My take on B5

[A_M_Swallow]

Well I'm far from an expert on copyright law so I probably am misunderstanding things

Now in the UK it states in a book that it cannot be lent.I've never known anybody to get into trouble for lending a book however.

Read the paragraph again. It goes on to say in a different cover.

 

[KoshFan]

As for archivists, their function falls under the section of the law pertaining to libraries. This site might be of interest. It should answer B5_Obsessed and KoshFan's questions.

Well, it answers one of my questions -- but it doesn't address the eidetic memory issue. A new copy has been created, even if it is accessible only by one person.

Copies that had been taped for their own use which is perfectly legal.

So you can copy a film for your own use. Surely you could then, by logical extrapolation, photocopy a book for your own use as well? You just can't give it away.


Here's an interesting case: my father loves a Swedish movie called "The Apple War." He cannot, for love nor money, find a copy in any medium that has English subtitles. So he bought a Swedish copy, ripped it, and is laboriously creating his own subtitles for it via translation sites, dictionaries, and his own recollection of events. He's violating copyright to a degree, in order to create a product which doesn't actually exist, and for which there is demonstrably some demand. Where would that fall on our black-and-white schema?

 

[B5_Obsessed]

Well, it answers one of my questions -- but it doesn't address the eidetic memory issue. A new copy has been created, even if it is accessible only by one person.

Jan will cut out your brain and mail it to jms, who will, in turn, feed it to Buddy.

Here's an interesting case: my father loves a Swedish movie called "The Apple War." He cannot, for love nor money, find a copy in any medium that has English subtitles. So he bought a Swedish copy, ripped it, and is laboriously creating his own subtitles for it via translation sites, dictionaries, and his own recollection of events. He's violating copyright to a degree, in order to create a product which doesn't actually exist, and for which there is demonstrably some demand. Where would that fall on our black-and-white schema?

See my previous comment.

 

[Jan]

Well, it answers one of my questions -- but it doesn't address the eidetic memory issue. A new copy has been created, even if it is accessible only by one person.

It never occurred to me that that was a serious question. In fact, no copy has been made because the 'memory copy' isn't tangible.

So you can copy a film for your own use. Surely you could then, by logical extrapolation, photocopy a book for your own use as well? You just can't give it away.

No. I obviously wasn't clear (or you're deliberately misunderstanding). What I was talking about was taping something from a broadcast. Photocoying a book is also infringement.

Here's an interesting case: my father loves a Swedish movie called "The Apple War." He cannot, for love nor money, find a copy in any medium that has English subtitles. So he bought a Swedish copy, ripped it, and is laboriously creating his own subtitles for it via translation sites, dictionaries, and his own recollection of events. He's violating copyright to a degree, in order to create a product which doesn't actually exist, and for which there is demonstrably some demand. Where would that fall on our black-and-white schema?

I guess it would depend on his plans for it. It sounds like he plans to sell or share the subtitled copies when he's done. In that case he'll be infringing. It doesn't matter if there's demand. It doesn't matter if he doesn't make any money off of it. It's infringement.

Jan will cut out your brain and mail it to jms, who will, in turn, feed it to Buddy.

Aw...you told!

Jan

 

[jnk5y]

Thanks for clearing stuff up Jan.

*please don't cut anyone's brain out

 

[KoshN]

Thanks for clearing stuff up Jan.

*please don't cut anyone's brain out

Jan, as Sylar???

 

[KoshFan]

It never occurred to me that that was a serious question. In fact, no copy has been made because the 'memory copy' isn't tangible.

Ah, but you see, this is where our philosophic difference lies. I do not believe that a story is made out of paper or film or whatever DVDs are made out of; that's just the delivery mechanism for the real story, which exists exclusively in hearts and minds. But then, I suppose the law doesn't try to control our minds yet.

So you can copy a film for your own use. Surely you could then, by logical extrapolation, photocopy a book for your own use as well? You just can't give it away.

No. I obviously wasn't clear (or you're deliberately misunderstanding). What I was talking about was taping something from a broadcast. Photocoying a book is also infringement.[/quote]

But that's really weird. You can make a copy of a broadcast, and what you have is a complete copy of the original. But you can't make an equally-private-use-only copy of a book?

You're being quite clear about the law; it's the law that's confounding.

I guess it would depend on his plans for it. It sounds like he plans to sell or share the subtitled copies when he's done. In that case he'll be infringing. It doesn't matter if there's demand. It doesn't matter if he doesn't make any money off of it. It's infringement.

By "demand" I meant that he wants to see it... and I do, too. A small but still very measurable demand. He'll also likely show our friends. I doubt he'd make more copies, and if he did he'd give them away as gifts.

 

[B5_Obsessed]

Hey, does anyone know where I can get a bootlegged copy of "The Memory of Shadows"? ;-P

 

[crazyhorse]

I'm selling them on e-bay for $20 each

Don't tell anybody though

 

[Jan]

It never occurred to me that that was a serious question. In fact, no copy has been made because the 'memory copy' isn't tangible.

Ah, but you see, this is where our philosophic difference lies. I do not believe that a story is made out of paper or film or whatever DVDs are made out of; that's just the delivery mechanism for the real story, which exists exclusively in hearts and minds. But then, I suppose the law doesn't try to control our minds yet.

I doesn't matter what the essence of the story is, that can't be legislated any more than ideas can be. It's that delivery mechanism that's legislated, as you say. People with truly eidetic memories A) are exceedingly rare and B) can't distribute a memory.

But that's really weird. You can make a copy of a broadcast, and what you have is a complete copy of the original. But you can't make an equally-private-use-only copy of a book?

No, because in theory, you're 'paying' for the copy you've taped from broadcast (or whatever) TV by experiencing the ads. If you copy a library book, you've deprived the publisher and author of the sale price of that book.

By "demand" I meant that he wants to see it... and I do, too. A small but still very measurable demand. He'll also likely show our friends. I doubt he'd make more copies, and if he did he'd give them away as gifts.

In that case, for every copy he makes, he's depriving the distributor the money for that copy which in turn deprives anybody who should have gotten residuals or royalties their cut also.

And therein, I think, is the part that gets me when these discussions come up. All too often (not necessarily in this conversation) the ones who are in favor of copying have a 'screw the Big Corporation' attitude and they seem to forget that the people who create and produce that content that they want badly enough to appropriate are the ones who end up really getting hurt. The writer, the actors, directors and some crew are the ones who depend on that income while between jobs. It's deferred compensation.

Others who simply want to see something early but intend to buy the final product may have the best intentions in the world but I'd be willing to bet that they don't look upon buying that finished product as a true debt. When they're shopping for DVDs or games, do you think they plop the previously downloaded DVD in their cart first or is it likely that their eye is caught by something else and that something else gets their money? Chances are the new shiny thing is what gets bought and they figure they'll buy the downloaded product next time. And next time. And next time....

Jan

 

[Jan]

Hey, does anyone know where I can get a bootlegged copy of "The Memory of Shadows"? ;-P

If I told you I'd have to go all Sylar on you. :evil:

Jan

 

[Sindatur]

I can't speak for anyone else, but, I have gone and paid to see movies, such as Harry Potter or Star Trek, and then obtained copies before they were released to enjoy until release time, and I always purchase the legitimate factory copy the day of release when possible (or at least the first week of release). Matter of fact, I typically buy two copies, 1 for myself, and 1 for my mother. So, the artists have rec'd compensation for lover and I to see them in theaters, plus purchasing 2 of the official copy almost immediately upon release.

 

[KoshFan]

By "demand" I meant that he wants to see it... and I do, too. A small but still very measurable demand. He'll also likely show our friends. I doubt he'd make more copies, and if he did he'd give them away as gifts.

In that case, for every copy he makes, he's depriving the distributor the money for that copy which in turn deprives anybody who should have gotten residuals or royalties their cut also.

But it's actually the distributor that's denying itself the money by not releasing the product.

And therein, I think, is the part that gets me when these discussions come up. All too often (not necessarily in this conversation) the ones who are in favor of copying have a 'screw the Big Corporation' attitude and they seem to forget that the people who create and produce that content that they want badly enough to appropriate are the ones who end up really getting hurt. The writer, the actors, directors and some crew are the ones who depend on that income while between jobs. It's deferred compensation.

You're right, the corporations don't suffer unduly compared to the content creators who need the money. But to my mind that is much, much more a problem with the capitalist system than it is with people stealing stuff; the writers' strike, after all, wasn't about people stealing content, it was about the big corporations not paying them nearly enough in royalties to begin with.

I'm rather in favor of a more direct system where the companies are eliminated altogether, the actual artists upload the content directly to us, and we pay what we think they deserve -- then it's a "sing for your supper" situation, the good artists get what they deserve and get almost all of it after overhead is met, and no lawyers and vice-presidents are skimming anything off the top.

 

[Mercury]

Well I have to say I never expected this thread to be a copyright discussion but hey, whatever works, works.

Thanks to everyone for the recommendations, they were most helpful

 

[Triple F]

I'm rather in favor of a more direct system where the companies are eliminated altogether, the actual artists upload the content directly to us, and we pay what we think they deserve -- then it's a "sing for your supper" situation, the good artists get what they deserve and get almost all of it after overhead is met, and no lawyers and vice-presidents are skimming anything off the top.

Nice theory that overlooks human nature unfortunately as not everyone shares your sense of fair play.

The theory and what most folks say they’ll do. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/radiohead_in_rainbows_pot_of_gold.php


The reality and what they really do. http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444


The vaguness of the figures i.e. not telling you, kind of hints at how successful it was. Fact is around 60% paid nothing and the overall average purchase price was apparently around the $2 mark. But then this is the record business and their half a step ahead of boxing when it comes to "fixing" things.


Complicated and as a short term gimmick fair enough. But in the long term – not a snowballs chance of becoming widespread other than for up and coming artists to get their name ‘out there’. A marketing ploy for others with ‘extended’ or added value products being sold alongside, just like the one linked to. The ‘pay what you want’ download doesn’t cost them anything if even a couple of hundred folks out of a hundred thousand pay a few bucks. The real money comes in the interest generated and the sales that come afterwards – and that will have diminishing returns as the novalty wears off as well, depending how many bands follow Radiohead.

Besides, cutting the big corporations out would mean they’re no longer big corporations and nothing but youtube quality type stuff is all you’d be left with. Theft is theft and I agree wholeheartedly with that including bootlegging tv shows, music or books etc. For the very reason that payments of royalties/residuals are not being made.

However I do not agree that getting hold of the contents of something like the B5 magazines – long out of print and will never return is – again for the same reasons. Theft is really about depriving someone of something. No royalties or residuals are being paid to anyone who was connected with the magazines, it’s a dead product. So obtaining a copy of the contents is depriving no one of anything. The law still says it’s theft and frankly in a situation like that – the laws an ass.

If you copy a library book, you've deprived the publisher and author of the sale price of that book.

Bad example kinda, because you got it from the library they already paid for it so by borrowing (and copying it) your not depriving anyone of anything - though of course your still breaking the law. ; )

 

[hypatia]

Just to throw in another wrench in the works, I'll ask a question:

Back in the ancient days of yore, I had a master's paper that needed some research materials that were not available to me where I was. When I was on Christmas vacation, I went to visit friends in a town with a much bigger math library, where I proceeded to xerox copy every article on my math topic that I could possibly find. Using the bibliogrpahies, I traced back more work and xeroxed away. Picking up on hints as to where the research at the time of the article was headed, I'd look up more authors, find more reference texts, and xerox away.

Not that I care one bit, but was that all illegal? The math college's library sold me the copier card in the first place, and this is what everyone at the time did to research their graduation papers. Unless you actually were enrolled in one of the big Universities with such reference texts, it was the only way it could be done.

(And p.s. law, moral or legal, or not: I'd give almost anything to get viewable copies of "Blake's 7". It certainly doesn't seem to be coming up for release anytime... ever. )

 

[KoshFan]

Okay, fair enough -- the model I'd really like is Joss Whedon's model for "Dr. Horrible," or Felicia Day's for "The Guild." Shoestring, but brilliant. And yes, I would never copy those -- because I'm not just ripping off a major record company, which frankly I'm quite willing to do, but every cent I steal comes out of the pocket of the creators. No suits involved.

And hyp raises an excellent point. Every history teacher worth anything that I've ever had has photocopied page after page of history texts. There's simply no budget to buy enough copies of every book they needed, so it was either steal or let the education of the kids suffer. They -- and I -- always chose the minor theft. I'll choose improving people over defense of property any day, because people matter; property... much less so.

 

[Triple F]

Completely agree with that sentiment, and copyright law seems to be all over the place with little loopholes and exceptions. Take a fan site. Showing a screen grab by itself is copyright infringement but if it is used as part of an analysis of an episode then apparently it’s not and falls under fair usage.

Here’s another question, just for the fun of it. On a couple of forums I noticed that mock conversations take place using nothing but quotes from B5. A commercial book has been produced containing nothing but quotes from the show – it most likely contains a statemtn concerning who owns the copyright of the contents. The mock conversation probably contains every quote that appears in the book and displaying it for anyone to read. Does that devalue the book?

Because if it does it could be argued quite easily that it is impacting on the authors ability to make money by reducing sales and is also infringing copyright by quoting the complete content. So if you take the simple black and white stance that copyright infringement is wrong – no exceptions – then technically, everyone involved in those mock conversations are taking money out of jms’s hand and are techncially breaking the law. Luckily though, the real world is made up of various shades of grey before we get to the black and white bits.

 

[B5_Obsessed]

Well I have to say I never expected this thread to be a copyright discussion but hey, whatever works, works.

Thanks to everyone for the recommendations, they were most helpful

This has all happened before. It will happen again.

And in response to your comment about watching Babylon 5 twice - it's almost better the second time from a pure appreciation standpoint, because even though you already know what's going to happen you find yourself so surprised by the plot points and developments that you missed in plain sight upon first viewing. Seeing the points and knowing their significance down the line gives you a real sense of order in the Universe.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Just to throw in another wrench in the works, I'll ask a question:

Back in the ancient days of yore, I had a master's paper that needed some research materials that were not available to me where I was. When I was on Christmas vacation, I went to visit friends in a town with a much bigger math library, where I proceeded to xerox copy every article on my math topic that I could possibly find. Using the bibliogrpahies, I traced back more work and xeroxed away. Picking up on hints as to where the research at the time of the article was headed, I'd look up more authors, find more reference texts, and xerox away.

Not that I care one bit, but was that all illegal? The math college's library sold me the copier card in the first place, and this is what everyone at the time did to research their graduation papers. Unless you actually were enrolled in one of the big Universities with such reference texts, it was the only way it could be done.

This practice continues to this day. Students often copy chapters out of books. At one time, it was common practice for Prof.s to make what are called "course packs," that were composed of extensive copying from books, journals, anything - all without compensation to the original authors/publishers. There was a law suit over this, which the U of M lost, as they went beyond "fair use." So, now they pay a fee to the original publishers/authors, and make the course packs, which now cost quite a bit of money. Then, the instructor provides a copy, or several, to the library, which are loaned out for 2-4 hours at a time. And, the students copy from them what they want.

I'll just add a couple of other things to this discussion. Libraries, and I presume DVD rental places buy what are called "Institutional Copies" of DVDs that are for loan, at significantly more money than a consumer copy costs. This is because they are going to be loaning them out.

Another interesting case I read of a few years back was when some group wanted to market "family friendly" versions of popular films. They bought copies of DVDs, edited out what they found objectionable, then re-sold the altered DVDs. They thought this would be legal, since they were just reselling something they had bought. They were sued, and lost, because the original authors had the right to only have their work out in the form they wanted, i.e., unedited.

Personally, I see plenty of black and white, but also a fair amount of gray...