On 10 Jan 97, Kit Ballantyne wrote to John Giannini:
 ->> I have every right to walk into a Wal-Mart store and buy 10 Snow
 ->> Whites if I want to.  Do I not have that right?  Once I buy them,
 ->> they are MINE, to do with as I please.  If I choose to put them in a
 ->> box and leave them all sealed for 3 years, is that not my right?
 KB> Not true. You have the right to buy as many as you want but the
 KB> copyright stays with the original owner of it - not you.
True.  But copyright has nothing to do with my situation.
Of course, if I was buying ONE copy, say, then making dubs of that one copy 
and selling those dubs - (thereby bringing new copies into existence), THEN I 
would be violating copyright laws, which state I can not make duplicates of 
the movie.  But if I choose to sell the original movie, I violate no 
copyrights at all.  And it is *that* I am doing, not selling illegally made 
copies.
Just like if I had purchased Windows 3.1, and when Win 95 came out, bought 
that, then sold my *original* copy of Windows 3.1 to someone - original disks 
in original box.  That's completely legal and violates NO copyright 
WHATSOEVER.
 KB> Some used books stores have been closed down recently. WHY? Because
 KB> they were selling copyrighted materials without permission of the
 KB> copyright owner.
If this is true, the owners of the bookstores should sue the police.  Selling 
2nd hand books, as long as they aren't illegal duplicates, is perfectly 
legal. Frankly, I don't know if you just made up the above "fact" or if it 
really happened.  If some used bookstore *was* closed down, it wasn't for 
selling used books.  Maybe they were taking books down to Kinkos and making 
photocopies of whole books and selling them.  Or maybe they were selling porn 
magazines in the backroom.  Who knows.  But they *didn't* get closed down, if 
this happened at all, for selling used books.
 KB> When a used book or video are sold the copyright owner still has
 KB> rights to it yet they aren't getting paid. That's illegal.
Wrong.  Totally 100% wrong.  Copyright law says nothing about 2nd hand sales. 
When a book or movie is sold, part of the *retail* price is a royalty which 
goes to the copyright holder.  THAT'S IT.  Now if the original buyer sells 
the book to someone else, and they sell it to someone else, and they sell it 
to someone else - that's perfectly legal - as long as the original book is 
continuing to be sold, and not a photocopy or reproduction.  Heck, if you are 
going on the theory that only one owner should be able to have use of a book 
because having more than one user or owner of the book violates copyright, 
then every library in America is operating on the shady side of the law.  And 
we KNOW that's not true, don't we.
 KB> Making money off of someone else's copyrighted work is both immoral
 KB> and illegal.
Correct.  If I buy Snow White and make a copy for you off of my original, and 
sell you the copy, then I have made money off of someone elses copyrighted 
work - I have brought a brand new copy into existence that I didn't pay for, 
and that could be illegal, and some would say immoral, so you are absolutely 
right on this point.
 KB> You do not have the legal right to make money off of someone
 KB> else's copyrighted materials without their permission.
True.
 KB> The only reason people get away with this is because it's too hard to
 KB> track down.
Again, true.  Video piracy is hard to combat because it's so easy to make an 
illegal dub (all you need is 2 VCRs) and also because copyright violation 
falls under the civil domain, not the criminal domain, so in order for action 
to be taken, the copyright holder itself must peruse the violator.  It's 
usually isn't cost-effective for Disney to go after someone who makes one 
illegal copy of Aristocats, for example.  It *might* be worth their while if 
someone was making a hundred copies a day of Aristocats and selling them.  
But yes, because of the ease of execution, and because it's generally a civil 
matter, video pirates usually don't get themselves gone after unless they do 
it big time and keep a high profile.
 KB> As technology advances and things like this get easier
 KB> to track down you will see the law dealing more severely with people
 KB> who violate these laws.
True again.  As with DVD right now.  DVD discs are being held up because 
Hollywood wants copy protection on the DVD discs that will make them 
impossible to copy.  Since no secure way of doing that has been perfected, we 
still don't have DVD discs on the market.  Hollywood is talking about a new 
system of encoding DVD disks with geographical markers - so that discs sold 
in one part of the country would not play on players bought in another part 
of the country.  This would cut down on the possibility of piracy.  But it 
would also inconvenience legitimate consumers, which is why it hasn't been 
done yet.
 KB> If I buy 2000 copies of Windows 95, do I have a legal right to sell it
 KB> to other people? Not according to the packaging and NOT according to
 KB> copyright laws.
Wrong.  Just plain vanilla wrong.  Incorrect.  You need to check your facts 
Kit, because saying stuff like this shows you obviously don't know what on 
Earth you are talking about.  It's like saying the sky is green, it makes you 
look silly.  I don't mean it as a flame, i am trying to help you not look 
foolish.
 KB> Video tapes and computer programs are sold for in-home (or in-office)
 KB> personal use. The copyright owner retains the rights to the program or
 KB> movie. You have no right to sell it to someone else without permission.
Wrong.  Gawd.  Totally wrong!  You couldn't be more wrong if you were on 
Jupiter.  If I buy a copy of Lotus and want to sell it to my friend, I am 
totally, 100% entitled to do that.  PERIOD.  To think or say anything else is 
just not correct.  I don't know how much more plain I can be!
 KB> Try buying 200 copies of a video tape and then selling them on the
 KB> streets.
I don't have the funds to buy 200 copies of a tape, but if I wanted to, I 
could.  It is COMPLETELY LEGAL.
 KB>  The police will arrive, take away your videos and put you in
 KB> jail. You had no legal right to sell them.
That is true....IF...I purchased ONE copy, and illegally made the other 200 
copies.  Yup, then I'd be keeping Bubba company.  But if I bought 200 
original copies, and sold those same 200 copies, well, that is PERFECTLY 
LEGAL, and any cop who tried to stop me would find themselves charged with 
harassment and interfering with my legal rights do conduct business.
 KB> They were bought by you according to the laws which say you can only
 KB> by them for in-home personal use. They expressly forbid resale.
How many times do I have to say this.  Wrong, Kit....just plain WRONG!
 KB>  Read the copyright notices and the copyright law and you will see
 KB> that I am telling the absolute truth.
You *really* need to research out copyright law, Kit!  You are under some 
really *BAD* assumptions and your understanding of even basic copyright 
concepts is obviously almost non-existent, from the kinds of things you are 
writing.  Call the copyright office in DC and ask them.  Or ask anyone else 
on even THIS echo.  Believe me, you are just plain incorrect in your 
statements.
 KB> For instance, I have a video tape of Walt Disney's "The Living Desert"
 KB> right here. The label says; "THE LIVING DESERT   WALT DISNEY HOME VIDEO
 KB> Color/69 Minutes/Duplicated in LP Mode G NTSC Standard     FBI WARNING!
 KB> Licensed for private home exhibition only.
This is a standard warning and it is talking about people who make ILLEGAL 
COPIES and sell them, *not* about selling the actual tape itself!  Gawd Kit, 
come on!  I didn't think it was *possible* anyone could be so lacking in 
their understanding of copyright.  Again, I mean no flame, but you are just 
plain frustrating.  You have NO IDEA what you are talking about.  None 
whatsoever!
 KB> Now, what you are doing with these extra tapes is NOT private home
 KB> exhibition. So, first, your activities fit under the heading "other use"
 KB> which is "strictly prohibited". Secondly, you distribute them by selling
 KB> them to others, which falls under UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION for which
 KB> "Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalities..."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  So long as I don't copy them, I can do whatever 
I want with them.  They are my property once purchased.  No, I don't hold the 
copyright, but I DO own the property and I can do whatever I want with my 
physical property.  Selling them is perfectly legal.  100% guaranteed.  (as 
long as I am not selling illegally dubbed copies, that is.)  If I buy a copy 
of Grimm's Fairy Tales, then want to yardsale it 2 years later, that is 
COMPLETELY legal. You *really* need to ask someone about this Kit.  According 
to you, every person who sells an old copy of LIFE magazine for twice cover 
price (very common) is breaking the law.  Such a notion is absolutely ABSURD. 
You really need to do some catching up, big time.
 KB> Like I said before, when you buy a video tape it gives you that right
 KB> to show it in your home. THAT'S IT. Nothing more. You don't have the
 KB> right to show it at work, lend it to others, make tape copies, sell
 KB> it to others or show it a daycare centers. You own the video tape but
 KB> NOT the movie. I suggest you stop trafficking in movies that you do
 KB> not own.
Wrong again.  Every line, every WORD you typed in the above 6 lines is 
absolutely, totally, 100 percent, utterly guaranteed WRONG.  The daycare 
example at least would have been right if this discussion was happening last 
year, but in 1996, the issue of whether tapes could be shown in bars and 
motels was considered by the courts, and the decision was that as long as the 
movie or program in a commercial setting was not the MAIN purpose of the 
business, then it IS legal.
I am not going to continue this thread Kit.  I feel like I am arguing to 
convince you the sky is blue, when you say it's green.  I don't have the 
time, nor the inclination, nor the responsibility, to educate you about 
copyright concepts and laws.  If you wrote in a message saying that you KNEW, 
absolutely for positive SURE that the sky WAS green, I'd be wasting my time 
trying to convince you it was blue.  Indeed, if you were absolutely convinced 
the sky was green, and a whole team of the world's top scientists came 
together and told you it was blue, you'd probably still go off thinking that 
all of THEM were wrong too - because you KNOW it's green, so they HAVE to be 
wrong.  And arguing with someone like that is just totally unproductive and 
is a complete waste of time.  Go check your beliefs, and when you are in 
possession of at least a teenie tiny bit of correct information, we can talk 
further, but I'm not going to continue to try to teach you to read until you 
at least know the alphabet.
Nuff said.
--- GoldED 2.50
---------------