ATTN JMS: RealVideo Cruasde Episodes on the web

[B5JMS Poster]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Iain Rae <iainr at rm322a.civ.hw.ac.uk>
Date: 4 Oct 1999 15:52:21 -0600
Lines: 67

J. Potts <navoff at xnet.com> wrote:
> In article <26382-37F8C467-369 at storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> Tammy Smith <gkarfan at webtv.net> wrote:
>>We couldn't even show B5 episodes at Agamemcon when I was there.  The
>>copyright-thing is pretty strict.  So if they won't show episodes at a
>>con, they certainly won't show them online!  

>>Historically, in the UK, the only way to get round the copyright act is
>>to get both houses of Parliament to believe in Fairies (and we're not
>>talking about Mr Portillo).


> U.S. laws aren't generally as strict as those in the UK, nor do they seem
> to be as strictly interpreted.  IIRC in the UK you're suppose to erase a
> tape of any recorded broadcast program after 10 days.   We have no such
I've not heard of that one, I know a UK comedian (well Bob Monkhouse)
was taken to court some years ago over his video Collection (he'd been taping
programmes from before the first VCR's appeared) and he won on the basis
they were for his own use as a reference, I also seem to remember that 
the marketing Dept. of the BBC freaked when they got a listing as he had
material they'd been looking for for years.

> stricture in the U.S.  Also, I've yet to find any place where it says that
> a person can't loan a tape they legally own to someone else.  They can't
> (legally) make a copy of the tape for another person (though it's highly
> unlikely they'd be prosecuted if they did since the legal system is generally
> only interested in large scale violations of that aspect of the law).
>From the copyright notice on River of Souls:

".....Any unauthorised copying, editing, exibition, renting, lending, public
performance, diffusion and/or broadcast of this VHS or any part thereof is
strictly prohibited......"

I've seen other notices list example venues (buses, oilrigs etc).

Personally I think that WB are doing themselves no favours in blocking the
material being shown at cons which are run for charity or where any profits
go to charity. It helps broaden the audience and it's poor PR when it's
announced that "X has been pulled because the big bad men at WB/whoever
have said no" for me this passes onto guilds/unions/whatever if they're the
ones being sticky. Hell the politicians will bend over backwards to bend the
rules if it's "For charity or in a good cause" and I'm cynical enough
to know that there's a goodly percentage doing it becuase it makes them
look good.

"For profit" cons.....well you wants to be in business you pays the going
rate for a license, you can't afford the license you don't do it.

> The extent to which copyright law is applied to the owner of the copyright
> can, in many instances be a mutable thing in the U.S.  The U.S. legal system
> is constantly reversing itself in the interpretation of the law, appellate
> courts overturning lower courts, Supreme court over turning appellate
> courts, etc.

> In some cases, there is no clear line established and until someone challenges
> the law, it's difficult to delineate what's right and what's wrong.  Heck
> even if there *is* a fine interpretation, that won't necessarily stop someone
> from taking the issue to court and possibly getting the law changed.


> --
> JRP
> "How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
> that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
>                                --Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 4 Oct 1999 22:32:27 -0600
Lines: 36

>Personally I think that WB are doing themselves no favours in blocking the
>material being shown at cons which are run for charity or where any profits
>go to charity. It helps broaden the audience and it's poor PR when it's
>announced that "X has been pulled because the big bad men at WB/whoever
>have said no" for me this passes onto guilds/unions/whatever if they're the
>ones being sticky.
>Hell the politicians will bend over backwards to bend the
>rules if it's "For charity or in a good cause" and I'm cynical enough
>to know that there's a goodly percentage doing it becuase it makes them
>look good.

Except, of course, that a number of conventions use the charity flag to cover a
multitude of sins, often illegitimately...which also compromises the cons that
ARE sincerely raising money for charity.  And that a con is giving money to a
charity doesn't really mitigate the legalities involved; if I steal your car,
sell it, and give the money to charity, the government isn't going to go
"awwww" and let it go because the money ended up in a worthwhile cause.

A secondary concern is that if ANY kind of money is involved, for a group
screening, it can be legally constituted as a theatrical exhibition if any of
the actors or others involved choose to press the point.  In fact, that
happened to WB, after an episode of Lois and Clark was screened at a con.  One
of the actors apparently took the position that this was a theatrical
exhibition, and if you show a TV program in a theatrical venue, it triggers
*substantial* payments per the various unions involved...and in this particular
case, it cost WB in the vicinity of six figures.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com




-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages go to the list maintainer,
-*** <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply elsewhere, adjust
-*** the "To" field.  See http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~ezk/b5jms/ for all
-*** other information about this list.