A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Autographs
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Battlestar Galactica Photos



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 17th 06, 05:19 AM posted to alt.collecting.autographs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Battlestar Galactica Photos

(Disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, the following is opinion, observations and
conjecture)

Every case I ever looked into involving copyright basicly boiled down to
whether or not it passed the "book test." By that I mean the judges tend to
equate the item to a book. If you buy a book you're entitled to read it,
quote it under fair use (even if you don't buy it) and you can even make
backup copies (though since it's usually cheaper to buy a second copy few
people actually would do this) provided that only one of the books (copy or
original) can be used at one time.

I think the DVD screen print scenerio would fail to pass this test, since
the screen print likely is still on your computer as well as on the DVD in
question. The only way this would pass the book test is that once the
screen print is made neither the file nor the DVD (or at least that frame)
should be accessed until the print you distributed returns home. (I don't
believe the distributing of the screen print, even with the intent that it's
returned after being signed would constitute "fair use" but I've been wrong
before.) Since you state that you have a 75% success rate that means a 25%
failure rate. If everything you send is screen prints and say only half
your failure items are returned that would leave you with 1/8 the DVDs you
use as being "unusable" until the copied material is returned -- which we'll
presume is never. It also assumes only 1 print per DVD and that those DVDs
are legally purchased, not rented or illegally downloaded.

Recent years, especially in software copyrights, have seen statements
towards other use. Such as this software can only be installed on one
computer. This seems to be more an End User Liscense issue then copyright
law however. For instance, if you own a business and have a computer at
home and at work that only you use copyright law does not prevent you from
installing the same software on both machines (provided you don't leave one
on and running the program when you're not there) since you can only be
using one machine at a time. Recent licensing agreements have also
circumvented this much to the chagrin of multinational companys that use to
be able to share software between offices in different countrys (eg Russia
office is open when US office is closed so they use the same licensing) --
but this isn't a copyright issue and also muddys the water further by
dragging in international issues.

Obscuring the issue even further in the US anyway is the Digital Millenium
Law, which actaully seems to rescind some rights granted under the copy
right law.


Sue H wrote:
LOL if any third party came in from outside this group and read your
posts and mine, I am assured I'd not be the idiot here. LOL At least
my arguments are base on legal issues which I can send URL's for,
proof for etc.

You apparently are not reading all my posts before you start writing.
And you're so eager to keep arguing (doesn't matter if it's me or
someone else), you just keep talking without reading what you already
wrote. You have contradicted youself so much it's insane.

PS this is my last post on the matter; people will judge for
themselves. Oh by the way, WHAT college do you go to? I want to be
sure I don't go there...

On 16 Mar 2006 13:45:22 -0800, "barefoot"
wrote:

and it's probably
why you are fighting with about everyone on this ng, you really show
off your ass with your simplistic, idiotic arguments which have no
bearing then say "lalala, i proved it and you didn't" really, is
there any senility medicine you should be taking? cause you are
complete ly lost and at this point, actually arguing with yourself.
i don't EVER BACKPEDDLE, if i make a mistake, then i'll admit
it...but at this point, you haven't shown me ****.



Ads
  #22  
Old March 17th 06, 05:44 AM posted to alt.collecting.autographs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Battlestar Galactica Photos

Creation is famous for being among the most expensive conventions. I have
gone to ONE of their cons and they were outrageous in price 12 years ago. I
would hate to think how much they are scalping the fans just to get INTO the
building now days. I know that I was only able to get almost half of the
autographs that I wanted because of the nose bleed prices. The autographs
that they couldn't pawn off to the people at the cons, they are now trying
to make their money back by overpricing their website and eBay auctions.
Take a look at their auctions and you'll see a good portion of their
auctions with no bids. lol They have pretty reasonable opening bids, but a
good portion of them have their reserves not met.

--


Mike
Gummby3

~~ Star Collector ~~
www.star-collector.net
Celebrity addresses the way they should be - free.


"Sue H" wrote in message
...
Pricy for some of their autographs...99 bucks up!!!

On 16 Mar 2006 11:50:36 -0800, "Lone Gunman"
wrote:

I hate to recommend them, but Creation have soe great looking,
officially licensed photos available on their website -
http://www.creationent.com




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #23  
Old March 17th 06, 05:54 AM posted to alt.collecting.autographs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Battlestar Galactica Photos

As someone that isn't an outside poster, I can attest that this isn't the
first time that you have taken an stand against Sue. Considering Barefoot
has made some questionable comments, are you sure that you're not just
taking this stand of him being right because of your "queen bee" theory? So
far, I haven't seen any feedback from anyone that actually knows 100% what
they are talking about, including myself, on the subject of copyright. As
for him "having it all over her", he says a lot of words, but it is true
that he hasn't posted any facts (URLs, references, etc.) to back up his
claims. I'm not saying that Barefoot is completely wrong. He might know
some of what he speaks, but there are some gaps in logic in instances. I
just hope that your not clouding your judgment with your "anti-Sue"
campaign.

--


Mike
Gummby3

~~ Star Collector ~~
www.star-collector.net
Celebrity addresses the way they should be - free.


"Wanda" wrote in message news:gzpSf.797$5F1.3@fed1read08...
I am a third party, been around this ng for a bunch of years - used to

post,
but since Sue became the Queen, I stopped. But I lurk, and read

everything,
and have to say that Sue has gotten totally out of control. When it comes
to Star Wars walk-ons, or the key grip best boy, she really knows her

stuff,
but her ignorance really has come thru on this post.

I tried, I really tried to not post this, but Sue just had to issue the
"third party" challenge. Comes right down to it, Sue, Barefoot has it all
over you when it comes to knowledge of the hobby. My 2 cents worth - and
hopefully Sue will take a look in the mirror and realize that she is NOT

the
Queen Bee!

Wanda




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #24  
Old March 17th 06, 07:16 AM posted to alt.collecting.autographs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Battlestar Galactica Photos

dude...sue. your argument is not based on ****...you haven't provided
ANY legal issues in any way except inside your head...meanwhile EVERY
SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET THAT SPEAKS ENGLISH (and many others that
don't) have seen those nice, big, bold commandments at the begining of
EVERY DVD, VHS TAPE, BETA TAPE, broadcast on television that says ANY
DUPLICATION WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED, WRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE BROACAST IS
PRHIBITED. and then their own language about how it's against the law,
and lately, followed by the nice words spelling out EXACTLY the prison
term you can expect. EVERYONE HAS SEEN THIS...stop telling me about
proof you don't have. legal issues that are OLD and outdated. you have
provided nothing.
and i'll reiterate what i've said with my first utterance on this
subject. NOTHING I SELL IS LICENSED. i alwasy follow it by the caveat
that i'm not doing anything illegal yet, YET. who knows what the future
holds in this area. but someone holds the licensing for STAR WARS
stuff, because i got a cease and decist letter from lucasfilm...that's
the ONLY notcie that i've ever gotten. the only items i've ever had
kicked off of ebay or any other site i sell on. i've never contradicted
myself once...please, try to tell me where i did do this...cause it's
assnine that you even say it at all...you just keep tooting your own
horn...
again, i'm done with this argument...because it's stoopid. it's like
the guy who owns the bar telling the pot dealer that he sells death.
i'm done...you've offered nothing and it just looks like you're just
going to keep up offereing nothing.

  #25  
Old March 17th 06, 07:26 AM posted to alt.collecting.autographs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Battlestar Galactica Photos

You're talking about the guy selling autopens and preprints from that
long list he posted. I get
more authentic autographs through the mail than you get in-person and
you can't deal with it.
yankee, i highly doubt that you ever even get half of what i get in a
week..
this week alone, on my own, not counting the people who work for me,
just the ones i've gotten myself. i've gotten 75 signed photos, and
it's only frickin thursday (and i haven't worked all that much at
all)...seriously, you shouldn't be so dumb...sure, i guess john cena
isn't a big star, or russell crowe (i'm sure you have his home address
and have become fast friends), or keanu reeves. maybe the WORST NAMES
i've gotten all week (and this is a slow week) is from the cast of
WEEDS on showtime. so i guess my week sucks ass...i guess it's true, i
am jealous about the signifigant autographs you get on a consistant
basis. i should really just quit, cause i can't keep up with the mega
star you are. gosh darnit, you got me. yankee, you are a mornon
liar...enjoy your super cool status...i'm pretty sure you're just
sitting in your monther's basement in the dark. let me ask you a
question, do you still put your name on the soda that you bring in the
house so your mom and your brother's don't drink it? you should realize
that your mom pays the bills, she can drink your grape soda.

  #26  
Old March 17th 06, 10:00 AM posted to alt.collecting.autographs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Battlestar Galactica Photos

and trust me yankee, it's obvious that you are a liar, just trying to sell
your known fakes, that's why you are getting rid of that part of your
collection
"barefoot" wrote in message

Moron, I don't sell anything from my collection. You're talking about the
guy selling autopens and preprints from that long list he posted. I get
more authentic autographs through the mail than you get in-person and you
can't deal with it.


  #27  
Old March 17th 06, 10:58 AM posted to alt.collecting.autographs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Battlestar Galactica Photos

russell crowe (i'm sure you have his home address and have become fast
friends
"barefoot" wrote in message

Never met him in person, but I did send to his home in Australia and
received another authentic autograph. If you get 75 autographs a week, then
you are getting more than I am. I only get back about 60 a week. I've been
doing this since before you were born. You still have a lot to learn.
You'd be too stupid for me to teach you anything though.


  #28  
Old March 17th 06, 01:15 PM posted to alt.collecting.autographs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Battlestar Galactica Photos

The Stargate convention was $599 for a gold package for a three day weekend.
That included an autograph from every attending celeb, A meet and greet
dinner with the celebs, a tour of both stargate sets, a talent show put on
the by the celebs, and a few other little small items!

Would have gladly payed it if I didn't have to pay $700 airfare and $120 a
night at the hotel they require for gold packages. (not to mention food for
the 3-4 days.) Would have been about $2000, alittle much in the end!

"Gummby3" wrote in message
...
Creation is famous for being among the most expensive conventions. I have
gone to ONE of their cons and they were outrageous in price 12 years ago.

I
would hate to think how much they are scalping the fans just to get INTO

the
building now days. I know that I was only able to get almost half of the
autographs that I wanted because of the nose bleed prices. The autographs
that they couldn't pawn off to the people at the cons, they are now trying
to make their money back by overpricing their website and eBay auctions.
Take a look at their auctions and you'll see a good portion of their
auctions with no bids. lol They have pretty reasonable opening bids, but

a
good portion of them have their reserves not met.

--


Mike
Gummby3

~~ Star Collector ~~
www.star-collector.net
Celebrity addresses the way they should be - free.


"Sue H" wrote in message
...
Pricy for some of their autographs...99 bucks up!!!

On 16 Mar 2006 11:50:36 -0800, "Lone Gunman"
wrote:

I hate to recommend them, but Creation have soe great looking,
officially licensed photos available on their website -
http://www.creationent.com




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet

News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+

Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption

=----


  #29  
Old March 17th 06, 03:55 PM posted to alt.collecting.autographs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Battlestar Galactica Photos

I am trying NOT to comment but let me get back to the original post
intent so all know EXACTLY what this thread is about!!!! People have
twisted it and taken bits and pieces... I've been seeing on this
board is a LOT of people jumbling posts. For example you replied to
me who never said anything about a 75% success rate... If I had that,
I'd not have even started this thread. My success rate this year is
about 20 percent give or take a couple percentage points. It sucks.

The comments are appreciated; best bet would wait till experts respond
(either the studios official word or a copyright lawyer).

ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE ORIGNAL POST AND WHY THE HOSTILE BANTER: This
subject now has steered from Barefoots' "everything I copy from that
site is legal 'cause I paid for it" to focusing only on the
screencaps. What the problem here is SALES of the items and the
whole post started out of my concern that celebs are not signing by
mail because they are receiving screen caps and other unlicensed
items. THAT's the original intent of these posts and I think we all
need to get back on track as this affects the hobby in a negative way:
either 1) we will pay through the nose because someone paid 50 grand
for a license or 2) our success rates are thwarted and we need to get
licensed items in other ways.

In any case, every single post on this subject including mine is
conjecture and interpretation. We need to let the experts answer.
And for the record, I never said screen caps were illegal. I just want
clarification because I feel the screen caps "might" fall into the
category of "fair use" or "personal use"; and Barefoots is DOWNRIGHT
illegal and that's important to know as he keeps selling his crap here
and telling people MISINFORMATION which in theory makes the buyers
just as guilty.



On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:19:56 GMT, "Bill Plenge"
wrote:

(Disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, the following is opinion, observations and
conjecture)

Every case I ever looked into involving copyright basicly boiled down to
whether or not it passed the "book test." By that I mean the judges tend to
equate the item to a book. If you buy a book you're entitled to read it,
quote it under fair use (even if you don't buy it) and you can even make
backup copies (though since it's usually cheaper to buy a second copy few
people actually would do this) provided that only one of the books (copy or
original) can be used at one time.

I think the DVD screen print scenerio would fail to pass this test, since
the screen print likely is still on your computer as well as on the DVD in
question. The only way this would pass the book test is that once the
screen print is made neither the file nor the DVD (or at least that frame)
should be accessed until the print you distributed returns home. (I don't
believe the distributing of the screen print, even with the intent that it's
returned after being signed would constitute "fair use" but I've been wrong
before.) Since you state that you have a 75% success rate that means a 25%
failure rate. If everything you send is screen prints and say only half
your failure items are returned that would leave you with 1/8 the DVDs you
use as being "unusable" until the copied material is returned -- which we'll
presume is never. It also assumes only 1 print per DVD and that those DVDs
are legally purchased, not rented or illegally downloaded.

Recent years, especially in software copyrights, have seen statements
towards other use. Such as this software can only be installed on one
computer. This seems to be more an End User Liscense issue then copyright
law however. For instance, if you own a business and have a computer at
home and at work that only you use copyright law does not prevent you from
installing the same software on both machines (provided you don't leave one
on and running the program when you're not there) since you can only be
using one machine at a time. Recent licensing agreements have also
circumvented this much to the chagrin of multinational companys that use to
be able to share software between offices in different countrys (eg Russia
office is open when US office is closed so they use the same licensing) --
but this isn't a copyright issue and also muddys the water further by
dragging in international issues.

Obscuring the issue even further in the US anyway is the Digital Millenium
Law, which actaully seems to rescind some rights granted under the copy
right law.


Sue H wrote:
LOL if any third party came in from outside this group and read your
posts and mine, I am assured I'd not be the idiot here. LOL At least
my arguments are base on legal issues which I can send URL's for,
proof for etc.

You apparently are not reading all my posts before you start writing.
And you're so eager to keep arguing (doesn't matter if it's me or
someone else), you just keep talking without reading what you already
wrote. You have contradicted youself so much it's insane.

PS this is my last post on the matter; people will judge for
themselves. Oh by the way, WHAT college do you go to? I want to be
sure I don't go there...

On 16 Mar 2006 13:45:22 -0800, "barefoot"
wrote:

and it's probably
why you are fighting with about everyone on this ng, you really show
off your ass with your simplistic, idiotic arguments which have no
bearing then say "lalala, i proved it and you didn't" really, is
there any senility medicine you should be taking? cause you are
complete ly lost and at this point, actually arguing with yourself.
i don't EVER BACKPEDDLE, if i make a mistake, then i'll admit
it...but at this point, you haven't shown me ****.



  #30  
Old March 17th 06, 03:57 PM posted to alt.collecting.autographs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Battlestar Galactica Photos

And hey, I may be annoying to some (they're allowed to feel that) but
at least I care about the hobby and I do at least try to get facts

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:54:47 -0600, "Gummby3"
wrote:

As someone that isn't an outside poster, I can attest that this isn't the
first time that you have taken an stand against Sue. Considering Barefoot
has made some questionable comments, are you sure that you're not just
taking this stand of him being right because of your "queen bee" theory? So
far, I haven't seen any feedback from anyone that actually knows 100% what
they are talking about, including myself, on the subject of copyright. As
for him "having it all over her", he says a lot of words, but it is true
that he hasn't posted any facts (URLs, references, etc.) to back up his
claims. I'm not saying that Barefoot is completely wrong. He might know
some of what he speaks, but there are some gaps in logic in instances. I
just hope that your not clouding your judgment with your "anti-Sue"
campaign.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Baseball out-of-print Books (Part 2) [email protected] Baseball 0 January 23rd 06 12:34 PM
FS: Baseball out-of-print Books (Part 2) J.R. Sinclair Baseball 0 January 1st 05 01:52 PM
FS: 1978 Wonder Bread "Battlestar Galactica" (Feature Film) 36-Card Set J.R. Sinclair Cards:- non-sport 0 September 8th 04 08:15 AM
FS: Toronto Maple Leaf Programs/Yearbooks (Back Issues) J.R. Sinclair Hockey 1 May 13th 04 01:28 PM
FS: 1978 Wonder Bread "Battlestar Galactica" (Feature Film) 36-Card Set Jim Sinclair Cards:- non-sport 0 August 30th 03 11:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.