My take on B5

[Jan]

But while Marcus' actions are extremely dubious morally, I never understood why people were in so much more of an uproar over "Space, Time..." than they were over Kosh's manipulation of G'Kar in "Dust to Dust".

Jan

Perhaps because Marcus is doing the manipulation for himself while Kosh is doing it for the vastly greater good. Moreover, does Kosh ever really lie to G'Kar in that section? He puts on a Narn image, that's about all the misleading he does.

i was unaware, that it was meant to be Kosh, where is this stated, or is it simply an assumption.

We saw the Narn 'being of light' G'Lan in G'Kar's vision and that vision tells G'Kar that he had "...always been here". And part of G'Kar's vision was of his father and Kosh was known for appearing as a father figure. Kosh was in the area where G'Kar was as we saw at the end of G'Kar's vision. There are also several comments in the JMS Speaks section of theLurker's Guide page for Dust to Dust that refer to Kosh's manipulation.

As for Marcus, yes, he was manipulating Ivanova for his own happiness but it could be argued that her happiness meant just as much to him.

Jan

 

[jnk5y]

But while Marcus' actions are extremely dubious morally, I never understood why people were in so much more of an uproar over "Space, Time..." than they were over Kosh's manipulation of G'Kar in "Dust to Dust".

Jan

Perhaps because Marcus is doing the manipulation for himself while Kosh is doing it for the vastly greater good. Moreover, does Kosh ever really lie to G'Kar in that section? He puts on a Narn image, that's about all the misleading he does.

i was unaware, that it was meant to be Kosh, where is this stated, or is it simply an assumption.

i always took it as an epiphany coming from somewhere deep within G'kar himself.

I agree as well but since they are out of print and I doubt they will ever be in print again PM me if you would like to know how to get them. And if you like you can send $30 to JMS or make sure and buy them if they are ever released again.

JMS didn't write them all and while your sentiments may seem nice and logical you're ignoring the fact that without the writer's and WB's permission, you're basically stealing. Out of print or not, nobody is *entitled* to these stories.

Jan

very "black and white" way of looking at it, but valid i suppose.

It's not stealing it's copyright infringement! JMS wrote most of the short stories except for True Seeker which is on the list as being the suckiest of them and the Nautilus Coil which just brings up more questions than it answers.

Did anyone mention the comics such as In Valen's Name which was a great story.

 

[Jan]

It's not stealing it's copyright infringement!

Tomayto/tomahto. It's usurping something that belongs to somebody else without permission.

Jan

 

[jnk5y]

It's not stealing it's copyright infringement!

Tomayto/tomahto. It's usurping something that belongs to somebody else without permission.

Jan

I know, it was meant as a joke.

You may not agree with this philosophy but it seems fair to me:
Before B5 was released on DVD they had it on VHS. Unfortunately there was a gap between the sell of VHS and release of DVDs. So during that time if one where to get a VHS copy I see nothing wrong with that. The person wanted to purchase them but couldn't buy them anywhere so they got them in another way. Now the second the DVDs were available I would expect that person to purchase them and delete the old VHS copies.

We have special laws governing music, video and writing for a reason. They have special meaning to those who read or listen or watch them and they should always be available to the public. I believe if a company or person refuses to sell their item to willing buyers it should be put into the public domain. If that person or company starts selling it again all public domain copies should be replaced with authentic items.

Unfortunately it's definitely illegal under current laws so don't PM me.

 

[Jan]

We have special laws governing music, video and writing for a reason. They have special meaning to those who read or listen or watch them and they should always be available to the public. I believe if a company or person refuses to sell their item to willing buyers it should be put into the public domain. If that person or company starts selling it again all public domain copies should be replaced with authentic items.

I've had this discussion often enough that I don't have any hope of changing anybody's mind but I shudder at the thought that you think that taking something, anything, crafted by another against their will should be permissable. If I make something, whether it's a napkin holder or a symphony, it's mine to do with as I please. Period.

Jan

 

[KoshFan]

I've had this discussion often enough that I don't have any hope of changing anybody's mind but I shudder at the thought that you think that taking something, anything, crafted by another against their will should be permissable. If I make something, whether it's a napkin holder or a symphony, it's mine to do with as I please. Period.

Jan

Interesting question, though -- a written story is really a mental construct. The words on the page are useful just because we have imperfect memories. So people with eidetic memories are commiting copyright infringement by reading a story? They've created perfect replicas of what the story really is -- inside their heads.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

If I make something, whether it's a napkin holder or a symphony, it's mine to do with as I please. Period.

Jan

Not if you make a million copies, and sell them, or give them away. Those copies are no longer yours, to do with as you please.

I have never down-loaded a song, or a movie. I'm certainly not one who thinks it is okay to take an artist's work, I would even call it stealing, when it is available for sale by the artist, or their agents.

But, when it is NOT available that way, regardless of the law, I don't think it morally wrong to avail oneself of that artist's work, even if by making a personal copy. That is, so long as one does not realize ANY material profit from that artist's work. I realize we aren't going to agree on this.

I work at a library, and we now have what is called an Espresso Book Machine. The library is also participating in the Google book digitizing project. Public domain books in the data base may be printed by this machine, and sold. Out of print books, for which someone still owns the rights, can be printed with their permission, and they generally get a portion of the sale price. I hope that in the future, most OOP books will be available for POS printing. This would solve such problems, to everyone's benefit.

 

[Jan]

Not if you make a million copies, and sell them, or give them away. Those copies are no longer yours, to do with as you please.

I have never down-loaded a song, or a movie. I'm certainly not one who thinks it is okay to take an artist's work, I would even call it stealing, when it is available for sale by the artist, or their agents.

But, when it is NOT available that way, regardless of the law, I don't think it morally wrong to avail oneself of that artist's work, even if by making a personal copy. That is, so long as one does not realize ANY material profit from that artist's work. I realize we aren't going to agree on this.

So...Just as an example, if you wrote a beautiful love poem and decided that you didn't want to publish it, say you wanted to only gift it to your true love, but somebody else got a copy somehow, you think it would be morally okay for that person to make copies and distribute it to any and everyone without your permission as long as they didn't profit from it? How could that be right?

I work at a library, and we now have what is called an Espresso Book Machine. The library is also participating in the Google book digitizing project. Public domain books in the data base may be printed by this machine, and sold. Out of print books, for which someone still owns the rights, can be printed with their permission, and they generally get a portion of the sale price. I hope that in the future, most OOP books will be available for POS printing. This would solve such problems, to everyone's benefit.

The key words there are "with their permission". Yes, the POS system could be *wonderful* for the creators who want their work distributed but don't currently have a publisher. But taking something not available without that permission is simply wrong.

Jan

 

[Jade Jaguar]

So...Just as an example, if you wrote a beautiful love poem and decided that you didn't want to publish it, say you wanted to only gift it to your true love, but somebody else got a copy somehow, you think it would be morally okay for that person to make copies and distribute it to any and everyone without your permission as long as they didn't profit from it? How could that be right?

It wouldn't be right at all. That was intended to be private, and would be plain theft. That is a far different circumstance than the one I posited, quoted below:

Not if you (the artist) make a million copies, and sell them, or give them away. Those copies are no longer yours, to do with as you please.

 

[Ranger1]

Fucking hell, i wish i'd never mentioned the availability of the short stories through "other means".

 

[Jade Jaguar]

No need to get upset. No one else is. We're just having a polite philosophical discussion.

 

[jnk5y]

No need to get upset. No one else is. We're just having a polite philosophical discussion.

Yeah I wish I kept my mouth shut too. But since we are having a polite philosophical discussion I'd like to add something.

Documentaries have a very difficult time clearing pictures, video clips and music for their use. There is no registry of copyright owners. Someone could make a good faith effort in locating a copyright owner and not find one use the item and 10 years later get sued into oblivion b/c the copyright owner finally showed up. So the only items that are definitely in the public domain which means 60+ years old get used. In the case of music you may have 5 different people who own different rights to one song. The song writer, the performer, the instrument players, the distributor...

So a lot of books, videos and music are lost b/c it can't be properly archived b/c the archivist can't make a copy b/c they can't find who owns the rights to it or are never given permission. I feel more comfortable knowing there are bootlegs of out of print stuff floating around out there just in case all legitimate copies are lost.

 

[B5_Obsessed]

Not if you make a million copies, and sell them, or give them away. Those copies are no longer yours, to do with as you please.

I have never down-loaded a song, or a movie. I'm certainly not one who thinks it is okay to take an artist's work, I would even call it stealing, when it is available for sale by the artist, or their agents.

But, when it is NOT available that way, regardless of the law, I don't think it morally wrong to avail oneself of that artist's work, even if by making a personal copy. That is, so long as one does not realize ANY material profit from that artist's work. I realize we aren't going to agree on this.

So...Just as an example, if you wrote a beautiful love poem and decided that you didn't want to publish it, say you wanted to only gift it to your true love, but somebody else got a copy somehow, you think it would be morally okay for that person to make copies and distribute it to any and everyone without your permission as long as they didn't profit from it? How could that be right?

I work at a library, and we now have what is called an Espresso Book Machine. The library is also participating in the Google book digitizing project. Public domain books in the data base may be printed by this machine, and sold. Out of print books, for which someone still owns the rights, can be printed with their permission, and they generally get a portion of the sale price. I hope that in the future, most OOP books will be available for POS printing. This would solve such problems, to everyone's benefit.

The key words there are "with their permission". Yes, the POS system could be *wonderful* for the creators who want their work distributed but don't currently have a publisher. But taking something not available without that permission is simply wrong.

Jan

Speaking of libraries, many have extensive periodicals and reference materials. If I were able get my local library to do an inter-library loan and acquire those "Amazing Stories" issues, I could read the short stories without jms' permission or without any express benefit to him. And what if the issues were only available in digitized format or microfiche? Is the library breaking the law? For that matter, how is the viewing of these long forgotten stories any worse than simply checking out Legions of Fire, Volume 1?

 

[B5_Obsessed]

No need to get upset. No one else is. We're just having a polite philosophical discussion.

Yeah I wish I kept my mouth shut too. But since we are having a polite philosophical discussion I'd like to add something.

Documentaries have a very difficult time clearing pictures, video clips and music for their use. There is no registry of copyright owners. Someone could make a good faith effort in locating a copyright owner and not find one use the item and 10 years later get sued into oblivion b/c the copyright owner finally showed up. So the only items that are definitely in the public domain which means 60+ years old get used. In the case of music you may have 5 different people who own different rights to one song. The song writer, the performer, the instrument players, the distributor...

So a lot of books, videos and music are lost b/c it can't be properly archived b/c the archivist can't make a copy b/c they can't find who owns the rights to it or are never given permission. I feel more comfortable knowing there are bootlegs of out of print stuff floating around out there just in case all legitimate copies are lost.

Yeah, I was watching an Aerosmith documentary the other day that had 10 pictures and no Aerosmith music at all, Just couldn't take it and had to change the channel.

 

[KoshFan]

Excellent point about the libraries. Money changed hands once -- but after that a whole ton of people have access to the book.

Reminds me of a story where an author's book isn't selling well. He's told it's a huge hit with the AIs of his day, though, and asks how many copies were sold. "One," he's told. "They just shared."

 

[Ranger1]

No need to get upset. No one else is. We're just having a polite philosophical discussion.

i'm not upset, it just annoys me that whenever this argument (debate) flares up it is always treated as black and white, when in truth it is shades of gray. for example, i have copies of every episode of B5 on my pc, why? because although i own all the box sets, at least one is usually on loan to someone or other, thus i always have a complete set. is this wrong? technically, who knows, the copies i downloaded were region 1, my DVDs are region 2, they are different. or another example, there is a particular game series (football manager) which every year between the months of july and october i find myself so excited at it's approaching release that i may burst, so i D/L any pre-release copy i can lay my hands on because i simply cannot wait, i still buy a copy on release day, is that wrong? it's all shades of gray, but it always seems as though the only people debating the issue are from the "Grrr that's wrong" group and the "Fuck it" group. even if the second group isn't made up of the "Fuck it" followers, they are still treated that way by the first group.

 

[Jan]

No offense, but to me the 'shades of grey' folks are soothing their consciences when they decide to do something they know isn't right. To answer the specific questions, the second set of B5 on your computer *could* be construed as a back-up copy but downloading pre-release copies of the football game series can't be considered anything but wrong because those pre-release copies are extremely unlikely to be anything but bootleg and something the game company likely doesn't want distributed.

I'll grant that documentaries have a hard time of it but I think it's pretty unlikely that ALL legitimate copies of some film or photo would be destroyed. However, it's also pretty unlikely that they'd be 'sued into oblivion' if the copyright holder were to appear. Most rights holders would simply want the proper compensation for the use of their materials and a court would very likely take into consideration any documented attempts to locate the rights owner.

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.

Jan

 

[crazyhorse]

Were they not a few Dr.Who episodes saved from oblivion because fans had copies of them and gave these copies back to the BBC

As for copyright infringment,does that not happen if you lend somebody a book without permission?Is it not the case that any quote from any film used by people on this site without express permission is a infringment of copyright?

Never mind the Avatars that people use

I would say that there is a lot of gray in the matter of what is acceptable and what isn't.

Then again I would have no problem downloading a book that was out of print in order to read it :devil:

 

[Jan]

Were they not a few Dr.Who episodes saved from oblivion because fans had copies of them and gave these copies back to the BBC

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

As for copyright infringment,does that not happen if you lend somebody a book without permission?

Is it safe to assume that you know that's a silly question? What part of lending a book that's been bought and paid for creates a copy? as in COPYright...

Is it not the case that any quote from any film used by people on this site without express permission is a infringment of copyright?

Never mind the Avatars that people use

I would say that there is a lot of gray in the matter of what is acceptable and what isn't.

Not really, if you bother to check out what the law actually says. For the most part, except perhaps some avatars, the quotes used would fall under 'Fair Use'.

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

Then again I would have no problem downloading a book that was out of print in order to read it :devil:[/QUOTE]
Then you know that what you're doing is wrong and decide to do it anyway. Just don't pretend that it's the right thing to do. :angel:

Jan

 

[crazyhorse]

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.

So quotes are OK but avatars not,I never knew that.Still I have no problems with avatars being used.

I decide to do lots of things that I know to be wrong but these things tend to be the most fun :devil: