Hello Sweet Lorena,

I want you to know that I respect the views you have expressed on your main page regarding the discussion in the Sean Callery topic at MR.

However, I respectfully say to you that the person who was being spoken of did with full knowlege participate in illegally copying and selling cds. This person was spoken to by the board many months ago regarding copying and selling the cds. She was fully informed that this is an illegal activity. She made the decision to continue to engage in this with full awareness that what she was doing was wrong. And when spoken to this week...before any action was taken by me...refused to stop copying and selling the cds and did in fact taunt me and say to me 'if you feel so strongly about this...why don't you turn me into the authorities?'. She said this to me via IM.

In posts made on Monday night and through this week, this person made it clear that she felt it was okay to continue this activity because...as she put it...the music artists have a lot of money and she felt it should be taken from them! This is and was a very serious matter.

I want you to know that taking the actions I did was one of the hardest things I have ever had to do. It brought me no pleasure. But at some time, we all have to stand up and do what is right.

The Sean Callery topic was started so that all would know how he feels about his music being stolen. I think that it is important that we focus on the injured party in this matter! The injured and innocent party was Sean Callery and the other artists whose work was illegally copied and sold! I think at times we forget that there was an injured party in this matter and it was not the one copying and selling the cds!

I have asked in posts this morning at the Sean Callery topic, that the topic now stay away from any further discussion of the person I have mentioned above. All that needs to be said...has been said about that person. I would like the discussion to continue however regarding illegal copying because it is an important subject for all to be aware of and understand. I would also like us to discuss Sean Callery's new cd, which he asked me to tell the fans about.

Lorena, I hope I have followed all the guidelines of your site in the manner I have addressed this subject. I would not knowingly show disrespect to you.

SL, of course you followed my "so called" rules for civil discussions, and it is a pleasure to post a reply to your message.

SL, you were very conscious and you did the right thing in bringing the issue, for I have noticed many people are selling articles like photos of Roy Dupuis and other artists at ebay, or selling unauthorized CDs, disregarding the fact this is not a fair practice.

Personally I am with JeSuisReine, I don´t trust this merchandising. The idea of making profit on a photo of Roy Dupuis, an actor I so much admire, horrifies me, but many people resort to ebay to sell photos, magazines, whatsoever there. I don´t think this should be the purpose of a free market. You can only sell what is legally considered your property.

Selling a photo of an artist is making undue profit on his image. Only the actor has the right to sell his photos, and it is difficult to find an artist selling their photos. They prefer to give autographed ones to their fans. This example should be followed by people at ebay.

Rules should be established that only legally authorized items could be available for sale, for buyers may end up purchasing stolen property without knowing, or an item which infringes intellectual property rights.

I spoke about the moral lynch, because people, in general, SL, have a tendency to accuse or to flame each other unfairly, instead of adopting the honest and straightforward attitudes you always did.

Lorena ((( Hugs )))

So many are selling items on Ebay that contain the images of the cast of LFN. Key chains, pillowcases, photos, magnets, tote bags...the list goes on and on of what is being sold. I am sure that WB must know about a lot of this...it would be impossible to miss!

Some are using photos they themselves have taken of the cast to make some of these things. But others are using photos that others have taken.

I spoke with Eugene Glazer at length on the phone about this matter and the things in his Ebay store. He told me that he had spoken to WB about items he planned to sell...such as the LFN wrap reels...and that WB said they had no objection...a fact that was relayed to EBay. Ebay then allowed ERG to have his store. We talked regarding some items that I felt he should consider not having in his store. He is a lovely and gracious man...very humble...and he is very open to hearing the opinions of others.

Personally, I would prefer to see a member of the cast of LFN obtain the profits from the sale of items related to LFN then a fan. ERG told me that he knows his image is being sold by fans on items, but that he has never gone after anyone.

The really tough issue for me concerns the tapes kindly shared with others by tape fairies. Technically it is wrong to copy the tapes...even if you are giving them away. But I would hate to see tape fairies disappear. So I am torn both ways with this matter. I am not talking about those who tape the shows and then sell them at profit...I am only talking about those who copy and then give the tapes to others for only the cost of postage. But even so, I know that copying the tapes is technically wrong.

I do know that Roy is aware this is being done...he has even signed some of the copies!

I don't want to see the kind tape faires shut down...but again...this is something I am torn about.

SL, concerning the tape fairies JSR today quoted the following warning found in the FBI site as well.

Copyright Infringement: It is a violation of Federal law to distribute copyrighted music, movies, software, games, and other works without authorization. There are important national economic consequences associated with such theft. The FBI has asked industry associations and companies that are particularly concerned with intellectual property theft to report to the FBI -- for possible criminal investigation and prosecution -- anyone that they have reason to believe is violating Federal copyright law.

Unless I am wrong, my interpretation is that what your law considers a crime is to distribute copyrighted music, software, games and other works without authorization, which means to commercialize digital content. Therefore people who copy and sell CDs and DVDs protected by copyright in the Internet are violating the law and can be subject to criminal persecution, because they are distributing the products.

There is a gray zone, which needs specific evaluation, as regards copying of DVDs and CDs for non-commercial uses, as for instances to lend it to a friend who cannot afford the price, or has no access to such media. The problem is those copies might eventually land in the hands of third parties who then uses the media for commercial purposes. I am speaking in general terms. One must be cautious when dealing with such items.

One way out of this possibility is the constitution of fan clubs that might ask for authorization for a loan out program. Libraries do that very often, in order to stimulate people to read.

I really would like JeSuisReine to follow this thread and to come with her comments. I think JeSuisReine and you are two ladies who enrich a conversation. I learn lots of things when chatting online via messages with you two.

I just saw your thread addressed to me in Michael's Retreat, LorenaBR, and came to this forum as directed there.

Today I posted some further information about copyright protections in a thread on the film _L'invitation aux images_ that I started some time ago in Roy Dupuis Online. I just screened that film yesterday (right after it arrived from the distributor).

As I say in the thread in RDO, quoting the same copyright notice posted by the FBI on its site (which is also linked to the counterpart website of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (which has both English and French options):

It is not legal for anyone to copy a program from a television broadcast (or, perhaps even worse) to copy a commercially-acquired VHS videotape or DVD, and to "distribute" this content to other people. Only one copy of such works is permitted by the copyright notices on these works (videos, DVDs, CDs) for personal use only; fair use is even subject to interpretation of these properties. (For example, one cannot show entire videotapes even in classrooms for teaching purposes, because the producers and distributors of these properties market them to educational institutions for those purposes; though showing short clips as part of classes or professional presentations may fall under "fair use." In the case of CDs, several "seconds" may be the limit! One needs to get "authorization" from the copyright owners/holders (of the registered copyrighted works) to be able to show them even in academic settings, according to the law.

As posted in Michael's Retreat yesterday also, the FBI is from now on allowing its own official insignia to appear on CDs, DVDs, videotapes, and other video and digital content to aid in such copyright protections.

Whether it works or not is another issue.

But it is not legal to record or make more than one personal-use-only (which generally means viewing or archiving)copy of such copyrighted properties as VHS videotapes, DVDs, CDs, and software programs and distribute them to other people. According to the Music Act and DMCA linked to in my post about music piracy (in the "open letter" thread at Schtoppel's Hot Tub), one may not even be able to play one's own personal copy of, say, a CD on a machine other than the one that it was recorded on (say a CD recorder or a CD burner/computer drive), such as one's own personal CD or DVD player in another room of one's own home. That's taking it pretty far, but that's how the law reads! Congress is supposedly considering amending the law to take account of more recent technological developments (CD/DVD burners, Tivo, DVD recorders. . .): much of that arcane nature of the law is well beyond my level of knowledge of it. Only intellectual property lawyers and legislators probably understand the finer points of all these laws.

From the perspective of the copyright laws that most members of the general public can understand:
What "tape fairies" have been doing is illegal. If even they only charge the reimbursement cost of the tapes or other media (CD, DVD) and of the postage, it is an illegal activity.

Before realizing this, some people have exchanged or purchased from tape fairies some of these items. Now that they realize this, they really shouldn't do it anymore. And the tape fairies should not solicit "clients."

The FBI has clearly stated that it is stepping up its measures to protect the "victims" of "cybercrimes" and "white collar" crimes relating to such commercial interests and that there are important "national economic" consequences that it intends to prevent. So, as far as the statement of the main law enforcement agency in the United States (the FBI) goes, that's the official position. I've linked to its sites in my MR message yesterday.

For more information, I suggest that people go to the many websites linked in various messages that I've already posted in threads in Michael's Retreat, Inside Section One: Section One and Schtoppel's Hot Tub, and Roy Dupuis Online. If one is particularly concerned about works made in Canada: it is very easy to find the "copyright laws" of Canada also on the RMP website I linked to today in the RDO thread on the documentary film mentioned in my 2nd para. above.

Hope that responds to your questions, even if it may not be what people hope to hear!

I am glad I insisted for JeSuisReine to come here and answer the question regarding tape fairies, because I confess I had strong doubts about the matter, since I am not an specialist in the US copyright law

However, I intend to study the US copyright law in depth, in order to produce a comparative study with the Brazilian law. I think my colleagues will be very interested in the matter. Periodically, I send articles to a publication called Dialetics, which publishes articles about these international issues.

So, SL, I guess JeSuisReine clarified our doubts. Unfortunately the useful work of tape fairies is not legal, for it appears the single act of burning another CD for use in a computer not owned by the buyer is already an unlawful conduct, right SL?

Hi Lorena!

Please note that in my previous post where I speak of tape fairies, that I wrote that technically it is wrong what tape fairies are doing when they copy tapes and give them to someone. I was not asking if this is wrong. I am aware it is.

Part of my personal conflict is due to the fact that I feel differently about tape fairies that make no profit for themselves and tape fairies who are making a profit...who have a little business going on for personal profit.

Most of us have vcrs. They have a record function on them. Everyone in the broadcast industry is aware that people record shows. Some record shows because they are not home when a broadcast takes place and they want to watch it when they return from work or other places. Others want to have a copy of their favorite LFN episodes. Of course, when a recording is being done for home use and the tape is not given to anyone else there is no distribution taking place of the tape. A tape fairy is distributing the recording that is made.

The conflict within myself is due to the fact that I have no intention of turning the tape fairies into authorities. This conflict for me is one of personal conscience...knowing what is wrong...taking steps about some of it...but not taking steps about other facets of it.

Okay, Sl, yr comment duly registered.

Possibly I let my own doubts reflect upon you, because personally I was inclined to think non-profit tape fairies activities might characterize fair use.

This because, first, they are not earning anything for the efforts made on burning the copies, and there are costs arising therefrom. The only thing tape fairies ask, from what I read in previous messages at MR, is reimbursement of postage fees.

Second, it is an indirect propaganda of the product. By making the product known, they are stimulating people to buy it.

I also will avail myself of the opportunity to state I am not speaking in name of any tape fairies, and I am not a tape fairy myself.

I am just stating my own opinion on the subject, bearing in mind the US law has a different view, and as we all know dura lex sed lex, meaning what the law says is final.

BTW, I am appointing you, SL, as from today moderator of my forum and I accept no refusal. You are the ideal person for this task due to yr personal qualities.

Dear Sweet Lorena,

I am very deeply saddened at this time. There are those who feel that I am a heartless and cruel person because of the actions I took regarding the illegal copying and selling of music cds. And there are others who feel I have been failing in other ways when I am on the boards.

Today, I feel it is best that I leave. I promised Eugene Glazer, that I would try to get the fans together to write letters to certain studios letting them know we want to see him back on the screen. He is such a kind and humble person. I will keep my promise to him and will return to the boards when that project is organized. For now though, I am departing.

Thank you so much for your kindness. I regret that I cannot agree to your request. I am just too saddened to do so.

Dear SL

I am very saddened also to hear some people have no comprehension for the actions you undertook, SL. People tend to judge others all too hastily, instead of stopping to think twice, in order to realize the implications of the issues involved.

Be sure I understand your state of mind. The offer remains open for when you feel better. I would like to have you on my side, because I hold you in high consideration. We, who got to know you more through private emails, are aware of how sensitive and thoughtful you are, always ready to help others, always concerned with preservation of harmony and with maintenance of a pacific and cheerful spirit in every board.

Sometimes in life we have to face hard decisions as the one you took, or else we won´t feel in peace with our conscience. It happened to me more than once, when I was elected president of a Trade Union. If my colleague Eduardo, whom I invited to post in this forum, for he is also a lawyer and a dear friend, reads this message, he will know instantly to what I am referring to.

But chin up, SL, you have loyal friends and I hope to be included among them.

A note of explanation: My first post in this thread was a reply only to what LorenaBR had asked me about in her post addressing me here and in her own thread addressed to me in Michael's Retreat yesterday.

My first reply was not intended as a reply to the content of SL's message following Lorena's post, though it does also relate to some of SL's points too. LorenaBR had made reference to copies distributed by "tape fairies" and that is what I was replying to directly.

In SL's first and subsequent replies, SL makes a distinction between (1) so-called "tape fairies" who require only reimbursement of the cost of a tape and postage (and sometimes packaging as well, I would add) and (2) those "tape fairies" who add onto those costs additional payments (e.g., for their "time" spent copying tapes and/or for "profits" on top of costs. One sees "advertisements" or solicitations of such items by (2) on message boards periodically. It is my current position, after having investigated U.S. copyright laws over the past few weeks, that, for a U.S. citizen or a foreign national to distribute or to purchase such items made in the U.S. or Canada connected with either (1) or (2) is to engage in illegal activities: making, distributing, or receiving stolen (intellectual and/or commercially-marketed) property.

It may be and probably is the case that the copyright owners feel that it is not worth their efforts or the expenses involved to pursue those who are engaging in such copyright infringement. They may not have time and or the financial resources to pay lawyers to represent them in such suits or they may want to use their resources otherwise. In some cases, companies will post materials on their own offical websites to discourage piracy of them on unofficial websites. Many software companies use "free trials" for specified periods of time as a means of marketing their properties or upgraded versions of their properties. Sometimes what was once "free" on the internet later becomes a "subscription" fee-based service. That is the commercial development of the internet. A lot of what is happening is very much still in flux, and the laws and legislators who make them and courts that adjudicate them are probably struggling to keep up with changing technologies and changing times and changing mores and changing activities among the world's citizens, as the FBI news releases and Congressional testimony suggest.

LorenaBR also points out that (I would emphasize, *in some cases*), the distribution of a videocassette etc. encourages the person receiving it to purchase the work commercially. (In that case, the "reviewing" of the video resulted in a bonafide commercial sale for the producers/distributors.) But sometimes (perhaps more often) it doesn't, and the person receiving the "stolen" or "bootlegged" or "pirated" copy views or uses it otherwise in place of buying it commercially. Sometimes the person uses the one copy to make further copies and to distribute them illegally as well to people who would otherwise be paying customers/consumers of the commercially-available properties. Sometimes the properties are nowhere to be found commercially; their distribution has market to be damaged. Sometimes properties go "out of print" or off the commercial market, but there are firms that specialize in finding and marketing "out of print" and other properties. On ebay, it is possible to find private copies of these properties sold (sometimes for large profits to the sellers, sometimes not). Even on Amazon.com, there are "resellers" of books, videos, and other items. I do not know whether or not these properties are being sold or resold with or without permission from the copyright owners, whether these people have "licenses" to do so (they perhaps if they are listed on Amazon, the listing means that they do have commercial licenses to market these items), and I do not know how the copyright laws pertain to them. Amazon.com must have rules posted relating to such transactions. I just have never had the occasion to read them.

I myself have purchased items from Amazon.com and Amazon in Canada, but I have never purchased anything from others advertising on Amazon.com or similar online stores. There are many *licensed*(*authorized*) out-of-print booksellers and video distributors to which one can go both online and otherwise for out-of-print and hard-to-find items; one can find many of them listed on the internet too.

And one can rent DVDs from companies like Netflix (though I myself do not do that; given Adelphia's current digital cable rates, which, including my cable modem, are now almost $120/month, I can't afford a monthly subscription to Netflix too! And I no longer have Adelphia's most expensive package: I am doing without Sundance due to their new "Platinum" tier! I also downgraded my Verizon phone service to save $16/month or so and now no longer have unlimited regional calling!). Given what I pay monthly to Adelphia for digital cable tv service, I feel entirely justified in taping personal copies of television programs from my own tv (espec. on Bravo, IFC, and PBS, and premium cable channels) for my own personal use and my personal research. But that is it. That is the extent of what I am entitled to do, as I understand copyright law.

So far the only DVDs that I have are those that I bought from commercial vendors for the prices advertised online or in stores (BJ's Club, e.g.). I do shop around for discounts and try to get the lowest price, but, ultimately, I pay money for these products.

On some *rare* occasions, I am provided with "review copies" of videocassettes and DVDs for bonafide professional purposes relating to my independent scholarly work, sometimes at my request, sometimes not, because I will be screening them and listing them or reviewing them professionally for professional publications. But, in contrast to what I purchase, even often for professional purposes of research and/or additionally for personal entertainment, what I receive in such situations are relatively very few in number. Similarly, if I am asked to review a play or another production, the publicity department or the author or director may present me with tickets for the event. That is publicity and/or public relations related too, but I am doing work in relation to the event if I am publishing a review or listing it in a professional publication or in the news or entertainment media. If not, I pay for the ticket(s) myself.

The review ultimately written and published can result in positive publicity (sometimes longterm not shortterm, given my publication schedules)--or not, that is how "literary criticism" and "performance criticism" function. The fact that one received a "complimentary ticket" or "house seat" from a theater, via a playwright, a director, an actor, or the publicity company representing a theater may result in a performance being reviewed, but it does not result in the *kind* of review received. Many journalists and academics and scholars simply cannot afford to attend as many performances as reviewing requires on the salaries that they receive, or if they are self-employed, independent, or free-lance writers. The tickets enable the works to be seen and reviewed in the cultural media.

The art world or industry, the publishing world or industry, the world of cinema or the motion picture industry, telecommunications industry (television, radio, internet broadcasting, e.g.), including broadcasts of major and minor sports events via the mass media (broadcast and cable networks)--all are part of a vast "big business" commercial enterprise system--whether it is capitalist or not! As the FBI site states, there are "national economic consequences" to protect relating to copyrights. (Plenty of plays, for example, close before they "take off," and like them, films, can actually lose money for their investors and producers (if they don't "break even"--especially in the era of huge budgets). Others are successful, and they make money. But, either way, in the initial stages, even for--especially for--projects like *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy, which turned out to make vast amounts of money, it is a "crap shoot" to some extent: a "gamble." Auteurs/film directors like Peter Jackson (and I think that he qualifies for being considered an "auteur") have to have not only amazing talent and creativity but also prescient business sense and extremely wonderful good luck all along the line in their choices of every aspect relating to such a project for it to succeed. If such a director spends several years of his life working up to getting the rights to make such a trilogy and several more years selecting who will work on it and then at least a few more years writing and casting and producing and directing it, that professional artist deserves the financial rewards. How much money are, say, a decade of one's life worth? That depends on who one is and what one does. For many people "time is money" in view of some of these contexts.

[That situation is somewhat similar to the desk examination or review copies of books that academics working at educational institutions receive for consideration for adoption for class texts for courses or for discussion in a published review. The publicity departments of publishers and distributors often deal with such requests and they require substantial documentation of their bonafide nature. They require written or faxed requests on institutional letterhead in many cases.]

As SL also points out, we know from copyright notices placed on programs on television and on videocassettes that we purchase and rent commercially that any such distributing of non-personal-use only copies made of copyrighted videotapes and of copyrighted programs broadcast on television is prohibited by copyright laws (in the U.S. and Canada; for more information about these laws and those of other countries, please check the Berne conventions, to which both the U.S. and Canada are signatories, and also check the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Music Act, cited in my posts in other threads in MR and Sch. Hot Tub. I posted links to the U.S. Copyright Office website and to the U.S. Trademarks and Patents Office website in message elsewhere. Any google search will turn up the sites.)

On a videotape from a Canadian commercial distributor of programs to educational and other institutions, including governmental institutions, for public showing, the following notice appears, first in French, and then in English:

Even if one has purchased the videocassettes of this kind, for the price charged commercially, one still cannot make copies of the videocassette. One can only use the videocassette for the purpose that it was purchased: showing it in a classroom, e.g., or in another insitutional setting. (The word "Schools" is used because, in the case of this particular videocassette distributor, schools are a primary market.)

Similar warnings relating to "personal use" appear (by law now in the U.S.) on CDs, DVDs, and videocassettes, and on software programs on CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs and so on: governing "digital content." (You will find them both on the properties themselves and on their packaging--e.g. DVD box set boxes on the back.)

For more information about particular properties, one needs to contact the copyright owners/holders of the registered copyrights for guidance, permission, and, if in any doubt, contact intellectual property lawyers and/or professional associations relating to the intellectual properties (the Recording Industry, the Television Industry, the Motion Pictures Industry, and so on).

I have said in other places on a number of occasions that, unlike LorenaBR and some others who post on LFN-related message boards, I am not a lawyer; I do not have any special expertise in intellectual property laws or copyright laws except what I know and what I have learned through research about copyright laws as an academic scholar and writer and teacher. I do research and find out what I need to know that way, often firsthand, sometimes secondhand, by reading the results published by others who are experts in their respective fields. (When LorenaBR or anyone else refers to what I say, in reading their references, people need to keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and I have not dispensed any legal advice, though I have suggested that,if in doubt about these copyright issues and permissions, as the U.S. Copyright Office and FBI sites and ebay.com's various links suggest, people may need to contact the copyright owners and/or an intellectual property lawyer.)

I have also said that I would not be posting further in the threads in Michael's Retreat relating to plagiarism and copyright issues due to my personal and professional concerns about how I am spending my own time. I posted an "open letter about intellectual honesty" last week. So if I do not respond to further comments or questions, it is because (1) I am not an expert in intellectual property law and not a lawyer; and (2) I have other projects relating to my professional work that I have to devote my time to doing.

I hope that everyone understands both what I have posted about these matters in the past and my desire not to post more about them in message board forums to turn my attention to projects needing my undivided attention. I've gotten very distracted from this work lately, and I need to get back to work!!!

Thanks very much.

(Sorry for any unintended typographical errors; I've run out of time to correct them any further and there is no editing feature after a message is posted.)

Despite what I just said about typographical errors being unintended, I found one such one that I need to clarify:

"Sometimes the properties are nowhere to be found commercially; their distribution has market to be damaged. "

I accidentally omitted the word "no" in typing:
". . . their distribution has no [ostensible] market to be damaged."

[Making that correction leads me to the following additional thoughts:]

But that situation can change too, and what is not currently on the market or what has gone off the market, can be marketed again/go on the market again later. That would seem to be the principle of future damages assessed in a court of law, though those may be very difficult to estimate.

When I ask a Warner Bros. legal department lawyer whether or not Warner Bros. is intending to publish the LFN scripts commercially, my question might lead such a lawyer to think about these matters. If they (Warner Bros.) claim publicly that they *never* will publish them, it is harder for them to claim that they will suffer economic damages now or in the future if someone else does so. So the lawyer leaves an opening for future possibilities; he is not totally definitive in his answer. He says that it does not constitute "legal advice," referring a party to legal experts in copyright matters such as academic librarians (or an institution's legal counsel) and private intellectual property lawyers.

No matter what a company says verbally, to avoid future potential law suits, one would want to request and receive *written* permission to publish or even to quote substantially from unpublished works that one does not own the copyrights on or the rights to publish or to reproduce, following any copyright notices printed on the property.

The rights to publish or reprint (in print or online in a digital format) would have to be transferred to one legally (via a letter authorizing permission, e.g., or otherwise); in part, this is what filmmakers refer to when they say that they have "purchased" or "own" the "rights" to novel for the purposes of adapting it into a screenplay that will be filmed.

In the case of the property called _Nikita_ and _La Femme Nikita_ (the original property from which derives--on which is based--the subsequent film _Point of No Return_ and the television series _La Femme Nikita_/_Nikita_ (in Canada)/_Brutalni Nikita (in the Czech Republic), and so on all over the world)--according to the legal counsel whom I spoke to at Warner Bros., Luc Besson still owns the rights to that property.

The U.S. Copyright Office records copyrights and transfers of copyrights. I mentioned at least 76 copyrighted properties pertaining to _LFN_ located via the U.S. Copyright Office online search facility. Luc Besson and the studio I cited in my thread about this subject in Michael's Retreat are listed as the copyright owners of many of these properties.

One needs to investigate who the legitimate copyright owner is in order to identify to whom one writes for permission to reprint or to publish an intellectual property like a book, a magazine article, or to make and distribute copies of digital content. Copyright notices printed on such properties (on the backs of title pages of books and periodicals, even in newspapers, and on the covers, labels, and inserts and box cover backs of CDs, DVDs, and DVD box sets, and CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs--all have the information that one requires as a starting point for identifying and contacting copyright owners. One can find addresses and phone numbers easily through telephone directories in print and online. One can ask receptionists for whom to contact in legal offices and publicity offices of copyright owners/companies and their agents. Those are starting points for inquiries about permissions when one is seeking to get permission as part of authorizing one's use of copyrighted properties.

E.g., if one seeks permission to reproduce/copy digital content by a composer like Sean Callery who produced his own CD of his own music and sold it to people at Close Quarters Standby 4 in Toronto, in May 2001, and subsequently on (an) internet site(s), one would contact his agent of record first (listed in his online CV hosted by that agent's website) and then proceed from there as advised by his agent/representative. One contacts professional actors', writers', directors', producers', and other artists either directly or through their agents (most likely) when dealing with such commercial inquiries about their work. The agents are themselves contracted to receive a percentage of the artists' salaries of "deals" that they negotiate for them, generally; the professionals pay them for such representation. In answering your inquiries, the agents/representatives are doing the jobs that the artists pay them to do: in part, to help them to develop and to protect their careers.

When an artist has no agent designated to represent him or her, this artist represents him/herself, and one is supposed to contact that person directly with such inquiries.

In LorenaBR's case, since she is a novelist, an artist, as well as a lawyer, one can contact her via her blog! The blog itself is, in part, a professional as well as a personal enterprise! So, just as in the other cases mentioned, if one wants to make a copy of any of the digital content in the blog, "LorenaBR" (in her real identity) owns the copyright to it, and, as she indicates in places, she has registered the copyrights on her fiction, her novels, and other works. There is a copyright notice on this weblog. I don't know if it is "registered" per se.

These references are all meant by way of examples, so that the connections between Sean Callery's CD digital content and other digital content are clear. To take such content, without written permission of the copyright owners, out of their copyrighted contexts, to copy them, to distribute them, to repost, to republish them, etc. all of those activities are prohibited by copyright laws and the prohibitions are reiterated in the copyright notices on the CDs and the related websites.

I think that at least some if not many people who are copying these properties illegally and distributing them illegally do know about these copyright restrictions; they choose not to abide by them for a variety of reasons that we may or may not already have considered. Some of the reasons may seem less self-serving than others, but, whatever the reasons, the activities are still prohibited by law and those who engage in them are breaking the law. Whether they get caught or not and punished or not for these activities is an entirely other matter, as is the matter of who does or does not bring these people to the attention of the authorities. I have urged those people who own and administer and moderate message boards and websites where such illegal activities are being promoted to inform the authorities (such as they are) that they are occurring. But that is up to those people to decide what they want to do on their own.

One hopes that one discourages illegal activities by communicating to people who might otherwise not know that they are illegal.

If the producers and distributors of the properties that people want to purchase know about interest in them, perhaps, as in the case of the LFN DVD S1 & S2 box sets, ultimately these properties will become more widely commercially available. There are many people who have expressed interest in legitimately purchasing and owning these properties and in reading and learning more about them. The companies need to know of such interest so that they can convince TPTB to invest in marketing them. For anyone at all to steal potential profits from any of these companies actually diminishes their capital and their ability to invest in such future marketing enterprises. So, in the long run, the fans and other members of the public and the educational/artistic communities who may want to own these products legitimately will then not be able to acquire them. In that way, bootleggers, pirates, and even "tape fairies" can harm prospects for future productions to which a whole lot of people would like to have access. So, in this longer run, they are not helping but they are hindering the production of future box sets of DVDs of Seasons 2-5 of _LFN_, future CD productions by composers like Sean Callery of his music for _24_ and _LFN_ and other works, and so on. The legitimate consumers are hurt by the illegal marketers of stolen properties, and so it goes on. The costs of CDs rise, the costs of DVDs rise, and few people can afford to own the (now extremely still-expensive) high definition plasma tvs, progressive scan dvd recorders, tivos, the studio-quality computer equipment, and so on that they need to watch and listen to these works and to make new creative works influenced by them.

As these examples suggest, there can be much greater contexts (even "national economic consequences") for copyright infringements than many people throughout the internet have been taking into account.

Dear Lorena,

Just stopping by to thank you for your kindness, which has always meant a great deal to me.

I also want to say, that I do not regret the actions I took to stop the illegal copying and selling of cds. It was something I felt had to be done no matter how difficult.

JSR, thank you for the information you have provided.

Thanks for taking the trouble to enlighten the tape fairies matter, JeSuisReine. It has always been very clear to me that you are not a lawyer, but an intelligent, well informed and utterly rational lady, not to mention your professional status as a teacher and an author in your own specific field.

As concerns me, I wanted to hear your views as a U.S. citizen with all the qualities I quoted above, because as you know we both come from different cultures, and wanting or not, this factor influences our views. However, it doesn´t prevent me from agreeing with you to the sense bona fide tape fairies activities can easily evolve into illegal ones. Have I made myself understood? Sometimes we have a problem of semantics and others one involving the language barrier. Not that I consider myself totally illiterate in English, but I must acknowledge that words in English, which apparently would have the same meaning in Portuguese, due to their similarity, often don´t. I will give you an example. To ignore in English means to disregard, to disconsider, but, in Portuguese and in Spanish, the similar verb “ignorar” means to be unaware of.

I guess you covered the essential points one should be aware of in terms of complying with copyright laws, and I consider you did it as a responsible citizen.

You are absolutely right, JesuisReine. Not only I own the registered Michaelmania domain, but also the copyright of every story and graphic presented in my site, because they were created by me, with exception of course of the images one sees in the galleries. Part of them are captures from the DVDs I bought from amuzeme and Amazon, and others are collages I created. I trust this will not be interpreted as distributing digital content in the US or elsewhere, for obviously this has never been my intention.

My intention is to acknowledge the work done by others, but I cannot do so, just by writing, especially in the Internet. Surely everybody knows that to read long passages online becomes tiresome after a certain time. You enhance your impressions much better with images. As a teacher JeSuisReine knows that pictures, graphics help a lot in the process of transferring and assimilating knowledge and information.

Therefore, I find it is very positive the concept of shareware, because it gives the potential buyer the possibility to test the product to find out if it meets its needs before actually investing money in the purchase. After a few disagreeable experiences, I only buy software which I can test first, and generally distributors are very happy to have me as client, because I give them a full review afterwards.

C´est ça, ma amie, JeSuisReine, hope you continue posting here whenever you find time. It is a pleasure to exchange ideas with you.

Just stopping back in to re-read what JSR has posted regarding copyright laws. This is excellent information and I would again like to thank JSR for taking the time to research this matter and to post about it.

Lorena....I have also used shareware in order to test software before I decide whether I wish to purchase it. This has worked well for me and I have bought software sometimes even before my trial test period is up.

SL, I was disappointed to see the Sean Callery thread was closed and that some didn´t realize the spirit of it. Never mind, you did a good job, SL, and you acted as a responsible citizen.

When you have the opportunity to talk to Eugene Robert Glazer, pse tell him he has a big fan in Brazil, who calls him POPS, and that´s me.

I also buy shareware before the trial period is over. It doesn´t take long to check if the program is going to satisfy our needs or not. Some programs are huge bugs, and I delete them immediately after the trial. Others are a wonderful surprise, as the OSS Encoder which is really good. I was very satisfied with the acquisition.

So shareware is the right way to do it. Bjorn Lynne sells his CDs online, giving the opportunity for one to download or hear one of the musics therein, to give one a taste before making the choice. I find this method fantastic.

I am contemplating to sell my books via shareware, letting the reader download two or three chapters, or a synopsis, so that he can have an idea of the content.

Lorena

When I email Eugene Glazer again, I will definitely give him your message! I know he will be happy!

I think it is a very good idea to try to sell your books via shareware! I hope you will give it a try and that you will have great success!

Regarding the Sean Callery topic....

Sean Callery and the other artists whose work was illegally copied and sold were the injured parties. What troubles me is that this seems to have been totally forgotten. I do not understand this and never will.

I want to know a good site to go to and report this. I have been ripped off at this site. I bought a dvd, paid 26.85 cash on delivery from the mailman, came in put it in my dvd player and didn't work. I've contacted them several times and they won't respond. I just wanted another one. Now I noticed the dvd cover is made off the printer (running low on ink). On the band of the dvd case it says D201022 PAL VHS- which tells me its copied off a vhs onto dvd. They could have at least made a labal cover for the actual disc. What can I do? Thanks