CITAS on DVD-R

judboy · Post by **judboy** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:14 am

Hey Guys, I am caught up on my projects and have a new baby daughter named Jasmine Brianna! I am just letting everyone know that I am still making available CITAS on DVD-R for $20.00 shipped priority mail anywhere in the USA. You can contact me if you own the VHS. Thanks.

unoactu1895 · Post by **unoactu1895** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:55 am

judboy I totally agree with your words.

brent · Post by **brent** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:51 am

Hey dude, you can't legally sell copies of someone else's record. We have been through this. Bob and Greg own the publishing rights. EMI has masters. It makes no difference if it is on the shelves at the store or not, you cannot sell what is intellectual property of someone else.

I have notified Richard Greene at EMI, Bob Hartman and Wayne Saboa.

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:02 pm

Jud's post was from way back in December, and isn't what he is offering the transferring from VHS to DVD? He's offering to transfer a VHS someone has bought onto DVD for them, he's not making copies of anything to sell, and he has a right to charge for that service. This uno dude or dudette, whichever the case may be, needs to quit dragging out these old posts. Time to quit playing games now Uno mi amigo or amiga, it's not amusing any more.

You do know what you're talking about much of the time Brent, I do agree with most of what you say, but in this case Jud should have been contacted privately before any conclusions were drawn or action taken. He's not making copies of anything to sell to anyone.

executioner · Post by **executioner** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 4:08 pm

He is charging for the service, not the product. Which is NOT illegal. We all have been through this many times before and I have even gotten legal counsel on this subject from the legal department from the largest media company in the south. The only thing EMI could do is try and sue Judboy, but in order to do that they would have to get Bob and Greg both in on the lawsuit and we all know that is not going to happen, also from past court cases on these matters EMI and others have been losing BIG money just to fight them, and their not even winning the cases either. Aerosmith in 2003 lost a case somewhat like this and had to pay $6m or $7m plus the court fees. Steven Tyler said on their site that it's not worth fighting anymore.
The problem is that the law is NOT specific, so you can legally copy something that is out of print off the internet or through other means. Until the law is changed we will sit here til were blue in the face and disagree with this subject.

brent · Post by **brent** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:09 pm

If he is charging for a archive service, and someone owns the video already, according to the Federal Fair Use act, he is off of the hook. If not, he is indeed in violation. Sections 105-108 are very specific.

I do not know about the Aerosmith suit. That suit was in reference to internet piracy and peer-to-peer sharing. A decision came after their trial and the RIAA and others have had the decisions come their way. Peer to peer is illegal.

All I know is that this guy is not descriptive in how he operates. He could be sued for $30k according to the law, if he does not have permission from the copyright holder. Bob, Greg and other publishers can sue because they were not paid royalties, if it is distributed. EMI can sue for an entirely different reason, and does not have to represent them.

No offense, but I wouldn't care what any legal department says, reguardless of the company. Anyone can be wrong, or know how to operate within a loop-whole. Case in point Clear Channel Communications, Enron, Williams, the US Government, OJ Simpson's defense team, etc.

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:15 pm

I'm sort of curious, did you not see the post when it was originally made in December? Jud has made posts offering to transfer people's videos to DVD. He's offering a service to archive people's videos.

You are right about loopholes, there are plenty of them.

Preacherman777 · Post by **Preacherman777** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:21 pm

You can contact me if you own the VHS.

This is the last sentence in his post. Seems pretty specific to me.

He is archiving for people who already own the video, nothing more.

executioner · Post by **executioner** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:59 am

Brent,

If the law was so specific than why are all these artists, record companies, and distribution companies losing their cases? This law has so many loopholes its not even funny anymore. The Aerosmith thing was along the same lines as this issue. There was a person that was running an unoffical Aerosmith web site and he was offering services like Judboy is; He was offering to make copies of 8-tracks & cassettes to cd's and VHS to DVD-R, and also download Aerosmith music from his web site for a small fee. I believe the download part is illegal but the other is not because these people already own a copy of the material they are just getting it transferred to something better. There is a camara store in my area that does this process also, and they have stores all over Texas & Louisana. I feel like your are taking this side of the issue because you are an artist and you are trying to protect what is rightfully yours, and I think you are doing the right thing I would do the same thing, but unfortunally he is NOT in the wrong here.

Also Brent the company I work for is in its 154 year, it is still majority owned by the family that founded it. They own 3 big market newspapers and about 20 small market newspapers, and also own 8 large market tv stations, They are noted for being one of the best companies to work for and do business with in the U.S. The person in the legal department that I've been talking to about this subject is a devout Christian and is one of my best friends and I trust him totally. He will always give you an honest answer. He has to deal with this and other laws of copyright on a daily basis, and has research this subject throughly. I talked to him last night about these posts and he joined in at looking with me and said that artists, record companies, and distribution companies will always tell you different, but there is nothing against the law here and until the law is change they are fighting a losing battle.

brent · Post by **brent** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:34 am

executioner wrote:Brent,

If the law was so specific than why are all these artists, record companies, and distribution companies losing their cases? This law has so many loopholes its not even funny anymore. The Aerosmith thing was along the same lines as this issue. There was a person that was running an unoffical Aerosmith web site and he was offering services like Judboy is; He was offering to make copies of 8-tracks & cassettes to cd's and VHS to DVD-R, and also download Aerosmith music from his web site for a small fee. I believe the download part is illegal but the other is not because these people already own a copy of the material they are just getting it transferred to something better. There is a camara store in my area that does this process also, and they have stores all over Texas & Louisana. I feel like your are taking this side of the issue because you are an artist and you are trying to protect what is rightfully yours, and I think you are doing the right thing I would do the same thing, but unfortunally he is NOT in the wrong here.

Also Brent the company I work for is in its 154 year, it is still majority owned by the family that founded it. They own 3 big market newspapers and about 20 small market newspapers, and also own 8 large market tv stations, They are noted for being one of the best companies to work for and do business with in the U.S. The person in the legal department that I've been talking to about this subject is a devout Christian and is one of my best friends and I trust him totally. He will always give you an honest answer. He has to deal with this and other laws of copyright on a daily basis, and has research this subject throughly. I talked to him last night about these posts and he joined in at looking with me and said that artists, record companies, and distribution companies will always tell you different, but there is nothing against the law here and until the law is change they are fighting a losing battle.

Remember the 80's and 90's? Illegel duplication and sale of major label artists was going on (and still is) in foreign countries. Japan, China, Cuba, etc. They were nixxed. It was wrong.

Remember the 80's and 90's? Illegal duplication and sale of major label artists using copies of copies of master dat tapes occuring in the CBS record club. Ultimately, an inferior product was sold, leading to major retailers with an open return policy to refuse record club discs, because of the inferior quality, and lack of compensation by the distributors/artists. It was nixxed. It was wrong.

I have many more cases that aren't well known. Probably more than the major ones in the press today, where the law used to be upheld.

The Areosmith case: The issue was the networking, and the fact that the FFU act only lists "phonograph" records. It makes no mention of CD's, cassettes, or any other media. Computers and hard drives were not commonplace when the law was written. The law was written at the advent of cassette tapes in the late 60's. The phono record manufacturers, labels, etc saw the end of the record, and cassettes as a way for people to share, decreasing sales. This is why in 107 and 108 of the Federal Fair Use act, it states that a limit of three copies can be made for the use of preservation, education, investigation, etc. Had there been a mention about DELIVERY (by mail, by courier, etc), then we might have an act that could be ammended. But it is media specific, hence the loop-hole.

When cassette's happened, the labels adapted, began releasing on cassette, and that's when the labels got the RIAA to come to life, and make the tape manufacturers pay a royalty for the end-user's likely duplication and distribution. This same law was never rewritten, but was adapted to force blank CD media manufacturers to pay a royalty. This is the reason that you find CD's marketed for music, and CD's marketed for data. Exact same disc, but one is higher priced usually (the music) to pass the expense of the royaltiy to the consumer. There is some marketing BS in there too I am sure.

The spirit of the law is overlooked. It was in the news last month. There are special interest groups on both sides of the isle. There is not a clear, partisan dividing line. The US government has contracts with with blank media and software companies that it is ruling over. If it were US, the government would say that we have a MAJOR conflict of interest. The issue is not "is it legal". It purely is not. The issue is that the government is fealing the heat from two parties/industries, and is taking money from both, has contracts from both, and does not know what to do. The best way to deal with it is to rule in favor of the one that gives the politicians the most cash. You would think that the entertainment companies would win out, but we are talking stupid, insane cash here.

Again, when the government who makes the law can brake the law, and not be held accountable, compliance by a few is not an issue. The issue is far greater and darker. I am sure that Enron employees felt the same way. Clear Channel employees feel the same way. Micro Soft, etc.

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:54 am

Dude, in this case, you saw an old post Jud made that someone dug up for whatever reason, assumed something illegal was going on and sent the Copyright Police after him before you really understood the circumstances. There's nothing wrong with speaking up about something that is wrong or illegal; we need more people who will do that in fact. But it could have been handled with more discretion. You can make your point and do what's right without acting like a steam engine in the process. Has anyone filled Jud in on what's going on? He may not even be aware of what has happened, and he shouldn't have to find out about it by reading it on a message board or being blindsided by a letter from someone threatening a lawsuit. The point is, if someone has a problem with a post someone has made, the person should be contacted by e-mail or private message, at least initially. A lot of misunderstanding and headache can be avoided that way.

executioner · Post by **executioner** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:00 am

Brent,

I think you are getting the Aerosmith thing mixed up. This was totally different lawsuit that Aerosmith brought against this one individual. Aerosmith had to pay this individual out the nose. I guess if EMI, Bob, & Greg are willing to risk it they can sue but I think their legal counsel will think otherwise.The outline of what happen was on Aerosmith's official web site for a time, but I don't know if it is still there. I'm sorry but I am taking the advice and reasoning from some one I trust and personally know than from someone(an artist) that could be emotionally involved. The one thing that differs from Belo Corp than from all those companies that you mention is they have the highest customer satisifation out of anyone in the business, and they treat the employees and customers the same. As of right now all that the artists and labels can do is sue and hope they win which the haven't been.

judboy · Post by **judboy** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:16 am

Guys, just so everyone knows I do not believe in breaking the law. I am a Christian. I have always made it very clear that I offer a VHS to DVD archive service if you own and send me the VHS in order to prove you own it. I do not approve of anyone making illegal copies. I hardly ever pop by here, but I guess the Lord had me take a look just to set things straight. If you had bothered to read what I have posted in the past then how could you have come to such a conclusion?

P.S. I have a pre-mature baby daughter to take care of and I do not have time or the energy to discuss this any further.

brent · Post by **brent** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:21 am

Shell wrote:Dude, in this case, you saw an old post Jud made that someone dug up for whatever reason, assumed something illegal was going on and sent the Copyright Police after him before you really understood the circumstances. There's nothing wrong with speaking up about something that is wrong or illegal; we need more people who will do that in fact. But it could have been handled with more discretion. You can make your point and do what's right without acting like a steam engine in the process. Has anyone filled Jud in on what's going on? He may not even be aware of what has happened, and he shouldn't have to find out about it by reading it on a message board or being blindsided by a letter from someone threatening a lawsuit. The point is, if someone has a problem with a post someone has made, the person should be contacted by e-mail or private message, at least initially. A lot of misunderstanding and headache can be avoided that way.

No because that was clarified. I recanted on that issue. It was posted that he is within the law according to the FFU act. I didn't see the date. I had no idea that people would resurrect something that old. People normally create a new post I assumed. Know what happens when you do that?

We got onto Aerosmith, duplication, and why artists are giving up. Some are winning by the way. Bruce Springsteen is an example. He had a few bootleg shops closed down. It is a hot button with me. I see where it can help infant artists who need the press to get some market share. But we can't have it both ways.

I wish that people would not need to be told what not to do, every inch of the way. That is where we are as a society. Now we have to have "Don't eat this" on poison labels, when "poison" should be all that is needed. "Hot" should not be needed when coffee is in the cup.

This peer to peer thing has many implications. Music, your medical data, your credit reports, your personal info and assets, should not be shared unless you permit it, and you are not violating laws. Imagine bots programmed to exchange files, or just poll via software like LimeWire. But it also copies other files, etc.

Once the ethernet cable is connected, and you hard drive is accessible, NOTHING is sacred. There are peer to peer networks that are extrapolating data from your system, and selling it. This is wrong.

It all goes deeper than the surface issue with me. Sorry for the rant.

The Petra Zone

CITAS on DVD-R

CITAS on DVD-R

he

Copy

i

Re: i

I

FYI-POST

Who is online