[krizanti]

Recently a poster offered his fvsf content for trade...another poster accused him of defrauding the producers, and the whole thread was deleted by the moderator.

Although I don't have any fvsf material to trade or resale, I wanted to find out the legality aspect of it and found the 'Doctrine of First-Sale' A legal principle that limits a rightsholders rights to control content after it has been sold for the first time. According to first sale doctrine, lawful ownership of an item, such as a DVD of a movie, a music CD or a book, is not the same as owning the copyright of the item. The owner of the item may lend, resell, give away and or/destroy the copyrighted item but is not granted the right to copy the item in its entirety. The transfer of the copy does not include the transfer of the contents copyright. The legal principle applies to physical items as well as digital content that is downloaded over the Internet.

The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder's distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it. However, the owner of the copy of the book will not be able to make new copies of the book because the first-sale doctrine does not limit copyright owner's reproduction right. The rationale of the doctrine is to prevent the copyright owner from restraining the free alienability of goods. Without the doctrine, a possessor of a copy of a copyrighted work would have to negotiate with the copyright owner every time he wished to dispose of his copy. After the initial transfer of ownership of a legal copy of a copyrighted work, the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright holder's right to control how ownership of that copy can be disposed of. For this reason, this doctrine is also referred to as "exhaustion rule."

[cffightfan]

thought provoking to say the least.  many attorney's are making
a lot of money deciphering copyright law.

just thinking, if http://invictafc.com/   Invictafc and, the lady/ceo is giving it all she
can to make this company grow. let's say I made a copy because
I bought the ppv, so I can give it away one time and never talk about it again?

I hope not, I'm thinking the ceo and sponsors would want me to blog about
it for months, but too they will spend a lot on marketing and I would only
spend a few dollars, euro's etc to see it. 

so i throw it in the drawer, never to share with anyone again?  the right thing
to do would be solicit the owner of Invicta to get a redistribution license in this case
I would guess, but they may even shoot that down depending on policy. 

I wish the broadcast was all female catfights,but that's coming one day. I hope
someone shares the link WHEN it does happen. the karate hottie is going to be on
the next card. holy moly!

[krizanti]

thought provoking to say the least.  many attorney's are making
a lot of money deciphering copyright law.

just thinking, if http://invictafc.com/   Invictafc and, the lady/ceo is giving it all she
can to make this company grow. let's say I made a copy because
I bought the ppv, so I can give it away one time and never talk about it again?

Pay Per View; you pay to view each time, you are not authorized to reproduce the content. However, if you bought a DVD of their past events and then later you sold it, gave it away etc. I don't believe it would be a problem. 

[DoYouKnowWhoIAm?]

I can see how the doctrine of first sale applies to material purchased on dvd, which can be traded only in the form of the original dvd purchased from the provider, because copying the content would be illegal.
But in the case of digital downloads no distinction between item and content can be drawn. All I am buying is coded information which my PC translates into images and sounds. So how does the doctrine of first sale apply there?
If my understanding of the legalese is correct, the doctrine of first sale gives me no right whatsoever to trade downloaded digital content on line, not even once, because in order to do so I would have to copy it, thereby infringing the copyright of the provider.
This would mean that if I wanted to trade downloads legally, I would have to hand over the storage medium I had downloaded them to. Either - if I was thinking ahead - a portable device like a memory stick, or the hard drive from my PC.

[mjgrota]

Interesting. Seems like the Lawyers at Youtube have a different view given the number of videos removed for copyright concerns. Doesn't mean your  assessment is wrong they may just not want to expose themselves to risk of litigation.

[cffightfan]

one terms of use from a catfight site, which most producers probably think
is the way to go, so if you sent your copy of the download to a friend its a violation
as far is this vendor is concerned.
 
the material anywhere on the
site whether in the free access areas or members area is to be used for personal,
non commercial use. You are granted a single copy license to download (on a single
computer only) or print one copy of any of the information made available on this
site for personal, non commercial use ONLY. Commercial use of The xxxx
or any material located on it is strictly prohibited. In addition you may not
modify any of the materials found at xxxx, use them for any public
display, performance, sale or rental, remove, modify or alter any copyright or
other proprietary notice or trademarks therefrom, or transfer any material located

[angrmgmt]

Those of us who are long-time catfight aficionados have seen many production companies fold due to a lack of support and funding.
Although the number of companies producing catfights has grown in recent years, it is still a relatively small group.

I can understand trading in circumstances where the content is from long defunct companies and is difficult to acquire.
However, beyond the legalities that may apply, purchasing content from the company that produces it has the added benefit of enabling them to continue contributing to the genre.

[DoYouKnowWhoIAm?]

Recently a poster offered his fvsf content for trade...another poster accused him of defrauding the producers, and the whole thread was deleted by the moderator.

You have it part right. There were 4 posts, 2 in this section and 2 in the “Board Announcements” section entreating readers to exchange videos.  Along with accusing the parties who offered to trade “media” everything but being children of God, I also pointed out the disingenuousness of the forum ownership and moderators in providing a safe, welcoming marketplace for these miscreants, a pirate’s bazaar, if you will. With their pants pulled down in 4 separate incidents, the entire threads could not deleted fast enough.

Acting responsibly, or covering their tracks. Doing the right thing when it was pointed out to them, dodging potential legal action or just hating to be criticized. You decide.
 
“Some shameful shit,” as Stringer Bell once said in a different context.

 

I can see how the doctrine of first sale applies to material purchased on dvd, which can be traded only in the form of the original dvd purchased from the provider, because copying the content would be illegal.
But in the case of digital downloads no distinction between item and content can be drawn. All I am buying is coded information which my PC translates into images and sounds. So how does the doctrine of first sale apply there?
If my understanding of the legalese is correct, the doctrine of first sale gives me no right whatsoever to trade downloaded digital content on line, not even once, because in order to do so I would have to copy it, thereby infringing the copyright of the provider.
This would mean that if I wanted to trade downloads legally, I would have to hand over the storage medium I had downloaded them to. Either - if I was thinking ahead - a portable device like a memory stick, or the hard drive from my PC.

Kafkod has a pretty decent understanding of the first issue here, but falls into  an easy to miss trap. With downloads, there is no “trade.” In a trade, each party gives up something to get something else. When videos are pirated, neither party is giving up anything; they are only adding. Take this to its logical conclusion: a few guys get together and start to buy videos. Each buys one from a different company. Assuming a core group of 10, each would then be able to see (and possess) 10 videos while only buying one. Now the only component missing for these guys to go big time, to continue to get copies of videos for free, is for some entity to act as a middle-man, and bring individuals together to form pirate bands, and bring these pirate bands into easy contact with other pirate bands. This go-between is where the real evil occurs.

Maybe that’s why this site retains the name “freecatfights”: to become a supermarket for pirated videos.

What trap did I fall into, Ofecteau? Failing to put quotation marks around the word "trade"?

That particular word, and all its synonyms, was created before the advent of virtual reality, as was the Doctrine of First Sale, which is why neither are really up to the job when it comes to the question of digital downloads.

The doctrine is a US amendment to copyright law which was first applied in 1908. [I just looked it up.] Its application in European law is currently under consideration, but the U.S. Copyright Office has decided that it cannot be applied to digital copies because  “the tangible nature of a copy is a defining element of the first-sale doctrine and critical to its rationale." which is more or less what I thought when I first read about it here.

It is the fact that on line trading – for want of a better word – involves cloning the original purchase which makes it so potentially harmful to the producer.

[LQQKING4CATFIGHTER]

 You can not copy and sell videos, but can re-sell the orginal copy. I think the same is true for trading.
  I trade myself, think it is best way to find out what producers have good videos or not.
  I also buy most matches I collect and buy custom matches.
  The real issue is with people that never buy anything and only trade or watch youtube, if new good videos are to be made, there needs to be fans paying to see it.

[krizanti]

You can not copy and sell videos, but can re-sell the orginal copy. I think the same is true for trading.
  I trade myself, think it is best way to find out what producers have good videos or not.

I agree with the above. Then again, like Kafkod mentioned...digital copies of copyrighted works do not comfortably fit within the constraints of the first-sale doctrine. Unlike transactions where a tangible copy changes hands, a digital transfer results in a reproduction of the work through the electronic transmission of a new copy of the work to its recipient. In other words, transferor retains the source copy unless deleted from the hard disk manually or through some special technology. I think, by sending a copy to the transferee, the transferor infringes both the reproduction and distribution rights.

The real issue is with people that never buy anything and only trade or watch youtube, if new good videos are to be made, there needs to be fans paying to see it.

I would think it was a real issue If I believed that everyone watching a video on youtube would have bought it from its producer had it not been available on youtube. What percentage of the videos you watch on youtube would you have bought had it not been readily available there? Don't you think it may be another way to find out what producers have good videos or not?

[LQQKING4CATFIGHTER]

You can not copy and sell videos, but can re-sell the orginal copy. I think the same is true for trading.
  I trade myself, think it is best way to find out what producers have good videos or not.

I agree with the above. Then again, like Kafkod mentioned...digital copies of copyrighted works do not comfortably fit within the constraints of the first-sale doctrine. Unlike transactions where a tangible copy changes hands, a digital transfer results in a reproduction of the work through the electronic transmission of a new copy of the work to its recipient. In other words, transferor retains the source copy unless deleted from the hard disk manually or through some special technology. I think, by sending a copy to the transferee, the transferor infringes both the reproduction and distribution rights.

The real issue is with people that never buy anything and only trade or watch youtube, if new good videos are to be made, there needs to be fans paying to see it.

I would think it was a real issue If I believed that everyone watching a video on youtube would have bought it from its producer had it not been available on youtube. What percentage of the videos you watch on youtube would you have bought had it not been readily available there? Don't you think it may be another way to find out what producers have good videos or not?

  I chat with many fans and ask them  what videos they have in their collection, I'd say about 50% tell me they have none and only watch videos online for free.  So would say this is the biggest issue in the Catfight and Wrestling world today.
   If I see a match on youtube that I like, I'll go out a buy it, so more will be made like it.
 

[Nutmeg]

You can not copy and sell videos, but can re-sell the orginal copy. I think the same is true for trading.
  I trade myself, think it is best way to find out what producers have good videos or not.

I agree with the above. Then again, like Kafkod mentioned...digital copies of copyrighted works do not comfortably fit within the constraints of the first-sale doctrine. Unlike transactions where a tangible copy changes hands, a digital transfer results in a reproduction of the work through the electronic transmission of a new copy of the work to its recipient. In other words, transferor retains the source copy unless deleted from the hard disk manually or through some special technology. I think, by sending a copy to the transferee, the transferor infringes both the reproduction and distribution rights.

The real issue is with people that never buy anything and only trade or watch youtube, if new good videos are to be made, there needs to be fans paying to see it.

I would think it was a real issue If I believed that everyone watching a video on youtube would have bought it from its producer had it not been available on youtube. What percentage of the videos you watch on youtube would you have bought had it not been readily available there? Don't you think it may be another way to find out what producers have good videos or not?

  I chat with many fans and ask them  what videos they have in their collection, I'd say about 50% tell me they have none and only watch videos online for free.  So would say this is the biggest issue in the Catfight and Wrestling world today.
   If I see a match on youtube that I like, I'll go out a buy it, so more will be made like it.
 

Did you find any difference with age? I ask since with comic books I found people in their twenties tended to not actually pay for any comics they read, whereas I owned a ton of paid physical product (early thirties age wise ).Heck, for the smaller press titles i would buy single issues AND the trade so the title got more money.  And any digital I use is from the actual Marvel or DC store.

I found people who grew up with digital have a much lower price point expectation than those used to physical product. An example is RPG books, it seemed the highest price people felt was reasonable for a PDF copy of a book was around $10, compared to physical copies in the 40 to 50 bucks range. And this mentality may be what works against electronic media. With a book there is less printing cost and such to justify a lower price. Not so with most electronic media but the mindset remains.

Some industries have had to do mindset changes. Music changed from using the concert tour to sell the album to using an album to sell a tour to make money. Movies added 3D to everything it films. Books and games have gone to Kickstarter where they get pledges for production costs up front to minimize their risk (effectively transferring it to the consumer and forcing a bigger amount of trust and faith from a customer ). Catfight video producers might need to use some of these techniques or make ones of their own.

[LQQKING4CATFIGHTER]

You can not copy and sell videos, but can re-sell the orginal copy. I think the same is true for trading.
  I trade myself, think it is best way to find out what producers have good videos or not.

I agree with the above. Then again, like Kafkod mentioned...digital copies of copyrighted works do not comfortably fit within the constraints of the first-sale doctrine. Unlike transactions where a tangible copy changes hands, a digital transfer results in a reproduction of the work through the electronic transmission of a new copy of the work to its recipient. In other words, transferor retains the source copy unless deleted from the hard disk manually or through some special technology. I think, by sending a copy to the transferee, the transferor infringes both the reproduction and distribution rights.

The real issue is with people that never buy anything and only trade or watch youtube, if new good videos are to be made, there needs to be fans paying to see it.

I would think it was a real issue If I believed that everyone watching a video on youtube would have bought it from its producer had it not been available on youtube. What percentage of the videos you watch on youtube would you have bought had it not been readily available there? Don't you think it may be another way to find out what producers have good videos or not?

  I chat with many fans and ask them  what videos they have in their collection, I'd say about 50% tell me they have none and only watch videos online for free.  So would say this is the biggest issue in the Catfight and Wrestling world today.
   If I see a match on youtube that I like, I'll go out a buy it, so more will be made like it.
 

Did you find any difference with age? I ask since with comic books I found people in their twenties tended to not actually pay for any comics they read, whereas I owned a ton of paid physical product (early thirties age wise ).Heck, for the smaller press titles i would buy single issues AND the trade so the title got more money.  And any digital I use is from the actual Marvel or DC store.

I found people who grew up with digital have a much lower price point expectation than those used to physical product. An example is RPG books, it seemed the highest price people felt was reasonable for a PDF copy of a book was around $10, compared to physical copies in the 40 to 50 bucks range. And this mentality may be what works against electronic media. With a book there is less printing cost and such to justify a lower price. Not so with most electronic media but the mindset remains.

Some industries have had to do mindset changes. Music changed from using the concert tour to sell the album to using an album to sell a tour to make money. Movies added 3D to everything it films. Books and games have gone to Kickstarter where they get pledges for production costs up front to minimize their risk (effectively transferring it to the consumer and forcing a bigger amount of trust and faith from a customer ). Catfight video producers might need to use some of these techniques or make ones of their own.

If never asked the age of the fan. You might be right about younger fans, but also think that some older

[Dan the Fan]

Age is an interesting factor in this question.   I remember when I bought my very first video, DT-255 back when I was maybe 16 yrs old for 40$ via mail order.  For those of us who built libraries of tapes in the days before download, being able to buy clips and matches for 10-15 dollars and get instant gratification is amazing.  My price point limit is that I generally will not pay more than a dollar a minute, unless it is something I really want.

As for trading itself I generally only try to trade for things that are no longer made available by the producer (old APL tapes that they won't make available for download).

[GrasslandProductions]

I for one am glad people steal some stuff and put it online. Some companies are great at making videos look better than they really are.  So being able to see some of them stops me from walking into a foolish buy.  ALso i understand that this is a fetish, but it cant be super expensive to pay two women to fight.  You can pay anywhere from 20 to 40 bucks on a video.  You pay less for a big budget hollywood movie with professional actors and special effects.  Now im curious , does anyone know a rough estimate of what it cost to make a catfight?

http://www.freecatfights.com/forums/index.php/topic,25102.0.html

Anywhere from $300 to $1,000.