material *at all*
and would have to negotiate a contract with each individual involved in
order to be able to use it. If even one major participant says, "No", the
idea is dead.
(There is also the small matter of *music* rights if they want to use the
music present on the existing reels.)
It isn't *simply* a matter of money. These things are, in effect, the home
movies of a family. If you and your family became famous and beloved in
your home town you *still* might not want the video where Uncle Phil had too
much eggnog at the Christmas party and sang "I'm Gonna Wash that Man Right
Out of My Hair" to be sold - or even given - to all your acquaintances. Not
even if *you* can sometimes be persuaded to pull it out and show it to
friends.
And a run of 8,000 copies would be idiotic. Economies of scale come into
play. There is certainly a much larger market than 8,000 copies for these
things so *if* Warner Bros. were to release them they would certainly make
more than 8,000 of them. But they would be much better served by putting th
em on the DVDs to entice people who already own the show on VHS and LD to
buy them again. Releasing them on a stand-alone disc would *discourage*
this.
But that ain't going to happen either, because JMS has made it abundantly
clear that the cast doesn't *want* the bloopers released. They have not
only the power, but the *right* to take that position.
Regards,
Joe
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Hopefully, the bloopers will make it onto some of the DVDs, which we'll be
able to buy legally.
Mac Breck
----------------
Vorlon Empire
Defender of Marcus and Lennier
Watch "CRUSADE"
8 PM on The Sci-Fi Channel
Mon-Thurs. in April 2001, beginning 4/9
Brian Stinson
frankly have little interest in bloopers anyway. Just arguing for the sake
of arguing.
I don't think your stolen car argument carries much weight, because if
someone steals your car they are depriving you of your property ( meaning
you no longer have your car ).
No matter how many bootleg copies are made of these bloopers, you still have
your copy. You are deprived of nothing, unless you plan to sell them
yourself at some point in the future, in which case your best defense is to
start selling them as soon as possible, as I think most people would rather
have a legal copy.
To me, the more interesting question is, was the source tape for these
bootlegs stolen or copied without the owners consent, or is one of the
persons to whom these tapes were given an active participant in the
bootlegging. If the source tape was stolen, then obviously it negates the
argument I made above. On the other hand, if the owner of the tape has
willingly given a copy then the above argument works in my opinion.
Again, I understand that copyright law is on your side, and it is not my
intention to advocate video piracy. Sometimes I just like to argue. ;-)
It also makes me wonder, do actors, as a rule, not like to have bloopers
seen by the public. I never thought about it, but do actors object to all
the various blooper shows on TV.
Derek Balling
(in message <20010420232301...@ng-fe1.aol.com>):
> Okay, so lets say I want your car, but you don't want to sell it to me. By
> the
> logic above, it's okay for me to steal it, as long as I'm not making any
> money
> out of it and it's for my own personal collection of cars.
No, more accurately, its like saying "I want a car just like your Chevy
Malibu" and finding someone on the grey market willing to build me a copy of
your Chevy Malibu that is of slightly lesser quality but is essentially a
copy. You aren't deprived of your Malibu, but I still get to have one.
The "theft analogy" for copyright protection always fails because depends on
depriving someone of their physical property, whereas with copyright
violations, the "original owner" isn't deprived of their property or their
right to sell it.
> These tapes were made for the cast and crew in-house as a special gift to
> them.
> A way to have fun at the wrap parties. In that respect they are very
> personal
> to all of us involved. To have people making copies and selling them
> illegally
> is just to tarnish that aspect.
If they were limited to cast and crew, and nobody else was given copies,
doesn't it stand to reason that their source MUST have been someone who was
given a copy? This is like Madonna screaming that her unreleased single made
it to the net as an MP3... instead of attacking the fans who want to share
something special to THEM, why not instead go after and violently kick the
ass of the guy who "let the beans out"?
> And you say you want a copy..but the means of GETTING that copy 90% of the
> time
> means somebody selling somebody else a copy, at 20-35 bucks a pop. This goes
> into the hands of a crook. There is no other word for it. A person who
> takes
> what is not there, duplicates it illegally, and pockets all the money, none
> of
> which goes to the creative people and actors who made them.
If a person/company/whomever isn't willing to actually come up with a means
of compensating them, they can't be too terribly interested in actually
collecting the "damages". I think that 90-95% of the people who buy such
videos would HAPPILY pay full-retail-price (which WOULD go into the
appropriate pockets) if those appropriate-pocketed-people would make such a
means available.
Bootleg videos and abandonware fall into the same basic category of "morals"
for me (and for many others)... if <company> would make it available for
purchase legally, I'd happily pay it, and probably be willing to pay a
premium price, but if they're going to make it impossible to get, I have few
ethical issues with grey-market trading.
Copyright is designed, at its heart, to protect your right, as a content
creator, to make money off that content. It was NOT intended as a defense for
creating content and locking it away never to be seen again.
D
MikeDuell
>These tapes were made for the cast and crew in-house as a special gift to
them. A way to have fun at the wrap parties. In that respect they are very
personal to all of us involved. To have people making copies and selling them
illegally is just to tarnish that aspect.>
I do understand the legalities involved, and I do appreciate the fact that
those tapes were made for the cast and crew. My main issue is that these tapes
have been immensely popular with the fans. You've heard the reaction from the
fans at conventions to these tapes. I am hopeful, that much like the Beatles
did during their hugely popular ANTHOLOGY, that someday the B5 bloopers and
pranks will be made available to the fans that supported the show and made it a
success (unlike other quality shows like NOWHERE MAN). Not because we're
"entitled" to them, but because there is an honest demand, from people who will
appreciate them and cherish them almost as much as the cast and crew
themselves...
Michael
<><
Douglas Nicol
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010420232301...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> And you say you want a copy..but the means of GETTING that copy 90% of the
time
> means somebody selling somebody else a copy, at 20-35 bucks a pop. This
goes
> into the hands of a crook. There is no other word for it. A person who
takes
> what is not there, duplicates it illegally, and pockets all the money,
none of
> which goes to the creative people and actors who made them.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)
Someone at the Glasgow memorabilia fair last year was selling a blooper
tape. This was before I joined this newsgroup and learned at least the
basics regarding the legality, or lack of, of bloopers. They were wanting
Ł25-Ł30 for a one and a half hour tape, with only about 20 minutes of B5
bloopers on it. This was mixed in with bloopers from Star Trek and other
shows.
The problem I have, apart from the cost, is that if they EVER do become
legally available, say as DVD extras, we know we will be getting a quality
product. This person at the memorabilia fair, or people on an online
auction could be having a copy of a copy of copy and so on. The quality
will most likely be dubious, and probably on inferior video tape.
Douglas Nicol
E. John Roth III
While I agree with you - there is the problem that if you make something people
want and DON'T sell it, you have made Foldger's Instant Black Market. People WANT
the tapes and you said that there is no way in Hell they can get them legally. I am
sorry to say that it might be best that you don't make anymore of these at all.
They WILL find a market and that DOES weaken the copyright. Best not to take
chances.
E. John Roth III
(Who has been ripped off before)
Jeff Vavasour
the
> logic above, it's okay for me to steal it, as long as I'm not making any
money
> out of it and it's for my own personal collection of cars.
Being a part of anti-piracy discussions in other groups, the retort I've seen
others give to this argument is that you are not deprived of your car and so
the pro-piracy people therefore claim it cannot be equated with theft and that
the law is flawed in that regard.
For some reason, some people seem to disregard the rights of artists
completely. It's reminiscent of the debate that erupted in response to Harlan
Ellison's wish to have his works-in-progress destroyed upon his death. I
don't know why it is difficult for some people to grasp that there was effort
and intent behind a creative work and the rightful owner of that work has the
right to determine where and if it is distributed.
I mean, if, for example, a person wrote a deeply personal letter to a lover or
a friend, no matter how beautiful it might be, do people really believe that
the author has no right to demand that it *not* be available to others? Or
maybe people don't mind having a really embarrassing personal photo of
themselves posted on the Internet without their consent? (Bloopers are sort
of like embarrassing personal photos, you see. You might let close friends
see them, but does that give everyone the right?)
There are those who wouldn't have a problem with it, but it doesn't give them
the right to impose the same values on others. It really comes down to not
thinking beyond "I want" no matter how shrouded in a political stance it may
look.
> These tapes were made for the cast and crew in-house as a special gift to
them.
> A way to have fun at the wrap parties. In that respect they are very
personal
> to all of us involved. To have people making copies and selling them
illegally
> is just to tarnish that aspect.
....like finding that perfect personal gift for someone you care about, and
then having friends go "ooo, cool idea" and suddenly everyone's getting the
same thing.
- Jeff
Jeff Vavasour
"Jeff Vavasour" <je...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message news:...
> maybe people don't mind having a really embarrassing personal photo of
> themselves posted on the Internet without their consent? (Bloopers are sort
> of like embarrassing personal photos, you see. You might let close friends
> see them, but does that give everyone the right?)
Better yet, how would feel if said embarrassing photo turned up on sale
somewhere in poster form, without your knowledge, and upon finding out you
were told they had to sell it because you were unwilling to make it available
yourself for people to buy.
- Jeff
Per Abrahamsen
> Okay, so lets say I want your car, but you don't want to sell it to
> me. By the logic above, it's okay for me to steal it, as long as
> I'm not making any money out of it and it's for my own personal
> collection of cars.
My car was made by VW. You can direct your matter duplicator at my
car for all I care, but I assume VW would be angry and claim you
violates various design copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Instead,
they would prefer that you bought[1] an identical VW, the model _is_
available on the market you know.
I assume you were talking about using matter duplicator when you
talked about "stealing" the car for the analogy, right?
Footnotes:
[1] They probably would be willing to trade a brand new car for an
exclusive license to your matter duplicator technology, though.
Andrew Swallow
<jdem...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>[snip]
>And a run of 8,000 copies would be idiotic. Economies of scale come into
>play. There is certainly a much larger market than 8,000 copies for these
>things so *if* Warner Bros. were to release them they would certainly make
>more than 8,000 of them. [snip]
I would hope so. However it is nice to know that the break-even point
for a $30 film is so low.
Andrew Swallow
B5 Merlen
>> them.
>> A way to have fun at the wrap parties. In that respect they are very
>> personal
>> to all of us involved. To have people making copies and selling them
>> illegally
>> is just to tarnish that aspect.
>
>If they were limited to cast and crew, and nobody else was given copies,
>doesn't it stand to reason that their source MUST have been someone who was
>given a copy?
Um. To put it bluntly... Nope. Let's put it this way. Have you ever heard
of/seen those pirate copies of movies that have just been released? For
example: When Star Wars: The Phantom Menace came out, there were copies
available for sale within 24 hours of the movie hitting the theature. Have you
heard of how they were made? One of the most popular was people going in with a
camcorder and taping the movie right off the screen. Made for a poor copy, but
the fans sure were willing to pay for even a poor copy since they didn't want
to wait who knew how long. Would they still buy the tapes and/or DVD's when
they came out officially, probably. Did it make the selling of those pirate
copies legal/ alright to do? Definately not.
So, what does this have to do with the B5 blooper tapes? JMS and other
cast/crew from the show would bring a copy of the bloopers to conventions.
They'd show the tapes to the convention goers as a present for the years of
dedication to the show. Bootleggers would videotape the bloopers straight from
the screen and make copies to sell.
Another method used that I can think of right off the top of my head is if a
copy was auctioned off at a convention with the money going to charity. The
person bidding on the tape could then take the tape and make the copies to
sell. Rather like buying a copy of the Babylon 5 episodes that have been
released to the public and making a few hundred copies for your close friends.
Still piracy, of course.
Could somebody who was legally given the tape as a gift have let a friend
borrow it and it was copied from that? Sure. But the bottom line is, the making
of copies and selling of them is still piracy unless you own the rights to the
show. These people work to make the product and should be compensated for their
work. Just because the work isn't in a physical shape like a car doesn't make
it one iota less illegal to steal it.
Boy. I'm getting long winded lately. Thanks for listening. TC&SF.
B5Merlen
Rob Hayward
Vavasour <je...@physics.ubc.ca> writes
It couldn't be that embarrassing if you had already shown it to several
tens of thousands of people you don't know over the years at
conventions. You could not then claim that it was personal for no-one
else to see.
--
Rob
We ate for the one, we drank for the one.
,
,
,
We got fat for the one
Jeff Vavasour
news:sPKIU2Ak...@battleaxe.demon.co.uk...
> In article <PIjE6.8022$FG3.5...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>, Jeff
> Vavasour <je...@physics.ubc.ca> writes
> >somewhere in poster form, without your knowledge, and upon finding out you
> >were told they had to sell it because you were unwilling to make it
available
> >yourself for people to buy.
>
> It couldn't be that embarrassing if you had already shown it to several
> tens of thousands of people you don't know over the years at
> conventions. You could not then claim that it was personal for no-one
> else to see.
The analogy wasn't meant to be that literal. Just trying to set up a motive
for the rightful owner in which they wouldn't want the thing distributed.
- Jeff
Jms at B5
con, and when I went to get the tape back, I found that the guy running the
video equipment was secretly making a dub as he was playing the tape. We had
words.
Per Abrahamsen
> Being a part of anti-piracy discussions in other groups, the retort
> I've seen others give to this argument is that you are not deprived
> of your car and so the pro-piracy people therefore claim it cannot
> be equated with theft and that the law is flawed in that regard.
The point is that the analogue between theft of physical property and
unauthorized copying of intellectual property is flawed, and only
serve to confuse the issue.
The law does not regard unauthorized copying as theft. It is in many
cases illegal, but that doesn't make it theft. There are lots of
illegal actions that are not theft. Thus, the law does not suffer
from this particular flaw.
> For some reason, some people seem to disregard the rights of artists
> completely.
Among these, the people who created the US constitution. Copyright
law in the US exists to promote the progress of arts and science, not
to protect the rights of the artists.
Of course, one can argue that the artists *should* have some rights.
Preferable inalienable, so they can't be sold or otherwise given up.
European legal tradition support this. So does your examples.
But that does not justify calling unauthorized copying for theft.
Immoral and illegal, maybe, but theft, no.
Steve Fenwick
Balling <dr...@megacity.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 1:01:04 -0700, Jms at B5 wrote
> (in message <20010420232301...@ng-fe1.aol.com>):
> > These tapes were made for the cast and crew in-house as a special gift
> > to
> > them.
> > A way to have fun at the wrap parties. In that respect they are very
> > personal
> > to all of us involved. To have people making copies and selling them
> > illegally
> > is just to tarnish that aspect.
>
> If they were limited to cast and crew, and nobody else was given copies,
> doesn't it stand to reason that their source MUST have been someone who
> was
> given a copy? This is like Madonna screaming that her unreleased single
> made
> it to the net as an MP3... instead of attacking the fans who want to
> share
> something special to THEM, why not instead go after and violently kick
> the
> ass of the guy who "let the beans out"?
I think I agree with JMS on this one--if the intent of the tape was for
private, personal enjoyment, like a home movie, and never intended for
public display or commercial distribution (I'd include showing it at
cons as "public display"), then it's a private work. I do agree with
Derek that the responsibility for the leak lies with the original
recipient who let it out.
> Copyright is designed, at its heart, to protect your right, as a content
> creator, to make money off that content. It was NOT intended as a defense
> for
> creating content and locking it away never to be seen again.
This is the crux of the matter. There really should be a "publish or
public" clause to copyright--either make the content available via
publication/distribution, or it falls into the public domain, after some
reasonable (10 years?) amount of time. Just as it is wrong to deprive
the artists involved from potential royalties lost through piracy, it
also seems wrong to deprive them of royalties lost through refusal to
release a work, or at least the exposure of their work to the public.
Steve
--
Steve Fenwick ab...@w0x0f.com
Iain Rae
Per Abrahamsen <abr...@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
> @60,BfLv2@SKZ19cMWK0/C'v;tM:|6B'R}U1rp6CL&kN({9<zF/V{:JCg27yC)9oZjeqcQawzKfiNL
>
> t9}`vjmK["dRQC/qGFQq"%u|Q`:6{"Rz}b(dnl_"3$Jtqimi>|8MBp/
>Mail-Copies-To: nobody
>User-Agent: Gnus/5.090001 (Oort Gnus v0.01) Emacs/20.7
>X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>
> iQBVAwUBOuHXwj6fp/cCu9CRAQGSKgH/X7y86i4J0ObiiNOoKRQZXqWWp15ph2c0
>
> 6jjudROeCWoLq/+B7r+L+O9r1FYd+2xy7cua33aN3T1xW3IUXjuvVQ==
>
> =6zHk
>Xref: kane.dcs.ed.ac.uk rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated:154003
>
>jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>
>> Okay, so lets say I want your car, but you don't want to sell it to
>> me. By the logic above, it's okay for me to steal it, as long as
>> I'm not making any money out of it and it's for my own personal
>> collection of cars.
>
>My car was made by VW. You can direct your matter duplicator at my
>car for all I care, but I assume VW would be angry and claim you
>violates various design copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Instead,
>they would prefer that you bought[1] an identical VW, the model _is_
>available on the market you know.
>
>I assume you were talking about using matter duplicator when you
>talked about "stealing" the car for the analogy, right?
So who pays for all the parking tickets, you or JMS?
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: B5 Bootleg Ethics...
How about if selected bloopers were put on a DVD? e.g. Londo piloting the
shuttle down to Epsilon 3 (The 405). The one discussing General Hague's
absence. Franklin and Garibaldi discussing cwedits (skwewy wabbit). The
Londo and G'Kar Xmas one (Book of G'Kar at Narns & Noble). There's bound to
be a lot of innocent, side-splitting bloopers that could be put on a DVD.
Ah, it's probably more trouble than it's worth to select them though.
Jeff Vavasour
news:01HW.B706ECEC0...@news.megacity.org...
> Bootleg videos and abandonware fall into the same basic category of "morals"
> for me (and for many others)... if <company> would make it available for
> purchase legally, I'd happily pay it, and probably be willing to pay a
> premium price, but if they're going to make it impossible to get, I have few
> ethical issues with grey-market trading.
Well, you're chosing to be blind to the differences. There is a difference
between so-called "abandonware" -- something that *was* commercially available
and no longer is -- and the blooper reel which was *never* commercially
available.
You may want it, but you have no right to have it.
And, for the record, I even disagree with the whole abandonware (a.k.a.
orphanware) thing. I had some shareware I used to sell. When I stopped, I
didn't release the full version as freeware out of respect for the people who
*did* pay for it. It's my right.
I usually get into this argument over MAME and distribution of ROMs of old
video games.* People would try to make every argument about abandonware and
the like but somehow they didn't stick to their own rules because even games
that are still available commercially today -- more accurate than they appear
in MAME and more convenient packaged (and for the same platforms) -- were also
being distributed. People would hear of a release and ask when MAME was going
to start carrying the same games.
(*Or more accurately, I used to get into these arguments, but it had become
clear that no one who ever engaged in these arguments was ever going to change
their mind. I guess I'm back in a thread like this after all this time
because I figure the other side should be heard.)
And, why is distribution of the blooper reel grey-market anyway? It makes you
feel less guilty than saying "black market"? I mean, people can be charged
under the law for distributing protected works. Sounds black market to me.
There are even international sanctions in place against countries where piracy
is rampant.
> Copyright is designed, at its heart, to protect your right, as a content
> creator, to make money off that content. It was NOT intended as a defense
for
> creating content and locking it away never to be seen again.
And would you care to cite the facts to back up this claim? People have
successfully won court cases to protect *unpublished* works.
One of the most absurd statements I ever saw in one of these threads was
"information wants to be free"... like information was some suppressed
captive. We're talking about creative works from the minds of authors. It's
almost akin to saying you don't own your own thoughts. "You're creation was
too enticing for me to resist." It starts to sound like, "she was dressed too
provocatively for me to restrain myself."
- Jeff
Rob Hayward
Vavasour <je...@physics.ubc.ca> writes
>For some reason, some people seem to disregard the rights of artists
>completely. It's reminiscent of the debate that erupted in response to Harlan
>Ellison's wish to have his works-in-progress destroyed upon his death. I
>don't know why it is difficult for some people to grasp that there was effort
>and intent behind a creative work and the rightful owner of that work has the
>right to determine where and if it is distributed.
>
>I mean, if, for example, a person wrote a deeply personal letter to a lover or
>a friend, no matter how beautiful it might be, do people really believe that
>the author has no right to demand that it *not* be available to others? Or
>maybe people don't mind having a really embarrassing personal photo of
>themselves posted on the Internet without their consent? (Bloopers are sort
>of like embarrassing personal photos, you see. You might let close friends
>see them, but does that give everyone the right?)
But showing them to tens of thousands of fans at conventions can hardly
be called close friends. They have effectively showed them to the
public as anybody could buy a ticket to see the gag reels, do the actors
cannot have any reserve about the public seeing them. After all it will
only be the same fans who went to the conventions and those fans who
couldn't afford to.
If they are ever sold then please make them funnier, they may work as a
cast in-joke but personally I found them tedious, even Jeremy Beadle's
shows were funnier and that takes some doing.
If they will never be sold legally then no profit has been lost by
anyone. If they are shown to the public then they are not for close
friends only. Put both together and nobody has been harmed in any way
by their sale.
Jms at B5
>anyone. If they are shown to the public then they are not for close
>friends only. Put both together and nobody has been harmed in any way
>by their sale.
You're still not getting it.
You pay $30 bucks for a copy of the bloopers. To whom does that go? Does it
go to the actors, whose images you are looking at, who worked day and night to
create both the drama and the errors? No, it goes to a pirate.
Profit IS being made. And that profit by all rights belongs to the people who
worked hard to make it, not to the vultures out there who prey on both the
shows and the fans alike.
These people profit off something they never made, that they have no legal
right to, that they illegally obtained. That you do not have a problem with
that is profoundly astounding and disturbing.
Jms at B5
>cases illegal, but that doesn't make it theft. There are lots of
>illegal actions that are not theft. Thus, the law does not suffer
>from this particular flaw.
I'd like to know where you found this, because as I read copyright law, this is
also covered by the term "theft of intellectual property."
And I'd love to see you make the argument to a cop, "Well, no, what I was doing
wasn't THEFT, it was just ILLEGAL, so that's okay." Any judge in any court in
the country would laugh you out of the box. >> For some reason, some people
seem to disregard the rights of artists
>> completely.
>
>Among these, the people who created the US constitution. Copyright
>law in the US exists to promote the progress of arts and science, not
>to protect the rights of the artists.
Not true. Writers and artists have fought for ages to maintain and enhance
copyright laws for their protection. One of the foremost figures was Mark
Twain, who was in a constant battle to ensure that the copyright laws were
adhered to and expanded to protect his works. (Among his best quotes, "Any
time a copyright law is to be made or revised, the idiots assemble.")
The sole means by which a writer can make money from his work is by protecting
the use thereof. This is part of the big battle on the net...creative works
are not "data" to be freely transmitted, they are the property of the person
who created it.
You are not entitled to copy it for sale or distribution to others. Period.
Steve Fenwick
> Not true. Writers and artists have fought for ages to maintain and
> enhance
> copyright laws for their protection. One of the foremost figures was
> Mark
> Twain, who was in a constant battle to ensure that the copyright laws
> were
> adhered to and expanded to protect his works. (Among his best quotes,
> "Any
> time a copyright law is to be made or revised, the idiots assemble.")
>
> The sole means by which a writer can make money from his work is by
> protecting
> the use thereof. This is part of the big battle on the net...creative
> works
> are not "data" to be freely transmitted, they are the property of the
> person
> who created it.
>
> You are not entitled to copy it for sale or distribution to others.
> Period.
I'm curious about where you stand on:
1) Macrovision
2) DiVx (now defunct, of course; not DivX) vs. DVD
3) DMCA, and its (apparent) anti-"fair use" issues?
Jeffrey Gustafson
"I did a presentation at a con, and when I went to get the tape back, I
found that the guy running the video equipment was secretly making a dub
as he was playing the tape. We had words."
So... have they found the body yet?
-The Jeff
Sheridan:"So how did you find out all of this?"
Bester:"I'm a telepath. Work it out." <*>
E. John Roth III
Then in retrospect SHOWING them at ALL was a bad idea. It is one thing to show
something to two or three people and having it leak. Showing it at cons to
thousands of fans AND then not selling them ONLY invited the pirates. You lost
control over it - I don't see how you put it back in the bottle. I am not saying
it is right or just or legal - I am saying in the future if you what to keep these
kinda of thing private do not show them.
E. John Roth III
(And the people at PARC are still kicking themselves)
Jeff Vavasour
news:3AE27536...@oklahoma.net...
> Then in retrospect SHOWING them at ALL was a bad idea. It is one thing to
show
> something to two or three people and having it leak. Showing it at cons to
> thousands of fans AND then not selling them ONLY invited the pirates.
"Dressing provocatively like that only invited the attack."
- Jeff
JBONETATI
<<Then in retrospect SHOWING them at ALL was a bad idea. It is one thing to
show
something to two or three people and having it leak. Showing it at cons to
thousands of fans AND then not selling them ONLY invited the pirates. You lost
control over it - I don't see how you put it back in the bottle. I am not
saying
it is right or just or legal - I am saying in the future if you what to keep
these
kinda of thing private do not show them.>>
Oh, thanks loads! What you're saying is that it's JMS' fault that there are
bootlegs out there?! Invited piracy?? Again, that's like saying it was the
rape victims own fault for having dressed attractively. Wrong is wrong and
it's the doers fault, not the victims!
The blooper tapes were a *gift* to the cast and crew. JMS shared that gift
with the fans at cons as a tribute to the gift givers as well as it being a
gift to the fans.
And your 'solution' is for JMS to not show the tapes (or any other material I
assume) for fear of it being stolen by unscrupulous abusers? The world would
be a safer place if we all just huddled in our homes, too, since going out
'only' invites muggings and crime.
I agree with JMS. Astounding and disturbing.
Jan
E. John Roth III
Sorry I have had stuff stolen it is CODB.
E. John Roth III
Why the hell are ppl here connecting IPR with rape??? This really pisses me off. I
have had intellectual property stolen and I was raped twice. It is NOT the same
thing.
Andrew Swallow
>[snip]
>The sole means by which a writer can make money from his work is by
>protecting
>the use thereof. This is part of the big battle on the net...creative works
>are not "data" to be freely transmitted, they are the property of the person
>who created it.
>
The Pipe-piper of Hamlin (sp.) tells the story of people who did not pay their
bills.
Supported by some naive charities the South African Government has
removed the patent law from the Aids drugs. Patents only last 20 years
so the drugs must be near the end of their Intellectual Property Rights
life. Hence the money saved by this action is fairly small. The
consequences are also know. India did this a few years ago. The
drug companies do not research cures to diseases that occur in India
but do not occur in the First World.
Andrew Swallow
JBONETATI
<<Sorry I have had stuff stolen it is CODB.>>
Sorry, I don't know what CODB means.
Jan
JBONETATI
I'm sorry to hear that.
The analogy is still valid. You're insisting on blaming the victim for the
crime. We're not equating rape with piracy, we're pointing out that blaming the
victim for the crime, any crime, is wrong. Some people would also observe that
the theft of one's creation is as personal a violation as rape is.
Jan
Joseph DeMartino
me off. I have had intellectual property stolen and I was raped twice. It is
NOT the same thing. <
They AREN'T. They are comparing your "blame the victim" *argument* to the
equally absurd notion that rape victims "invite" rape.
> CODB <
So shoplifting is also not a crime. Interesting. Retailers treat *that* as
a "cost of doing business" but that doesn't make it moral, it doesn't make
it legal, and it doesn't make it OK for you to receive stolen property, even
if you aren't charged for it.
Regards,
Joe
Rob Hayward
Vavasour <je...@physics.ubc.ca> writes
>"Rob Hayward" <r...@battle-axe.org> wrote in message
>news:sPKIU2Ak...@battleaxe.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <PIjE6.8022$FG3.5...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>, Jeff
>> Vavasour <je...@physics.ubc.ca> writes
>> >Better yet, how would feel if said embarrassing photo turned up on sale
>> >somewhere in poster form, without your knowledge, and upon finding out you
>> >were told they had to sell it because you were unwilling to make it
>available
>> >yourself for people to buy.
>>
>> It couldn't be that embarrassing if you had already shown it to several
>> tens of thousands of people you don't know over the years at
>> conventions. You could not then claim that it was personal for no-one
>> else to see.
>
>The analogy wasn't meant to be that literal. Just trying to set up a motive
>for the rightful owner in which they wouldn't want the thing distributed.
I'm sure there are valid motives for people not to want to distribute
their IPR but if they have already shown it to tens of thousands and do
not plan to ever make any money from it or distribute it themselves then
I think you'd need a pretty convincing reason and I can't think of one.
Rob Hayward
<jms...@aol.com> writes
>>If they will never be sold legally then no profit has been lost by
>>anyone. If they are shown to the public then they are not for close
>>friends only. Put both together and nobody has been harmed in any way
>>by their sale.
>
>You're still not getting it.
In my previous missive I didn't discriminate between paid for bloopers
and somebody copying it for a friend. All I was trying to point out was
that the legitimate holders of the copyright have not lost anything,
either monetary or emotionally by the copying of a blooper reel.
However I do think that if nobody profits beyond their actual incurred
costs from bloopers then no harm has been done. This would include
videotape and packaging costs but not payment for any time spent in any
form whatsoever. Thus income=expenditure and people are doing it for
the love of the show.
I realise that this is a naive point of view and would rarely occur in
the real world outside of a friend doing it for a friend. I do not
condone pirates and never will.
>
>You pay $30 bucks for a copy of the bloopers. To whom does that go? Does it
>go to the actors, whose images you are looking at, who worked day and night to
>create both the drama and the errors? No, it goes to a pirate.
>
>Profit IS being made. And that profit by all rights belongs to the people who
>worked hard to make it
Yes profit is being made, but by refusing to distribute then the people
involved are effectively saying that they are either not interested in
the profit or that they couldn't make any profit if they did it
themselves. There is a difference between depriving one person from a
profit and allowing another to make one.
Also what is the percentage of the retail cost that goes back to an
actor. Of a £10 tape I suspect that less than 50p makes it back to the
actors, yet you are implying that all $30 should be returned to the
actors.
Query - Is it only the actors who get royalties or does everyone else
who participated such as the cameramen, sound engineers, editors,
directors... get a cut as well. If not why not as they probably put a
lot more work in than the actors.
>These people profit off something they never made,
As do the shops that sell legitimate copies.
>that they have no legal
>right to, that they illegally obtained.
I suspect your beef is that they have no legal right to the source but
should not the laws be made to benefit society as a whole as long as it
does not harm the individual. With bootleg bloopers not available
elsewhere no individual suffers, one individual profits and society
profits from having them available.
On a moral stance I have no problem, on a legal stance yes they should
not exist but too often laws are made which hinder society not promote
its welfare.
> jms
As I understand it laws are designed to protect the individual and
provide a benefit to the community at large. Copyright exists to ensure
that individuals get fair payment for their works and that those works
are made available to the public, hence the removal of copyright 50
years after the authors death.
Keith Wood
Jms at B5 wrote:
> Per wrote:
> >The law does not regard unauthorized copying as theft. It is in many
> >cases illegal, but that doesn't make it theft. There are lots of
> >illegal actions that are not theft. Thus, the law does not suffer
> >from this particular flaw.
>
> I'd like to know where you found this, because as I read copyright law, this is
> also covered by the term "theft of intellectual property."
Per is not in the US. There have been a number of conflicts in
translation of laws and treaties, and this may be such a case. As has
been noted in B5, even professional negotiators may not have even a
basic understanding of the culture to which they have been assigned.
In addition, there are often differentiations in degree of an unlawful
activity, such as when those Kennedys were found guilty of "sexual
battery" for offenses which in other states are considered rape. Thus,
the law which Per sees may have a division between what we call "theft
of intellectual property" and what his country calls theft.
Douglas Nicol
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010421235351...@ng-ms1.aol.com...
> You're still not getting it.
>
> You pay $30 bucks for a copy of the bloopers. To whom does that go? Does
it
> go to the actors, whose images you are looking at, who worked day and
night to
> create both the drama and the errors? No, it goes to a pirate.
>
> Profit IS being made. And that profit by all rights belongs to the people
who
> worked hard to make it, not to the vultures out there who prey on both the
> shows and the fans alike.
>
> These people profit off something they never made, that they have no legal
> right to, that they illegally obtained. That you do not have a problem
with
> that is profoundly astounding and disturbing.
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)
>
This is the reason II NEVER buy pirated music, computer games, or films.
Once in Glasgow, a man was being chased down the street by Trading Standards
officers, (I don't know the US equivalent) and one tape dropped. I picked
it up curious about it, and later listened to it on my stereo. The quality
of the copy was appalling, with a very flat monotone sound, and the tape
looked very dodgy. I binned it and later bought the CD.
I also don't buy pirated computer games becuase they are fairly near the
price of retail shop games, and the fact that enough game production
companies are being badly affected already. Every game I buy now, whether
new or used is an original.
An argument I once heard from someone trying to justify themselves at an
open air market was the following.
ME:"Are the tapes copies"
DEALER: "Well, they are all copies, there only IS one original"
Douglas
>
>
>
>
Derek Balling
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:23:03 -0700, Jeff Vavasour wrote
(in message <X5pE6.8083$FG3.6...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>):
> Well, you're chosing to be blind to the differences. There is a difference
> between so-called "abandonware" -- something that *was* commercially
> available
> and no longer is -- and the blooper reel which was *never* commercially
> available.
If I paid $x.xx for a ticket to <convention> for the purpose of seeing
<blooper_reel>, then by all means it WAS commercially available. I payed some
commercial entity for right of entry to a public showing of <blooper_reel>.
> You may want it, but you have no right to have it.
Under the current system, that's correct. I have no ethical problem at that
stage though with its distribution.
> And, for the record, I even disagree with the whole abandonware (a.k.a.
> orphanware) thing. I had some shareware I used to sell. When I stopped, I
> didn't release the full version as freeware out of respect for the people who
> *did* pay for it. It's my right.
It's your right, as it stands now, but its clearly NOT the intended purpose
of copyright, which is to protect your ability to capitalize on your
investment in time and energy, not so that you can keep something private
forever and ever.
> And, why is distribution of the blooper reel grey-market anyway? It makes
> you
> feel less guilty than saying "black market"? I mean, people can be charged
> under the law for distributing protected works. Sounds black market to me.
> There are even international sanctions in place against countries where
> piracy
> is rampant.
For me "black market" is for things where there aren't even tangible ethical
reasons for why the law prohibiting the sale shouldn't exist.
>> Copyright is designed, at its heart, to protect your right, as a content
>> creator, to make money off that content. It was NOT intended as a defense
> for
>> creating content and locking it away never to be seen again.
>
> And would you care to cite the facts to back up this claim? People have
> successfully won court cases to protect *unpublished* works.
There's a difference between "unpublished" and "formerly published"... if you
write something and choose to keep it private and show it only to selected
few, you have my express permission to do so. I wouldn't argue with that at
all. If you sell it / show it in a public forum, generate interest in it, and
then DON'T want to continue to capitalize on it, that to me is just sick and
wrong.
D
Per Abrahamsen
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
> >If they will never be sold legally then no profit has been lost by
> >anyone. If they are shown to the public then they are not for close
> >friends only. Put both together and nobody has been harmed in any way
> >by their sale.
>
> You're still not getting it.
>
> You pay $30 bucks for a copy of the bloopers. To whom does that go?
> Does it go to the actors, whose images you are looking at, who
> worked day and night to create both the drama and the errors? No,
> it goes to a pirate.
Bad argument. Compare the cases:
Rob buy bootleg blooper tape for US$30. Of these US$0 go to the actors.
Rob doesn't buy blooper tape for US$0. Of these US$0 go to the actors.
In both cases the actors are equally well off, but in the first case
Rob and bootlegger are more happy. From the look of it, a victimless
crime.
You further argue essentially "it is bad for the bootlegger to be
happy". Even if we agree on this, your logic would make it okay to
post the blooper tape widely on the net, so nobody would make a profit
off it.
The *real* argument isn't about money lost, it is about losing the
ability to give friend and people at conventions a special experience
by showing the blooper tape. It is a fun, special and exclusive
experience that cannot really be made up in money, and by distributing
bootleg copies people are ruining it.
Jeff Vavasour
"Per Abrahamsen" <abr...@dina.kvl.dk> wrote in message
news:rjelumt...@ssv2.dina.kvl.dk...
> The law does not regard unauthorized copying as theft.
This is incorrect. As JMS pointed out, "theft of intellectual property" is a
legitimate legal term. I think the problem lies in your colloquial
understanding of the word "theft". It does not extend to the full legal
meaning.
> > For some reason, some people seem to disregard the rights of artists
> > completely.
>
> Among these, the people who created the US constitution. Copyright
> law in the US exists to promote the progress of arts and science, not
> to protect the rights of the artists.
What does international copyright law have to do with the U.S. Constitution?
(N.B. I'm not even an American.) Try Berne Convention, Rome Convention or the
WTO. The U.S. and most industrialised nations subscribe to one or more of
these international agreements which standardise copyright. It's illegal in
the U.S. because the U.S. inherited the laws through international treaty.
> Of course, one can argue that the artists *should* have some rights.
Has been argued, has been accepted by law. Check out the official coverage
at, e.g.:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/bills/government/C-32/C-32_4/C-32TOCE.html
Yes, it's a Canadian site, but Canada subscribes to the same international
copyright standards as the U.S.
In brief, a performer or the entity to which the performer legally assigned
the rights to the work retains the "sole right to ... fix it in any material
form" (i.e. tape it) and, "if it is fixed, ... to reproduce any reproduction
of that fixation..." (i.e. duplicate it).
Sounds pretty clear to me. I have no idea where you're getting your
perception of the law from.
- Jeff
Jeff Vavasour
> If they will never be sold legally then no profit has been lost by
> anyone. If they are shown to the public then they are not for close
> friends only. Put both together and nobody has been harmed in any way
> by their sale.
By them going to people they weren't intended for, it diminishes their value
as a gift to the people they were intended for (even if those people were
10,000 convention-goers). You would also be disregarding the legitimate
wishes of the legitimate owners of the property. Plus, you are endorsing the
leeches who profit illegitimately (and, in fact, illegally) off the resale of
such misappropriated would-be merchandise.
Some people may think that such things are not worth taking into consideration
and so convince themselves no harm is being done, but nonetheless there are
laws that say otherwise.
Not that I really expect to change the mind of anyone here.
- Jeff
Derek Balling
> You're still not getting it.
>
> You pay $30 bucks for a copy of the bloopers. To whom does that go? Does it
> go to the actors, whose images you are looking at, who worked day and night
> to
> create both the drama and the errors? No, it goes to a pirate.
>
> Profit IS being made. And that profit by all rights belongs to the people
> who
> worked hard to make it, not to the vultures out there who prey on both the
> shows and the fans alike.
>
> These people profit off something they never made, that they have no legal
> right to, that they illegally obtained. That you do not have a problem with
> that is profoundly astounding and disturbing.
But if the actors/stars/writers/producers aren't willing to step up to the
plate and collect the check themselves, how can I fault someone for filling
that need?
D
Paul Harper
On 21 Apr 2001 11:54:37 -0700, "E. John Roth III" <jr...@oklahoma.net>
wrote:
>Best not to take chances.
Agreed. Best not to show them in the first place.
There does seem to be a conflict here between the "special and private
gift" and something that's hawked around conventions whenever cast or
crew attend.
It seems to me that there is a nasty gray area between something
private and something that seems to be designed to make individuals
more appealing to convention organisers (therefore earning money
and/or publicity for the cast or crew member).
Paul.
--
See Jeri Ryan at the Retribution Convention : www.supernova-conventions.com
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Derek Balling
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:21:02 -0700, Steve Fenwick wrote
(in message <abuse-81358C....@news.apple.com>):
>> If they were limited to cast and crew, and nobody else was given copies,
>> doesn't it stand to reason that their source MUST have been someone who
>> was
>> given a copy? This is like Madonna screaming that her unreleased single
>> made
>> it to the net as an MP3... instead of attacking the fans who want to
>> share
>> something special to THEM, why not instead go after and violently kick
>> the
>> ass of the guy who "let the beans out"?
>
> I think I agree with JMS on this one--if the intent of the tape was for
> private, personal enjoyment, like a home movie, and never intended for
> public display or commercial distribution (I'd include showing it at
> cons as "public display"), then it's a private work. I do agree with
> Derek that the responsibility for the leak lies with the original
> recipient who let it out.
Oh absolutely, if it was something that was made for private enjoyment,
that's private. Don't show it public. You want to show it in private to
friends? Feel free. It's yours.
I'm not in favor of "FORCING" someone to publish. To use that logic, if
someone found my journal or a diary, they'd be in the clear to publish it.
But if I go on tour doing readings from my diary to random audiences (e.g.,
not "private showings with friends" but allowing anyone to come in), and
someone makes bootlegs of me doing those speeches so that their friends in
Yugoslavia (who can't get to California for my weekly speech, say), I don't
see what that should be illegal. If I were truly interested in "making money
off my material", I'd sell the recordings myself. It's not like I LOSE money,
because (as stated) that guy in Yugoslavia can't actually come see me give
the speech anyway.
> This is the crux of the matter. There really should be a "publish or
> public" clause to copyright--either make the content available via
> publication/distribution, or it falls into the public domain, after some
> reasonable (10 years?) amount of time. Just as it is wrong to deprive
> the artists involved from potential royalties lost through piracy, it
> also seems wrong to deprive them of royalties lost through refusal to
> release a work, or at least the exposure of their work to the public.
Correct, my thinking is "once copyrighted and shown or sold in a public
manner by the copyright holder or copyright licensee, if <some_period>
elapses without publication, the exclusivity of copyright lapses". If it
never reaches a public forum, it stays "exclusive" forever and ever.
That's my opinion, not the way it works.
D
Derek Balling
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:55:30 -0700, Jeff Vavasour wrote
(in message <LEjE6.8010$FG3.5...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>):
> For some reason, some people seem to disregard the rights of artists
> Harlan
> Ellison's wish to have his works-in-progress destroyed upon his death. I
> don't know why it is difficult for some people to grasp that there was effort
> and intent behind a creative work and the rightful owner of that work has the
> right to determine where and if it is distributed.
I can totally respect Harlan's position there. If he hasn't released it ever
into a public forum, the public has no right (moral or legal) to partake of
it.
> I mean, if, for example, a person wrote a deeply personal letter to a lover
> or
> a friend, no matter how beautiful it might be, do people really believe that
> the author has no right to demand that it *not* be available to others? Or
> maybe people don't mind having a really embarrassing personal photo of
> themselves posted on the Internet without their consent? (Bloopers are sort
> of like embarrassing personal photos, you see. You might let close friends
> see them, but does that give everyone the right?)
Bloopers are like that IF... and only IF... you don't show them to random
people. If you show them to random people (e.g., at a con), then you've made
them public.
If you want to keep something private, KEEP IT PRIVATE (as you would with
works-in-progress or private personal photos)... if you make it public,
expect that the public will demand it, and if you entice them with it (and
enticement is really in the eye of the beholder) and don't continue to make
it available to them, like a drug, expect them to find it on the black
market.
And always remember that the black market can always find places to do
business that AREN'T friendly to your particular laws.
> ....like finding that perfect personal gift for someone you care about, and
> then having friends go "ooo, cool idea" and suddenly everyone's getting the
> same thing.
Call those friends "sheep", but there's nothing inherently wrong in them
doing it. If you don't want to run that risk, don't tell other people about
what you shared with your other friend.
D
Casey Renka
Joseph DeMartino said:
>But that ain't going to happen either, because JMS has made it abundantly
>clear that the cast doesn't *want* the bloopers released. They have not
>only the power, but the *right* to take that position.
and JMS said, w/r/t those who sell bootlegs:
> These people profit off something they never made, that they have no legal
> right to, that they illegally obtained.
It seems that the driving issue would be that the "bloopers" are not
something which those who made the show want publicly shared
(if they were, they'd be available from mainstream sources).
This directly implies that those who make money from their sale
(and/or exhibition, if they are used as a drawing card for cons)
are profiting improperly, since they do not have permission to do so.
In some contexts (e.g. "Home Improvement"), publicly-shared
outtakes are apparently part of the game and often yield some
of the funniest moments. In the perspective of those who made B5,
they may well be seen in another light, as a source of fun
reminiscing among friends. I don't think the rest of us have the
right to demand access to such things just so we can get a few yuks.
If we value what they did and appreciate the excellence they
brought to it, we should respect their wishes in this matter.
IMHO, as always.
TJ
>I agree with JMS. Astounding and disturbing.
>
>Jan
>
It doesnt' really matter if its legal or not...its plain wrong. The people
that are capping and posting full episodes in
Alt.binaries.multimedia.babylon5...some could argue that it is legal...but its
still wrong...and its disturbing that any fan of a great show like B5 doesn't
see that.
well I'm only 15, and I dont know jack about any of this copyright shit, but
its just like napster, sure the shits available to everybody, but that doesnt
make it right.
Im done ranting.
TJ
djl...@magic.mv.com
Brian Stinson <blee...@swbell.net> wrote:
>No matter how many bootleg copies are made of these bloopers, you still have
>your copy. You are deprived of nothing, unless you plan to sell them
>yourself at some point in the future, in which case your best defense is to
>start selling them as soon as possible, as I think most people would rather
>have a legal copy.
Take a good look at the last episode of "From the Earth to the Moon".
Remember the famous turn-of-the-century movie "Voyage Dans La Lune"?
The creator of the film didn't see a penny of it becuase, by the time
he'd gotten to NY to make his big fortune, someone had already beaten
him across the Atlantic with a bootleg copy of the movie and made the
fortune that SHOULD have gone to the originator.
+----/|-------------------------------------+-------------------+
| | | djl...@wildwizards.net \ |
| / | \ |
| ( ) http://www.wildwizards.net \ ICQ# 8976662 |
+--`--' ----------------------------------------+---------------+
Per Abrahamsen
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
> I'd like to know where you found this, because as I read copyright
> law, this is also covered by the term "theft of intellectual
> property."
Here:
<URL: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/ >
It claims to be the "Copyright Law of the United States of America",
and does not use the term "theft" anywhere. The term used is
"copyright infringement".
> And I'd love to see you make the argument to a cop, "Well, no, what
> I was doing wasn't THEFT, it was just ILLEGAL, so that's okay."
And I'd love to see you jump up and down and shout "The Earth is flat!
The Earth is flat!". However, given that you haven't claimed the
Earth is flat, and I haven't claimed unauthorized copying is okay,
there is no reason to expect either of us getting our wish fulfilled.
> >Among these, the people who created the US constitution. Copyright
> >law in the US exists to promote the progress of arts and science, not
> >to protect the rights of the artists.
>
> Not true.
Time for a quote:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Guess the source.
> The sole means by which a writer can make money from his work is by
> protecting the use thereof.
That is not true, people made money from writing before copyright law.
A lot less money, certainly, which may have been one reason less was
created, and thus indirectly the reason the Congress was granted the
power described above.
The Nuclear Marine
Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:
> JMS said:
> "I did a presentation at a con, and when I went to get the tape back, I
> found that the guy running the video equipment was secretly making a dub
> as he was playing the tape. We had words."
>
> So... have they found the body yet?
>
No, but at least Jimmy Hoffa's so lonely anymore.
Nuke
The Nuclear Marine
Derek Balling wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 1:01:04 -0700, Jms at B5 wrote
> (in message <20010420232301...@ng-fe1.aol.com>):
>
> > Okay, so lets say I want your car, but you don't want to sell it to me. By
> > the
> > logic above, it's okay for me to steal it, as long as I'm not making any
> > money
> > out of it and it's for my own personal collection of cars.
>
> No, more accurately, its like saying "I want a car just like your Chevy
> Malibu" and finding someone on the grey market willing to build me a copy of
> your Chevy Malibu that is of slightly lesser quality but is essentially a
> copy. You aren't deprived of your Malibu, but I still get to have one.
>
> The "theft analogy" for copyright protection always fails because depends on
> depriving someone of their physical property, whereas with copyright
> violations, the "original owner" isn't deprived of their property or their
> right to sell it.
>
One, if you build an exact copy of my car, its collectable value is depreciated,
hence you cost me money for re-sell, investment purposes, etc. Now you said chevy
malibu specifically, so that means you are riding an inferior copy that is
advertising ast the legitimate item, therefore degrading the good name (ok, this is
all in theory) of Chevy's Malibu line. You would also try to sell it using that
name but without one dime going to the creator's of the image you are trying to
sell. This all points to theft in the spirit and letter of the law.
>
> > These tapes were made for the cast and crew in-house as a special gift to
> > them.
> > A way to have fun at the wrap parties. In that respect they are very
> > personal
> > to all of us involved. To have people making copies and selling them
> > illegally
> > is just to tarnish that aspect.
>
> If they were limited to cast and crew, and nobody else was given copies,
> doesn't it stand to reason that their source MUST have been someone who was
> given a copy? This is like Madonna screaming that her unreleased single made
> it to the net as an MP3... instead of attacking the fans who want to share
> something special to THEM, why not instead go after and violently kick the
> ass of the guy who "let the beans out"?
>
You have to go after both. The source and receiver have to know the actions are
wrong. This involves making it not worth the effort through fines, inconvenience
or criminal prosecution for wide-spread blatant abuse. Try not to take the high
road with this argument since corporations exist that make bootlegging their number
one cash cow. Somebody makes mad money with this.
>
> > And you say you want a copy..but the means of GETTING that copy 90% of the
> > time
> > means somebody selling somebody else a copy, at 20-35 bucks a pop. This goes
> > into the hands of a crook. There is no other word for it. A person who
> > takes
> > what is not there, duplicates it illegally, and pockets all the money, none
> > of
> > which goes to the creative people and actors who made them.
>
> If a person/company/whomever isn't willing to actually come up with a means
> of compensating them, they can't be too terribly interested in actually
> collecting the "damages". I think that 90-95% of the people who buy such
> videos would HAPPILY pay full-retail-price (which WOULD go into the
> appropriate pockets) if those appropriate-pocketed-people would make such a
> means available.
>
Let's see, filmed on a set of a million dollar episode (or a tick under), by actors
who paid for each reappearance of their product and by production that is also
compensated (I guess). A flub or blatant joke meant private parties gets filmed
but known to get included on videos at times to enhance the sell through. By your
statement, since its not out now, the future value becomes irrelevent should they
decide to release it later.
>
> Bootleg videos and abandonware fall into the same basic category of "morals"
> for me (and for many others)... if <company> would make it available for
> purchase legally, I'd happily pay it, and probably be willing to pay a
> premium price, but if they're going to make it impossible to get, I have few
> ethical issues with grey-market trading.
>
Once again lowering the future value of the product should they decide to sell it.
>
> Copyright is designed, at its heart, to protect your right, as a content
> creator, to make money off that content. It was NOT intended as a defense for
> creating content and locking it away never to be seen again.
>
> D
Copyright always had a time limit till it becomes public property. The difficulty
of long lived artificial persons like corporations have pushed longevity of
copyright but that's another topic.
Still theft, just accept it as such when you buy it, then your conscience is clear
if that's your cup of tea. Besides, the spirit of the law always weighs heavier
than the letter of the law. In this case though it violates both.
Sooner or later I have to find a point
Nuke
Keith Wood
Per Abrahamsen wrote:
> The law does not regard unauthorized copying as theft. It is in many
> cases illegal, but that doesn't make it theft.
YMMV, Per. Here in the US, it is felony theft to have more than a
certain amount of unlawfully-copied material.
As far as I am concerned, it's theft to deny any lawful benefit
pertaining to any property to the rightful owner -- this includes the
right to deny access.
Keith Wood
Rob Hayward wrote:
>
> In article <LEjE6.8010$FG3.5...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>, Jeff
> Vavasour <je...@physics.ubc.ca> writes
>
> >For some reason, some people seem to disregard the rights of artists
> >completely. It's reminiscent of the debate that erupted in response to Harlan
> >Ellison's wish to have his works-in-progress destroyed upon his death. I
> >don't know why it is difficult for some people to grasp that there was effort
> >and intent behind a creative work and the rightful owner of that work has the
> >right to determine where and if it is distributed.
> >
> >I mean, if, for example, a person wrote a deeply personal letter to a lover or
> >a friend, no matter how beautiful it might be, do people really believe that
> >the author has no right to demand that it *not* be available to others? Or
> >maybe people don't mind having a really embarrassing personal photo of
> >themselves posted on the Internet without their consent? (Bloopers are sort
> >of like embarrassing personal photos, you see. You might let close friends
> >see them, but does that give everyone the right?)
>
> But showing them to tens of thousands of fans at conventions can hardly
> be called close friends.
This is still what is known in law as a "select group," as opposed to
"the people," which is a general group.
Joseph DeMartino
and something that seems to be designed to make individuals more appealing
to convention organisers <
What is so difficult about this concept? If I have some goofy home movies I
can do any damned thing I want with them. I can hide them, I can show them
to friends, I can run them on the local public access cable channel. None
of this gives *you* the right to own them, copy them, sell them or otherwise
distribute them - even *if* you think they're funny and you *really* want
them. Even if I *do* earn money from them it doesn't put them in a "gray
area"
Regards,
Joe
Paul Harper
<jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Re-read what I wrote. The example you quoted was irrelevant.
I will simplify the English and try again: There is a conflict between
something private and personal and something repeatedly shown at
public events.
The two are mutually incompatible.
I have seen the bloopers, and a lot of them are imprinted on my mind.
You want that bit back?
Jeff Vavasour
> All I was trying to point out was
> that the legitimate holders of the copyright have not lost anything,
> either monetary or emotionally by the copying of a blooper reel.
Emotional? That's not for you to judge. All you can say is that if you were
in the situation it wouldn't have an emotional effect on you.
> Yes profit is being made, but by refusing to distribute then the people
> involved are effectively saying that they are either not interested in
> the profit or that they couldn't make any profit if they did it
> themselves.
Or that there's a more important personal reason they want it kept out of
distribution that offsets the profit that would be made. This may come as a
surprise, but money is not always the sole motivator for doing something or
creating something. It has been explained in several replies what those
reasons might be, but there's nothing in the law that says you have to
comprehend the reason in order for the rights of the creator are protected.
> >that they have no legal
> >right to, that they illegally obtained.
>
> I suspect your beef is that they have no legal right to the source but
> should not the laws be made to benefit society as a whole as long as it
> does not harm the individual.
This may be your opinion, but it is not the law. It is not the law because
the majority would not seem to share your opinion.
> As I understand it laws are designed to protect the individual and
> provide a benefit to the community at large. Copyright exists to ensure
> that individuals get fair payment for their works and that those works
> are made available to the public, hence the removal of copyright 50
> years after the authors death.
So wait 50 years after the death of those involved and we won't have a
problem.
- Jeff
Jeff Vavasour
news:01HW.B707A6AC0...@news.megacity.org...
> It's your right, as it stands now, but its clearly NOT the intended purpose
> of copyright,
Again, justify this claim. You snipped the entire quote from real live
copyright law which stated that it was the artist's sole right to control
distribution (or the right of the person to which the artist legally
transferred ownership).
You claim you can violate this right because it was not the intended purpose
of the copyright law. If it was not the intended purpose then, after the many
rounds of refinement copyright law has endured in recent years, one would
expect that what it actually says would not still be at conflict with this
supposed "clear intended purpose".
You are showing that you know nothing about the true statements of copyright
law and are speaking entirely of what *you* wish it to be.
> For me "black market" is for things where there aren't even tangible ethical
> reasons for why the law prohibiting the sale shouldn't exist.
So you're saying that the difference between black market and grey market is
in your mind then.
> >> Copyright is designed, at its heart, to protect your right, as a content
> >> creator, to make money off that content. It was NOT intended as a defense
> > for
> >> creating content and locking it away never to be seen again.
> >
> > And would you care to cite the facts to back up this claim? People have
> > successfully won court cases to protect *unpublished* works.
>
> There's a difference between "unpublished" and "formerly published"... if
you
> write something and choose to keep it private and show it only to selected
> few, you have my express permission to do so.
The merciful thing about copyright law is that no one needs your permission to
do what they will to works they create.
> I wouldn't argue with that at
> all. If you sell it / show it in a public forum, generate interest in it,
and
> then DON'T want to continue to capitalize on it, that to me is just sick and
> wrong.
OK, new angle: a touring lecturer gives a highly interesting speech to
audiences around the world. He shows up every once in a while in your
community. He enjoys giving his lectures. He enjoys his interaction with the
audience. You take it upon yourself to film his lectures surreptitiously and
sell them, against his obviously stated wishes and without his knowledge.
You're calling his lack of willingness to let you do this "sick and wrong"?
You're saying that what you're doing is ethical? You're claiming that the
*intent* of copyright law does not preclude your right to take such actions?
- Jeff
Jeff Vavasour
> Here:
>
> <URL: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/ >
>
> It claims to be the "Copyright Law of the United States of America",
> and does not use the term "theft" anywhere. The term used is
> "copyright infringement".
Bzzz. Wrong.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92preface.html
"The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999"
as an amendment to title 17.
Not a comprehensive survey of the text. It was just the first place I checked
and, guess what, indeed found the word theft.
- Jeff
Andrew Timson
news:21739-3AE...@storefull-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> JMS said:
> "I did a presentation at a con, and when I went to get the tape back, I
> found that the guy running the video equipment was secretly making a dub
> as he was playing the tape. We had words."
>
> So... have they found the body yet?
What body? JMS would've made sure to get rid of it...
Andrew
==================================================
Well, Ambassador, what *do* you want? It's impolite to just tell me "They
aren't for you," and walk off...
Rob Hayward
Vavasour <je...@physics.ubc.ca> writes
>"Rob Hayward" <r...@battle-axe.org> wrote in message
>news:9QV8jFAZ...@battleaxe.demon.co.uk...
>> All I was trying to point out was
>> that the legitimate holders of the copyright have not lost anything,
>> either monetary or emotionally by the copying of a blooper reel.
>
>Emotional? That's not for you to judge. All you can say is that if you were
>in the situation it wouldn't have an emotional effect on you.
Well as it was mentioned that the actors would not want to look silly
then by showing it to tens of thousands then either they already feel
silly or they never will. Releasing them would make no difference to
the situation.
>> Yes profit is being made, but by refusing to distribute then the people
>> involved are effectively saying that they are either not interested in
>> the profit or that they couldn't make any profit if they did it
>> themselves.
>
>Or that there's a more important personal reason they want it kept out of
>distribution that offsets the profit that would be made.
So why agree to show it to tens of thousands in the first place. Yes
there could be a reason but if so why allow so many to see them.
>This may come as a
>surprise,
Not at all.
>but money is not always the sole motivator for doing something or
>creating something. It has been explained in several replies what those
>reasons might be,
No it hasn't, I haven't seen a single reason for not making it available
to 100,000 as opposed to the existing 10,000.
>but there's nothing in the law that says you have to
>comprehend the reason in order for the rights of the creator are protected.
It is possible to understand a reason without agreeing with it but no
reason has been put forward.
>> I suspect your beef is that they have no legal right to the source but
>> should not the laws be made to benefit society as a whole as long as it
>> does not harm the individual.
>
>This may be your opinion, but it is not the law. It is not the law because
>the majority would not seem to share your opinion.
Since when has the majority had much say in the law. Laws are made by
lawyers and big corporations to satisfy their own needs and frequently
profitability. More and more are being made by corporations which don't
help the individual.
>> As I understand it laws are designed to protect the individual and
>> provide a benefit to the community at large. Copyright exists to ensure
>> that individuals get fair payment for their works and that those works
>> are made available to the public, hence the removal of copyright 50
>> years after the authors death.
>
>So wait 50 years after the death of those involved and we won't have a
>problem.
But with corporation copyright they made it such that it never runs out
as the corporation never dies. This is against the original purpose of
the law which was to allow individuals and children to profit from their
works yet ensure that after reasonable time the public should have
access to those works.
Imagine what it would be like if Shakespeare/Dickens/Mozart had written
their works for a corporation - nobody would ever be allowed to
read/play them again.
>- Jeff
Oh BTW I've seen many of the bloopers at a Convention and they are not
worth putting on the DVD anyway. Personally I wouldn't buy them legally
or illegally whereas I'd buy all the episodic DVDs anyway and only
legally. Imagine what it would be like if the DVDs only came out in the
UK like the tapes and the Americans were not allowed to buy them
legally. How many people would suddenly lose their morals?
Mac Breck
From: "Andrew Timson" <Arseni...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: B5 Bootleg Ethics...
> "Jeffrey Gustafson" <Psico...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:21739-3AE...@storefull-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > JMS said:
> > "I did a presentation at a con, and when I went to get the tape back, I
> > found that the guy running the video equipment was secretly making a dub
> > as he was playing the tape. We had words."
> >
> > So... have they found the body yet?
>
> What body? JMS would've made sure to get rid of it...
One word, "Pakmara".
Mac Breck
----------------
Vorlon Empire
Defender of Marcus and Lennier
Watch "CRUSADE"
8 PM on The Sci-Fi Channel
Mon-Thurs. in April 2001, beginning 4/9
E. John Roth III
> E. John Roth III wrote:
>
> <<Sorry I have had stuff stolen it is CODB.>>
>
> Sorry, I don't know what CODB means.
>
> Jan
Cost of Doing Business CODB
Joseph DeMartino
something private and personal and something repeatedly shown at public
events.
The two are mutually incompatible. <
A fact as unremarkable as it is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact
that something is shown in public does not put it *in the public domain* to
be freely used by anybody. Nor does the fact that you've seen the bloopers
and now have them stored in your brain. The fact is you can't transfer them
to *my* brain, and it is the distribution of something you don't own that is
the problem here.
Regards,
Joe
David Stinson
:
:
:> You're still not getting it.
They do and have stepped up to the plate. You are rationalizing the theft on
the basis of want over the legal reality.
The person filling that need did so by engaging in a conspiracy (after the
fact, in most cases) to steal and sell for a profit a copyrighted piece of
material - since they have fair reason to know that the tape is pirated.
First, last and always - to buy that tape you are contributing to the
continuance of that crime.
Also, the person who legimately does show that tape (JMS or some other
copyright-permitted person) has the control over duplication rights, not the
person who copied it without permission. Therefore you are willingly
encouraging the violation of copyright.
It inhibits the capability of the copyright owners to legitimately sell the
tape at such time as they choose to do so, as well.
Would you appreciate it if someone used your logic on a work you had produced
and had copyrighted?
--
David A. Stinson Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html
E-Mail: dsti...@ix.netcomz.com da...@procomz.com dast...@aolz.com
* NO ELECTRONS WERE HARMED DURING PRODUCTION OF THIS MESSAGE *
REMOVE Z FROM ADDRESS IN POST TO EMAIL.
David Stinson
:
:On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:21:02 -0700, Steve Fenwick wrote
And your opinion has no valid legal standing. If you CHOOSE to let someone
copy your work, that's your right as the copyright holder. HOWEVER, it does
not give you the right to do so for someone else's work, against their stated
wishes.
One thing to note is that after an actor's rep complained, fees are being paid
to actors and other royaltied persons for convention showings. Therefore your
whole case collapses. THe copyright holder has not granted the rights you
suggest.
David Stinson
:
:On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:55:30 -0700, Jeff Vavasour wrote
:(in message <LEjE6.8010$FG3.5...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>):
:> For some reason, some people seem to disregard the rights of artists
:> completely. It's reminiscent of the debate that erupted in response to
:> Harlan
:> Ellison's wish to have his works-in-progress destroyed upon his death. I
:> don't know why it is difficult for some people to grasp that there was effort
:> and intent behind a creative work and the rightful owner of that work has the
:> right to determine where and if it is distributed.
:
:I can totally respect Harlan's position there. If he hasn't released it ever
:into a public forum, the public has no right (moral or legal) to partake of
:it.
:
:> I mean, if, for example, a person wrote a deeply personal letter to a lover
:> or
:> a friend, no matter how beautiful it might be, do people really believe that
:> the author has no right to demand that it *not* be available to others? Or
:> maybe people don't mind having a really embarrassing personal photo of
:> themselves posted on the Internet without their consent? (Bloopers are sort
:> of like embarrassing personal photos, you see. You might let close friends
:> see them, but does that give everyone the right?)
:
:Bloopers are like that IF... and only IF... you don't show them to random
:people. If you show them to random people (e.g., at a con), then you've made
:them public.
No, you have not. The person who showed them had the legal permission to show
them and had arranged for that showing to a NON-RANDOM (he knew the general
type of person he would show them to) audience. They were not made public but
were shown in a public forum.
Your logic would suggest that showing a movie in a theatre makes it public and
therefore you could feel free to copy it yourself.
:If you want to keep something private, KEEP IT PRIVATE (as you would with
:works-in-progress or private personal photos)... if you make it public,
:expect that the public will demand it, and if you entice them with it (and
:enticement is really in the eye of the beholder) and don't continue to make
:it available to them, like a drug, expect them to find it on the black
:market.
:And always remember that the black market can always find places to do
:business that AREN'T friendly to your particular laws.
They can ILLEGALLY. THat is the single point that you seem to be missing.
The basic act is illegal and by definition not ethical. You are justify the
free distribution of SOMEONE ELSE'S legal property without (and in this case
specifically against) the wishes of the legitimate owner.
:> ....like finding that perfect personal gift for someone you care about, and
:> then having friends go "ooo, cool idea" and suddenly everyone's getting the
:> same thing.
:
:Call those friends "sheep", but there's nothing inherently wrong in them
:doing it. If you don't want to run that risk, don't tell other people about
:what you shared with your other friend.
If you find nothing inherently wrong with someone doing it, then maybe you
should consider how you would feel if someone did it to you. You are giving
tacit support to somethjing that is wrong morally, legally and ethically. What
does that say about you?
David Stinson
:In article <gTpE6.8085$FG3.6...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>, Jeff:>news:sPKIU2Ak...@battleaxe.demon.co.uk...
:>> In article <PIjE6.8022$FG3.5...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>, Jeff
:>> Vavasour <je...@physics.ubc.ca> writes
:>> >Better yet, how would feel if said embarrassing photo turned up on sale
:>> >somewhere in poster form, without your knowledge, and upon finding out you
:>> >were told they had to sell it because you were unwilling to make it
:>available
:>> >yourself for people to buy.
:>>
:>> It couldn't be that embarrassing if you had already shown it to several
:>> tens of thousands of people you don't know over the years at
:>> conventions. You could not then claim that it was personal for no-one
:>> else to see.
:>
:>The analogy wasn't meant to be that literal. Just trying to set up a motive
:>for the rightful owner in which they wouldn't want the thing distributed.
:
:I'm sure there are valid motives for people not to want to distribute
:their IPR but if they have already shown it to tens of thousands and do
:not plan to ever make any money from it or distribute it themselves then
:I think you'd need a pretty convincing reason and I can't think of one.
Why is it your position or that of the poeple make illegitmate copies to
decide if the actual copyright holders will eventually release the product.
Seeing a movie preview does not grant you the right to reproduce the movie.
David Stinson
<dr...@megacity.org> wrote:
:
:On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:21:02 -0700, Steve Fenwick wrote
And your opinion has no valid legal standing. If you CHOOSE to let someone
copy your work, that's your right as the copyright holder. HOWEVER, it does
not give you the right to do so for someone else's work, against their stated
wishes.
One thing to note is that after an actor's rep complained, fees are being paid
to actors and other royaltied persons for convention showings. Therefore your
whole case collapses. THe copyright holder has not granted the rights you
suggest.
David Stinson
<dr...@megacity.org> wrote:
:
:On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:55:30 -0700, Jeff Vavasour wrote
:(in message <LEjE6.8010$FG3.5...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>):
:> For some reason, some people seem to disregard the rights of artists
:> completely. It's reminiscent of the debate that erupted in response to
:> Harlan
:> Ellison's wish to have his works-in-progress destroyed upon his death. I
:> don't know why it is difficult for some people to grasp that there was effort
:> and intent behind a creative work and the rightful owner of that work has the
:> right to determine where and if it is distributed.
:
:I can totally respect Harlan's position there. If he hasn't released it ever
:into a public forum, the public has no right (moral or legal) to partake of
:it.
:
:> I mean, if, for example, a person wrote a deeply personal letter to a lover
:> or
:> a friend, no matter how beautiful it might be, do people really believe that
:> the author has no right to demand that it *not* be available to others? Or
:> maybe people don't mind having a really embarrassing personal photo of
:> themselves posted on the Internet without their consent? (Bloopers are sort
:> of like embarrassing personal photos, you see. You might let close friends
:> see them, but does that give everyone the right?)
:
:Bloopers are like that IF... and only IF... you don't show them to random
:people. If you show them to random people (e.g., at a con), then you've made
:them public.
No, you have not. The person who showed them had the legal permission to show
them and had arranged for that showing to a NON-RANDOM (he knew the general
type of person he would show them to) audience. They were not made public but
were shown in a public forum.
Your logic would suggest that showing a movie in a theatre makes it public and
therefore you could feel free to copy it yourself.
:If you want to keep something private, KEEP IT PRIVATE (as you would with
:works-in-progress or private personal photos)... if you make it public,
:expect that the public will demand it, and if you entice them with it (and
:enticement is really in the eye of the beholder) and don't continue to make
:it available to them, like a drug, expect them to find it on the black
:market.
:And always remember that the black market can always find places to do
:business that AREN'T friendly to your particular laws.
They can ILLEGALLY. THat is the single point that you seem to be missing.
The basic act is illegal and by definition not ethical. You are justify the
free distribution of SOMEONE ELSE'S legal property without (and in this case
specifically against) the wishes of the legitimate owner.
:> ....like finding that perfect personal gift for someone you care about, and
:> then having friends go "ooo, cool idea" and suddenly everyone's getting the
:> same thing.
:
:Call those friends "sheep", but there's nothing inherently wrong in them
:doing it. If you don't want to run that risk, don't tell other people about
:what you shared with your other friend.
If you find nothing inherently wrong with someone doing it, then maybe you
should consider how you would feel if someone did it to you. You are giving
tacit support to somethjing that is wrong morally, legally and ethically. What
does that say about you?
--
David Stinson
Iain Rae
Rob Hayward <r...@battle-axe.org> writes:
> iQBVAwUBOuLwoD6fp/cCu9CRAQGMqAH/bF32bm2T8drQgXA5kqY74h/VlKkXHovV
>
> onAyyotFLmnbYdl5BaNwVpPD7HRmOj7XvBNKXQply3DE5YcHFN144A==
>
> =cQ9I
>Xref: kane.dcs.ed.ac.uk rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated:154077
>
>In article <20010421235351...@ng-ms1.aol.com>, Jms at B5
><jms...@aol.com> writes
>>>If they will never be sold legally then no profit has been lost by
>>>anyone. If they are shown to the public then they are not for close
>>>friends only. Put both together and nobody has been harmed in any way
>>>by their sale.
>>
>>You're still not getting it.
>
>
>>
>>You pay $30 bucks for a copy of the bloopers. To whom does that go? Does it
>>go to the actors, whose images you are looking at, who worked day and night to
>>create both the drama and the errors? No, it goes to a pirate.
>>
>>Profit IS being made. And that profit by all rights belongs to the people who
>>worked hard to make it
>
>Yes profit is being made, but by refusing to distribute then the people
>involved are effectively saying that they are either not interested in
>the profit or that they couldn't make any profit if they did it
>themselves.
Well, they do have the added overhead of actually having to pay the people
who were involved in making it.
>There is a difference between depriving one person from a
>profit and allowing another to make one.
>
>Also what is the percentage of the retail cost that goes back to an
>actor. Of a £10 tape I suspect that less than 50p makes it back to the
>actors, yet you are implying that all $30 should be returned to the
>actors.
>
It may not be that simple, depending on their contracts the contents of one
scene on the blooper tapes may trigger payments higher than the actors get
for an episode tape, since this would be the first release/showing.
>Query - Is it only the actors who get royalties or does everyone else
>who participated such as the cameramen, sound engineers, editors,
>directors... get a cut as well. If not why not as they probably put a
>lot more work in than the actors.
I imagine they probably would if this was an official release, plus all
those non-speaking extras who said anything would then have to be paid
as speaking roles, possibly for their whole contract.
I don't know anything about the US laws/contracts which covers this but
I suspect it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone
could object to not being paid for this material and sue WB for what
they were due. (anybody in the know care to comment?)
>
>>These people profit off something they never made,
>
>As do the shops that sell legitimate copies.
Yes but they pay money back to WB so that WB make more programs, if WB
don't get the money then we don't get the shows.
>
>>that they have no legal
>>right to, that they illegally obtained.
>
>I suspect your beef is that they have no legal right to the source but
>should not the laws be made to benefit society as a whole as long as it
>does not harm the individual.
Fundamentally the laws have to protect the rights of the people producing
the material to make money off it, otherwise they give up doing what they
are doing because they can make more money sweeping the street.
Derek Balling
(in message <zGtE6.8097$FG3.6...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>):
> What does international copyright law have to do with the U.S. Constitution?
> (N.B. I'm not even an American.) Try Berne Convention, Rome Convention or
> the
> WTO. The U.S. and most industrialised nations subscribe to one or more of
> these international agreements which standardise copyright. It's illegal in
> the U.S. because the U.S. inherited the laws through international treaty.
Of course, the beauty of HAVING a constitution is that a treaty cannot
override said constitution. E.g., if the US entered into a treaty that said
"and the UN police shall have the right to enter and search any premises on
no notice and without due process", it wouldn't matter that "the US inherited
that law by treaty", because it violates our constitution.
Likewise, if a copyright law, international or federal, violates the
constitution, it basically is worthless.
D
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
> In article <usFE6.8442$FG3.6...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>, Jeff
> Vavasour <je...@physics.ubc.ca> writes
> >"Rob Hayward" <r...@battle-axe.org> wrote in message
> >news:9QV8jFAZ...@battleaxe.demon.co.uk...
> >This may come as a
> >surprise,
>
> Not at all.
>
> >but money is not always the sole motivator for doing something or
> >creating something. It has been explained in several replies what those
> >reasons might be,
>
> No it hasn't, I haven't seen a single reason for not making it available
> to 100,000 as opposed to the existing 10,000.
Yes, there is a reason: JMS doesn't want to do so. Why can't people
understand that this is being done as a favour - a gift, if you like, to the
people who have followed the program and enjoy it. Beyond that, JMS has no
obligations to any of us. It seems to me that at least some people on this
thread have no conception of common courtesy. Forget all the rhetoric about
Copyright and Public/Private distinctions. This is an issue of politeness
to people who have collectively brought a lot of joy to us all. Is this
_really_ so much to ask?
> >but there's nothing in the law that says you have to
> >comprehend the reason in order for the rights of the creator are
protected.
>
> It is possible to understand a reason without agreeing with it but no
> reason has been put forward.
Why should JMS have to even argue a case about this? I find it totally
astounding that he should be taken to task in such a petty way. Just
respect his wishes - that's all
Oh, and that remark about how it wouldn't be worthwhile to put the bloopers
on DVD because they're not that good - I thought that was rather
mean-spirited.
--
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
Kingston upon Thames
UK
Derek Balling
(in message <3AE301FC...@home.com>):
> One, if you build an exact copy of my car, its collectable value is
> depreciated,
> hence you cost me money for re-sell, investment purposes, etc. Now you said
> chevy
> malibu specifically, so that means you are riding an inferior copy that is
> advertising ast the legitimate item, therefore degrading the good name (ok,
> this is
> all in theory) of Chevy's Malibu line. You would also try to sell it using
> that
> name but without one dime going to the creator's of the image you are trying
> to
> sell. This all points to theft in the spirit and letter of the law.
If you have a collectable car, say a 60's 'Stang, and I make an exact copy of
it, I would LOVE, repeat LOVE, to see you win some claim in court because I
had "depreciated your collector value".
> You have to go after both. The source and receiver have to know the actions
> are
> wrong. This involves making it not worth the effort through fines,
> inconvenience
> or criminal prosecution for wide-spread blatant abuse. Try not to take the
> high
> road with this argument since corporations exist that make bootlegging their
> number
> one cash cow. Somebody makes mad money with this.
And if the people putting it out in the public (whoever shows it at public
forums) wanted that mad-money, its there for them to take. If they're not
going to partake of the well of cash, they can't complain when others sip.
> Let's see, filmed on a set of a million dollar episode (or a tick under), by
> actors
> who paid for each reappearance of their product and by production that is
> also
> compensated (I guess). A flub or blatant joke meant private parties gets
> filmed
> but known to get included on videos at times to enhance the sell through.
> By your
> statement, since its not out now, the future value becomes irrelevent should
> they
> decide to release it later.
No, but copyright law - at its foundation in the US in the Constitution -
isn't centered around protecting "author's rights", but in fostering the arts
and sciences. It's to say "you've got the right to make the money off it for
a while", NOT so that you can show it off in public and say "hahahahahahaha,
nobody can use this!"
> Once again lowering the future value of the product should they decide to
> sell it.
See above.
> Copyright always had a time limit till it becomes public property. The
> difficulty
> of long lived artificial persons like corporations have pushed longevity of
> copyright but that's another topic.
No, it strikes to the heart of this. If this content is not preserved OUTSIDE
the long-lived-Warner-entity (which will never die), the content may never be
released, or possibly even destroyed as many many older works were.
That's not the purpose of Copyright.
> Still theft, just accept it as such when you buy it, then your conscience is
> clear
> if that's your cup of tea. Besides, the spirit of the law always weighs
> heavier
> than the letter of the law. In this case though it violates both.
No, the spirit of Copyright Law (the section of the United States Code) is
embodied quite nicely in the section of the US Constitution which PERMITS
Congress to write such a copyright law, and it is NOT so that long-lived
entities can hang on to content and never release it.
You don't want to get into the "spirit vs. letter" argument, because if you
go back to the original spirit embodied in the Constitution, the bootlegger's
arguments have VERY strong legs.
D
E. John Roth III
>
> And, why is distribution of the blooper reel grey-market anyway? It makes you
> feel less guilty than saying "black market"? I mean, people can be charged
> under the law for distributing protected works. Sounds black market to me.
> There are even international sanctions in place against countries where piracy
> is rampant.
Black market - illegal and if it is messed up you die or go to prison. Grey market
- illegal and if you mess it up you get sued or go to jail.
>
>
> > Copyright is designed, at its heart, to protect your right, as a content
> > creator, to make money off that content. It was NOT intended as a defense
> for
> > creating content and locking it away never to be seen again.
>
> And would you care to cite the facts to back up this claim? People have
> successfully won court cases to protect *unpublished* works.
>
> One of the most absurd statements I ever saw in one of these threads was
> "information wants to be free"... like information was some suppressed
> captive. We're talking about creative works from the minds of authors. It's
> almost akin to saying you don't own your own thoughts. "You're creation was
> too enticing for me to resist." It starts to sound like, "she was dressed too
> provocatively for me to restrain myself."
>
> - Jeff
Copy right infringement is NOT rape. Do not go there.
E. John Roth III
Derek Balling
(in message <3AE30811...@bctv.com>):
>> But showing them to tens of thousands of fans at conventions can hardly
>> be called close friends.
>
> This is still what is known in law as a "select group," as opposed to
> "the people," which is a general group.
I don't think so. If there are no conditions upon who can purchase tickets
for the event, it is not a select group. IANAL.
d
Derek Balling
> Or that there's a more important personal reason they want it kept out of
> distribution that offsets the profit that would be made. This may come as a
> surprise, but money is not always the sole motivator for doing something or
> creating something. It has been explained in several replies what those
> reasons might be, but there's nothing in the law that says you have to
> comprehend the reason in order for the rights of the creator are protected.
Where does their personal preference come into the promotion of arts and
science, the constitutionally defined purpose of copyright law?
> This may be your opinion, but it is not the law. It is not the law because
> the majority would not seem to share your opinion.
Luckily, the US isn't run by majority opinion, or we'd quickly stifle the
free speech of fringe groups and minority religions. I consider this a bonus
of the system, not a fault.
> So wait 50 years after the death of those involved and we won't have a
> problem.
Corporations, large ones whose assets are purchased by other corporations
anyway, never die.
Derek Balling
(in message <KGFE6.8447$FG3.6...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>):
> "Derek Balling" <dr...@megacity.org> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B707A6AC0...@news.megacity.org...
>> It's your right, as it stands now, but its clearly NOT the intended purpose
>> of copyright,
>
> Again, justify this claim. You snipped the entire quote from real live
> copyright law which stated that it was the artist's sole right to control
> distribution (or the right of the person to which the artist legally
> transferred ownership).
United States Constitution - Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;
The first clause clearly defines the PURPOSE of the exclusivity clause: To
promote the progress of science and useful arts. Locking away your works in a
closet doesn't promote the progress of arts and science.
> You claim you can violate this right because it was not the intended purpose
> of the copyright law. If it was not the intended purpose then, after the
> many
> rounds of refinement copyright law has endured in recent years, one would
> expect that what it actually says would not still be at conflict with this
> supposed "clear intended purpose".
can you cite a relevant case, before the United States Supreme Court, which
specifically argues the (in)validity of "locking away publicly exhibited art
forms" where the copyright-infringer argues about the "progress of arts of
science" portion of the constitution issue?
Just because this particular quirk of the system hasn't actually made it to
the USSC (the only court really empowered to effectively try it) doesn't make
it right.
> You are showing that you know nothing about the true statements of copyright
> law and are speaking entirely of what *you* wish it to be.
No, I've now firmly quoted the source of Congress' authority to WRITE a
copyright law, which is very clear in its intention.
>> For me "black market" is for things where there aren't even tangible
>> ethical
>> reasons for why the law prohibiting the sale shouldn't exist.
>
> So you're saying that the difference between black market and grey market is
> in your mind then.
I think that you'd have a hard time finding a legal definition of either
black-market or grey-market.
>> There's a difference between "unpublished" and "formerly published"... if
> you
>> write something and choose to keep it private and show it only to selected
>> few, you have my express permission to do so.
>
> The merciful thing about copyright law is that no one needs your permission
> to do what they will to works they create.
And, morally, nobody needs to involve work-creators in the redistribution
process if the work-creator has put the work out into the public (as the
bloopers have been) but refuses to capitalize on it.
Legally, it is also a very grey area, being that it is hard to argue that
"showing it in public but never letting it be sold" promotes the progress of
the arts.
> OK, new angle: a touring lecturer gives a highly interesting speech to
> audiences around the world. He shows up every once in a while in your
> community. He enjoys giving his lectures. He enjoys his interaction with
> the
> audience. You take it upon yourself to film his lectures surreptitiously and
> sell them, against his obviously stated wishes and without his knowledge.
> You're calling his lack of willingness to let you do this "sick and wrong"?
> You're saying that what you're doing is ethical? You're claiming that the
> *intent* of copyright law does not preclude your right to take such actions?
But let's add the real twist -- what if he DOESN'T come to my neck of the
woods? The ethical issue (from your perspective) is all cut-and-dried when I
have ready access to the content on a regular or semi-regular basis. What
about when I CAN'T (maybe I live in a war-torn country, maybe the speaker
just despises the SF Bay Area, who knows).
D
TJ
>No it hasn't, I haven't seen a single reason for not making it available
>to 100,000 as opposed to the existing 10,000.
>
isn't the fact that JMS doesnt want to release it reason enough?
TJ
The Nuclear Marine
JBONETATI wrote:
> E. John Roth III wrote:
>
> <<Why the hell are ppl here connecting IPR with rape??? This really pisses me
> off. I have had intellectual property stolen and I was raped twice. It is NOT
> the same
> thing.>>
>
> I'm sorry to hear that.
>
> The analogy is still valid. You're insisting on blaming the victim for the
> crime. We're not equating rape with piracy, we're pointing out that blaming the
> victim for the crime, any crime, is wrong. Some people would also observe that
> the theft of one's creation is as personal a violation as rape is.
>
> Jan
Have to stop you there Jan. There are such things as victim precipitated crimes.
Granted this deals mainly with barroom brawls or battered wive's who kill their
husbands. Neither of these deal with rape (sometimes considered victim
precipitated, not gonna touch that) or intellectual theft.
Here are good questions of intellectual victim precipitated. DVD encryption being
only 56 bit thus making copying easy; Satellite TV broadcasting signals into
persons houses but complaining when said signals are decoded with paying the
company (akin to me planting roses in your garden then complaining when you use
them for you romantic dinner); releasing anything in an electronic medium given the
proliferation of the internet; Sega on a version of the Genesis had a lockout code
that if bypassed placed the "Trademark and program endorsed by SEGA" suing a
company that bypassed that code without paying them and displaying that line?
On the flip side, is sabotaging those items to destroy any equipment illegally
using it. Say WB released a virus that deleted the harddrive of any computer that
had pirate copies of its products? Say DirectTV had a burn signal that destroyed
any pirate chip and system of blackbox trying to tune in? Say Sega sued the
company that bypassed its code because of fraudenlantly saying Sega endorsed them
via displaying the bypass line (this did happen by the way)?
Law, ain't it a bitch.
Nuke
David Stinson
:In article <usFE6.8442$FG3.6...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>, Jeff
:Vavasour <je...@physics.ubc.ca> writes
:>"Rob Hayward" <r...@battle-axe.org> wrote in message
:>news:9QV8jFAZ...@battleaxe.demon.co.uk...
:>> All I was trying to point out was
:>> that the legitimate holders of the copyright have not lost anything,
:>> either monetary or emotionally by the copying of a blooper reel.
:>
:>Emotional? That's not for you to judge. All you can say is that if you were
:>in the situation it wouldn't have an emotional effect on you.
:
:Well as it was mentioned that the actors would not want to look silly
:then by showing it to tens of thousands then either they already feel
:silly or they never will. Releasing them would make no difference to
:the situation.
But the core of the issue is that it is not legally, ethically or morally
your right to decide the issue for them. They have a say in HOW it is
released, by contract. Bootleggers don't care, by definition, about that.
:>> Yes profit is being made, but by refusing to distribute then the people
:>> involved are effectively saying that they are either not interested in
:>> the profit or that they couldn't make any profit if they did it
:>> themselves.
:>
:>Or that there's a more important personal reason they want it kept out of
:>distribution that offsets the profit that would be made.
:
:So why agree to show it to tens of thousands in the first place. Yes
:there could be a reason but if so why allow so many to see them.
Because it is THEIR choice to allow, not yours. IF they choose to entertain
you in a particular situation, that is their right. It is not your right to
decide that issue for them.
:>This may come as a
:>surprise,
:
:Not at all.
:
:>but money is not always the sole motivator for doing something or
:>creating something. It has been explained in several replies what those
:>reasons might be,
:
:No it hasn't, I haven't seen a single reason for not making it available
:to 100,000 as opposed to the existing 10,000.
Then you aren't listening. The single reason is that they have the choice
about HOW to do so. They have permission to show it, the bootleggers don't.
:>but there's nothing in the law that says you have to
:>comprehend the reason in order for the rights of the creator are protected.
:
:It is possible to understand a reason without agreeing with it but no
:reason has been put forward.
Incorrect. Just because you choose to disregard the reason does not affect the
validity of the reason which HAS been presented.
:
:>> I suspect your beef is that they have no legal right to the source but
:>> should not the laws be made to benefit society as a whole as long as it
:>> does not harm the individual.
:>
:>This may be your opinion, but it is not the law. It is not the law because
:>the majority would not seem to share your opinion.
:
:Since when has the majority had much say in the law. Laws are made by
:lawyers and big corporations to satisfy their own needs and frequently
:profitability. More and more are being made by corporations which don't
:help the individual.
And willfull theft of someone's physical or intellectual proerty is therefore
justified? Your argument is specious and self-serving. You're justifying to
yourself the reason why you can accept the theft, not why it is OBJECTIVELY
justified. The corporation PAID to produce the show, produce what tapes that
do exist and were released legally, paid the actors for their work. They have
the right to enjoy the rewards for doing so, not some low-life who ripped it
off and decided to sell it on their own. That's what RAISES the cost of doing
business.
:>> As I understand it laws are designed to protect the individual and
:>> provide a benefit to the community at large. Copyright exists to ensure
:>> that individuals get fair payment for their works and that those works
:>> are made available to the public, hence the removal of copyright 50
:>> years after the authors death.
:>
:>So wait 50 years after the death of those involved and we won't have a
:>problem.
:
:But with corporation copyright they made it such that it never runs out
:as the corporation never dies. This is against the original purpose of
:the law which was to allow individuals and children to profit from their
:works yet ensure that after reasonable time the public should have
:access to those works.
:
:Imagine what it would be like if Shakespeare/Dickens/Mozart had written
:their works for a corporation - nobody would ever be allowed to
:read/play them again.
:
:>- Jeff
:
:Oh BTW I've seen many of the bloopers at a Convention and they are not
:worth putting on the DVD anyway. Personally I wouldn't buy them legally
:or illegally whereas I'd buy all the episodic DVDs anyway and only
:legally. Imagine what it would be like if the DVDs only came out in the
:UK like the tapes and the Americans were not allowed to buy them
:legally. How many people would suddenly lose their morals?
:
--
WRWhite963
>In article <01HW.B707CCE90...@news.megacity.org>, Derek Balling
><dr...@megacity.org> wrote:
>:
>:On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:55:30 -0700, Jeff Vavasour wrote
>:Bloopers are like that IF... and only IF... you don't show them to random
>:people. If you show them to random people (e.g., at a con), then you've made
>
>:them public.
>
>No, you have not. The person who showed them had the legal permission to show
>
>them and had arranged for that showing to a NON-RANDOM (he knew the general
>type of person he would show them to) audience. They were not made public but
>
>were shown in a public forum.
You're falling into a common misconception about what legally constitutes a
public place, or a public forum. For example, many people would consider a
restaurant an open, public place - it isn't. The fact it isn't means the owner
can ask you to leave if he wishes. It is private property.
A convention is not a public gathering. People pay cover charges to enter the
convention. The convention is held on private grounds (usually a hotel),
rented for the purpose. The organizers of the con can rescind your ticket if
they wish by refunding your cover charge, and you can't do a thing about it
legally, because it is NOT a public place, and NOT a public gathering.
Public gatherings, in the legal sense of the term, can only take place on
property which is public - which is property We The People own. Government
buildings. Town parks. The street corner, etc.
Walter R. White
WRWhite963
>specifically argues the (in)validity of "locking away publicly exhibited art
>forms" where the copyright-infringer argues about the "progress of arts of
>science" portion of the constitution issue?
>
>Just because this particular quirk of the system hasn't actually made it to
>the USSC (the only court really empowered to effectively try it) doesn't make
>
>it right.
Conventions are not public any more than a concert or a movie is public - you
pay a cover charge, the property is private, and not public property, and the
owner/organizer has the right to rescind your admission with a refund. The
blooper tapes were never "publicly" displayed, at least in the legal sense.
Walter R. White
David Stinson
:On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:29:51 -0700, Jeff Vavasour wrote
Incorrect, since if a treay is ratified it becomes part of the law until that
ratification is rescinded.
In this case, it does not violate constitutional law. Might I suggest actually
acquainting yourself with the law and how it works before arguing a legal
point?
David Stinson
:On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:58:01 -0700, The Nuclear Marine wrote
:(in message <3AE301FC...@home.com>):
:
:> One, if you build an exact copy of my car, its collectable value is
:> depreciated,
:> hence you cost me money for re-sell, investment purposes, etc. Now you said
:> chevy
:> malibu specifically, so that means you are riding an inferior copy that is
:> advertising ast the legitimate item, therefore degrading the good name (ok,
:> this is
:> all in theory) of Chevy's Malibu line. You would also try to sell it using
:> that
:> name but without one dime going to the creator's of the image you are trying
:> to
:> sell. This all points to theft in the spirit and letter of the law.
:
:If you have a collectable car, say a 60's 'Stang, and I make an exact copy of
:it, I would LOVE, repeat LOVE, to see you win some claim in court because I
:had "depreciated your collector value".
Actually the person would win, becuase you are selling your copy as an
AUTHORIZED COPY OR THE ORIGINAL. You are engaging in FRAUD.
:> You have to go after both. The source and receiver have to know the actions
:> are
:> wrong. This involves making it not worth the effort through fines,
:> inconvenience
:> or criminal prosecution for wide-spread blatant abuse. Try not to take the
:> high
:> road with this argument since corporations exist that make bootlegging their
:> number
:> one cash cow. Somebody makes mad money with this.
:
:And if the people putting it out in the public (whoever shows it at public
:forums) wanted that mad-money, its there for them to take. If they're not
:going to partake of the well of cash, they can't complain when others sip.
Yes they can. Because they have the legal, ethical and moral right to complain
if others "sip" from their cup without their permission. Do you eat other
people's meals or borrow their car without their permission?
You present a case for "because I want it, I have the right to it". A bad
case, at best.
:> Let's see, filmed on a set of a million dollar episode (or a tick under), by
:> actors
:> who paid for each reappearance of their product and by production that is
:> also
:> compensated (I guess). A flub or blatant joke meant private parties gets
:> filmed
:> but known to get included on videos at times to enhance the sell through.
:> By your
:> statement, since its not out now, the future value becomes irrelevent should
:> they
:> decide to release it later.
:
:No, but copyright law - at its foundation in the US in the Constitution -
:isn't centered around protecting "author's rights", but in fostering the arts
:and sciences. It's to say "you've got the right to make the money off it for
:a while", NOT so that you can show it off in public and say "hahahahahahaha,
:nobody can use this!"
And you "Foster the arts and sciences" by taking and reproducing their
property without permission? You should finish the section you are quoting as
it provides for the protection of the rights of the owner, not those copying.
Your example is SPECIFICALLY a refutation of your own case.
:> Once again lowering the future value of the product should they decide to
:> sell it.
:
:See above.
Why? You've not presented an example refuting the point.
:> Copyright always had a time limit till it becomes public property. The
:> difficulty
:> of long lived artificial persons like corporations have pushed longevity of
:> copyright but that's another topic.
:
:No, it strikes to the heart of this. If this content is not preserved OUTSIDE
:the long-lived-Warner-entity (which will never die), the content may never be
:released, or possibly even destroyed as many many older works were.
:
:That's not the purpose of Copyright.
Yes, it is. THe owners have the choice on whether to release something THEY
OWN until such time as their copyright expires. Its not your right to make
choices for them.
:> Still theft, just accept it as such when you buy it, then your conscience is
:> clear
:> if that's your cup of tea. Besides, the spirit of the law always weighs
:> heavier
:> than the letter of the law. In this case though it violates both.
:
:No, the spirit of Copyright Law (the section of the United States Code) is
:embodied quite nicely in the section of the US Constitution which PERMITS
:Congress to write such a copyright law, and it is NOT so that long-lived
:entities can hang on to content and never release it.
You are putting things in that aren't in the laws. Your opinion is not legally
binding and shows some basic flaws in both legal knowledge and simple logic.
Might I suggest a visit to THE COPYRIGHT PAGE?
:You don't want to get into the "spirit vs. letter" argument, because if you
:go back to the original spirit embodied in the Constitution, the bootlegger's
:arguments have VERY strong legs.
:
No they don't. They are participating in an act which is knowingly illegal
(the reproduction of someone's coprighted property without the copyright
owner's permission). To partake of their work is to become an accessory after
the fact.
David Stinson
:On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:02:25 -0700, Keith Wood wrote
The very act of purchasing tickets makes it a select group. Self-selecting.
David Stinson
:
:> Or that there's a more important personal reason they want it kept out of
:> distribution that offsets the profit that would be made. This may come as a
:> surprise, but money is not always the sole motivator for doing something or
:> creating something. It has been explained in several replies what those
:> reasons might be, but there's nothing in the law that says you have to
:> comprehend the reason in order for the rights of the creator are protected.
:
:Where does their personal preference come into the promotion of arts and
:science, the constitutionally defined purpose of copyright law?
Because both the spirit and wording of the constitutionally defined purpose fo
the copyright law is to protect the promotion of arts and sciences by
protecting reasonably the rights of those PERFORMING AND CREATING those arts
and sciences. Not those copying them without permission. There are legally set
limits to those protections. Protections that are disregarded by those making
copies without permission.
Your personal preference is to disregard that point. That does not make your
preference the legal, ethical or morally accurate choice.
:> This may be your opinion, but it is not the law. It is not the law because
:> the majority would not seem to share your opinion.
:
:Luckily, the US isn't run by majority opinion, or we'd quickly stifle the
:free speech of fringe groups and minority religions. I consider this a bonus
:of the system, not a fault.
Non sequitor. Your answer doesn't refute his point and evades answering it at
all.
:> So wait 50 years after the death of those involved and we won't have a
:> problem.
:
:Corporations, large ones whose assets are purchased by other corporations
:anyway, never die.
:
They can. There are legal limitations on how long those rights can be held by
corporations. In fact, the laws had to be recently modified to extend Disney's
ownership of the Mickey Mouse trademark. They were not extended indefinitely,
but for a specific period. After that, the rights will devolve to the public
domain, but not before.
Once again, your argument is incorrect.
Keith Wood
Per Abrahamsen wrote:
>
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>
> > >If they will never be sold legally then no profit has been lost by
> > >anyone. If they are shown to the public then they are not for close
> > >friends only. Put both together and nobody has been harmed in any way
> > >by their sale.
> >
> > You're still not getting it.
> >
> > You pay $30 bucks for a copy of the bloopers. To whom does that go?
> > Does it go to the actors, whose images you are looking at, who
> > worked day and night to create both the drama and the errors? No,
> > it goes to a pirate.
>
> Bad argument. Compare the cases:
>
> Rob buy bootleg blooper tape for US$30. Of these US$0 go to the actors.
> Rob doesn't buy blooper tape for US$0. Of these US$0 go to the actors.
>
> In both cases the actors are equally well off, but in the first case
> Rob and bootlegger are more happy. From the look of it, a victimless
> crime.
. . .except for the fact that the people who hold legal title to the
bloopers have been trespassed against.
Let's say that I made a copy of your car keys, and took your car out for
a drive tonight, after you go to bed. I bring it back with the same
amount of gas in the tank, plus leave payment for all wear and tear on
the car, so that it is there in the morning. After you go to work, I
come in and get my beauty sleep in your bed (but I leave it in the exact
same condition that you left it in).
Are those victimless crimes?
Keith Wood
djl...@magic.mv.com wrote:
>
> Brian Stinson <blee...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >No matter how many bootleg copies are made of these bloopers, you still have
> >your copy. You are deprived of nothing, unless you plan to sell them
> >yourself at some point in the future, in which case your best defense is to
> >start selling them as soon as possible, as I think most people would rather
> >have a legal copy.
>
> Take a good look at the last episode of "From the Earth to the Moon".
>
> Remember the famous turn-of-the-century movie "Voyage Dans La Lune"?
>
> The creator of the film didn't see a penny of it becuase, by the time
> he'd gotten to NY to make his big fortune, someone had already beaten
> him across the Atlantic with a bootleg copy of the movie and made the
> fortune that SHOULD have gone to the originator.
. . .and the fact that the thief was Dr Alexander Graham Bell doesn't
make it any less wrong.
BTW, Bell was well-known as a ripoff artist -- he even connived his way
into the tent where the Wright Flyer was housed, in order to steal the
"wing-warping" idea that made their planes stable in turns.
Keith Wood
Sorry, under the law, when an event is only open to "members," those
members are a select group.
If you hold a convention in a city park, and let anyone come
participate, that is a public meeting. When you place ANY requirements
for participation, that is a select group.
Derek Balling
> They can. There are legal limitations on how long those rights can be held
> by
> corporations. In fact, the laws had to be recently modified to extend
> Disney's
> ownership of the Mickey Mouse trademark. They were not extended
> indefinitely,
> but for a specific period. After that, the rights will devolve to the public
> domain, but not before.
Trademark and Copyright are not the same, and do not have the same time
limitations. Don't confuse the two.