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."
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!
Quote from: cffightfan on January 24, 2013, 01:26:13 AM
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Quote from: ofecteau on January 25, 2013, 11:31:26 PM
Quote from: krizanti on January 23, 2013, 06:18:27 PM
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.
Quote from: kafkod on January 25, 2013, 03:18:07 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: LQQKING4CATFIGHTER on January 29, 2013, 11:04:03 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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?
Quote from: krizanti on January 30, 2013, 11:11:51 PM
Quote from: LQQKING4CATFIGHTER on January 29, 2013, 11:04:03 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: LQQKING4CATFIGHTER on January 31, 2013, 04:43:09 AM
Quote from: krizanti on January 30, 2013, 11:11:51 PM
Quote from: LQQKING4CATFIGHTER on January 29, 2013, 11:04:03 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: nutmeg78 on January 31, 2013, 07:00:18 AM
Quote from: LQQKING4CATFIGHTER on January 31, 2013, 04:43:09 AM
Quote from: krizanti on January 30, 2013, 11:11:51 PM
Quote from: LQQKING4CATFIGHTER on January 29, 2013, 11:04:03 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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 $10, compared to physical copies in the 40 to 50 bucks range. And this mentality may be what works against electronic media. With a book there is less printing cost and such to justify a lower price. Not so with most electronic media but the mindset remains.
Some industries have had to do mindset changes. Music changed from using the concert tour to sell the album to using an album to sell a tour to make money. Movies added 3D to everything it films. Books and games have gone to Kickstarter where they get pledges for production costs up front to minimize their risk (effectively transferring it to the consumer and forcing a bigger amount of trust and faith from a customer ). Catfight video producers might need to use some of these techniques or make ones of their own.
If never asked the age of the fan. You might be right about younger fans, but also think that some older
Age is an interesting factor in this question. I remember when I bought my very first video, DT-255 back when I was maybe 16 yrs old for 40$ 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).
Quote from: maebus on February 05, 2013, 06:48:40 AM
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.
If you bought a single copy, you can do whatever you want with that single copy with the one exception of making that single copy into two copies or more copies.
And uploading it to youtube or a file sharing site is creating another copy of the originally purchased video.
I have no problem with trading, but I do have a problem with duplicating.
I've never felt the need of trading videos thanks to FFVRC (Fighting Females Video Rental Club) from PA. They've been renting wrestling/catfighting videos in the U.S since 1984. At present their stock of videos is nearly 7000 titles from over 360 production companies.
Over the years, a number of producers tried to stop FFVRC from renting their videos but they all failed. Renting videos in the U.S. is not illegal as long as they are the original copies. Below is the disclaimer I copied and pasted from FFVRC's home page.
All production company names and or trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All rights reserved. F.F.Video is not affiliated with any production company or distributor. F.F. video is rentals only, it does not sell videos or DVD's. All the videos and DVD's in our catalog are covered by copyright from their respective owners. As such, copying and duplication in the same or varying formats is a violation of the U.S. copyright laws punishable by fines and or imprisonment. The videos and DVD's are also covered by a provision of the copyright law known as the "Doctrine of First Sale". This doctrine states, in part, that once a party has purchased a video or DVD they have the right to resale, lease or rent it. This is the law in the U.S.A. that allows videos stores to rent and sell videos without the permission in any form from the copyright holder. As all the video and DVD's in our catalog where purchased directly from the copyright holders or their agents we maintain this legal right.
With regards to copies, it is the old piracy argument.
I see a lot of back and forth with regards to music/films/games bittorrent on http://torrentfreak.com/
Personally, i think it is morally wrong, but unquestionably unlawful.
On one side people talk about piracy boosting sales and helping to get indys going, screwing misleading fatcat producers or unnecessary middlemen, the right to properly own a product you buy and do with it what you want, outdated business models that need to innovate and create new monetisation systems (like for example free 2 play games, "pay what you feel it is worth" schemes and very affordable streaming/cloud services).
And the other side talk about how artists/creators should be paid for their work not have it stolen or copied, the issue of owning intellectual property, how industries are able to survive and keep their identity due to copyright law, macro economics and economies of scale (like how we collectively pay for a £100 million movie production) and how piracy effects them to make us all eventually pay anyway, and how some people are just spongers or parasites and just want a free lunch.
The issue of the 2nd hand market is a completely different beast however. Obviously its bad that the original creator does not get a taste in a second hand sale and it really sucks that whole companies are dedicated to this kind of industry (in my opinion at least). But should you be able to sell on products that you have paid for? Yeah mabye. Its a clear cut yes with a unique item like a piece of furniture or something but with a copy of something that was produced at much greater cost that you originally bought your copy for? I dont know.
But at the end of the day when I specifically think about FvsF material and less generally, I dont think you should trade or pirate it AT ALL. The industry is so small that I dont think it can take too much of a hit and you can really mess with some of the tiny struggling businesses.
But the upside of this fact is that you can make a huge statement with your purchase. Buy what you like and support it, or choose not to buy it and let that company die off.
Quote from: Tomico on February 08, 2013, 12:26:45 AM
But at the end of the day when I specifically think about FvsF material and less generally, I dont think you should trade or pirate it AT ALL. The industry is so small that I dont think it can take too much of a hit and you can really mess with some of the tiny struggling businesses.
But the upside of this fact is that you can make a huge statement with your purchase. Buy what you like and support it, or choose not to buy it and let that company die off.
It goes without saying that piracy is both unethical and unlawful. Undoubtedly, piracy and trading have negative effects on the sales of producers as well.
I get the impression, some people are too paranoid that as a result of piracy and trading...their favorite producer will be forced out of business and they won't be able to get the FvsF material they enjoy. I don't think so! This may still be a small industry compared to others but I've been a fan since the late 70s and I can assure you that it has grown and expanded exponentially over the years despite piracy and trading. Back in the days when they were producing super 8mm films there was no piracy at all yet you could count the producers with the fingers of your hand. If a producer goes out of business today, I bet it will most likely be replaced by two or more producers tomorrow.
Technology has its cons and pros. Today, you can shoot a video, upload it to your clip store and someone at the other end of the world can purchase and download it within hours. Nevertheless, that buyer can share it with an infinite number of people with the same ease. None of these could even be dreamed of by the tiny group of producers who were struggling to shoot and develop super 8mm films.
Ofecteau:
Many moons ago I used to think what I would do if producers like California Supreme, Bellstone, Judell du Long, Women Warriors etc. went out of business. They all disappeared and it wasn't the end of this industry. GR stopping producing isn't the end of the world for me...Hana and Marek are producing similar videos. Academy stopping production isn't a big deal for me either, I'm into competitive wrestling and matches of most competitive wrestlers such as Ariel X who worked for Bruce are also available through other producers like LFFP, Monica etc. We don't know who else will break into this market and raise the bar even higher in the future. At one point in time, no one could make me believe anyone could make a better wrestling video than Judell du Long.
I also remember GR stating based on his observation that the average span of a fan was about 5 years. Of course, it does not mean that fans totally quit this interest but they get tired of the same style, the same girls etc. GR's statement is 100% correct in my case...I do get tired of the same producer after a while...sometimes it does not even take so long as 5 years.
Quote from: GrasslandProductions on February 06, 2013, 03:15:55 AM
Quote from: maebus on February 05, 2013, 06:48:40 AM
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.
The actual amount mentioned in Steve's post was $2000 minimum to make a short, none topless catfight video. After it's done you would have to start thinking about putting it out there so people can buy it.
Quote from: ofecteau on February 08, 2013, 09:44:18 PM
In the last year or so, DWW and Academy have stopped producing material. Mountain Mayhem and East Coast Cats have started. Can anyone possibly argue either the industry or we as consumers are better off by this state of affairs?
The Academy Wrestling we knew and loved died with Bruce, They are still releasing new matches, but, according to something I read here from somebody who usually knows what he is talking about, no more are being filmed.
I don't know anything about Mountain Mayhem, except that they produce scripted fights, which is all I need to know.
I do know that Eastcoastcats were an established company long before DWW folded. They are an excellent producer of genuine, unscripted catfights and I like their work, and the women they film.
They are also every bit as vulnerable to piracy as the companies you like, Ofecteau. Just thought I'd point that out.
Ofecteau:
You're actually lucky that you were able to find what interests you through DWW and Academy. There are plenty of people that can not find what they are looking for in the inventory of any producer at all. The only option they have is the custom videos. I do know 5 of those fans in person...in fact, two of them shoot their own videos themselves rather than out-sourcing it to a producer. As you know, nowadays you can get a very decent HD camcorder under a $1,000 and a set of lights (Smith Victor) around $200. In Southern California the going rate is $250 per talent for a half an hour video...if nudity is involved it may go up to $300-350 (the choices of talents will substantially be limited though). If you want someone to make all the arrangements and shoot it for you...just add another $100 (providing that you give him/her the distribution rights, otherwise it costs more).
Just for the record; For 2011, the top 10 most-stolen vehicles in the nation were:
1-1994 Honda Accord
2-1998 Honda Civic
3-2006 Ford Pickup (Full Size)
4-1991 Toyota Camry
5-2000 Dodge Caravan
6-1994 Acura Integra
7-1999 Chevrolet Pickup (Full Size)
8-2004 Dodge Pickup (Full Size)
9-2002 Ford Explorer
10-1994 Nissan Sentra
Quote from: ofecteau on February 12, 2013, 07:08:58 AM
Quote from: kafkod on February 12, 2013, 05:12:20 AM
I do know that Eastcoastcats were an established company long before DWW folded.
They are also every bit as vulnerable to piracy as the companies you like, Ofecteau.
Vulnerable, yes, but not necessarily prone.
Car thieves steal very few used Pontiac Fieros. On the other hand, if you own a Lexus LS460 , you'd best have Smart Tracker on that sucker.
It is possible to praise and support the producers you like without denigrating the ones you don't in the process.