Front seat thrills DVD review: More from Horse Creek

---

Gemini said:
They're buying a VHS, copying it to DVD, and then redistributing it in a 1 to 1 ratio (not selling more than they purchased)?

---

IF that's what they're doing (not saying it is, staying out of that), then I think the answer is "no".

You're currently free to buy media and transcode it into another form *for personal use* (for example, take your CDs and load them up onto your MP3 player. Or to look at a project I'm working on at home, take your old Laserdiscs and convert them to DVDs before your old, no-longer-in-production Laserdisc player totally gives up the ghost, costing you the ability to play back LDs that will NEVER see the light of day on DVD or any other form). If RIAA and MPAA have their say, even that will become illegal (and thanks to the DMCA, if the media is "copy protected", it IS illegal), but that's another can-o-worms entirely.

However, turning around and selling that transcoded media without permission, would be illegal. If it were strictly on a one-to-one basis, AND they destroyed the original copy each time, AND they didn't make any profit at all, then a good lawyer MIGHT be able to argue out of it.

But then, I'm not a lawyer, just a schmuck with strong opinions on both intellectual property rights (don't profit from or redistribute others work without proper permission) AND fair use (once I buy it, I'm free to use it, on a one-for-one basis, in the form I see fit).
*** Edited 4/28/2004 2:23:12 PM UTC by GregLeg***

---

Homey G. said:
I'm only defending against the outlandish remarks.

---

Which part of "copied and distributed a full-length video" and/or "used images without permission" is outlandish?

Does anyone have a copy of the said Cedar Point video that was "copied" to DVD and then sold? Is there any proof that said DVD even exist? Could it be possible that Cedar Point had mentioned the video would be available on DVD at a later time and HCP was just alerting people in advance that a DVD copy would be available soon?

Edit: Walt semi answered this question for me. That being said, does anyone OWN a DVD copy of the Cedar Point videos?

*** Edited 4/28/2004 3:18:33 PM UTC by Rampage***

Jeff, none of those are what I'm talking about. But that's not the only thing being alluded and insinuated to either.

Brian, who has said his piece, is considering the issue deaded.

I have mentioned before that Cedar Point's online store sells a couple of their videos, in VHS format only. Now, pardon me for trying to use logic, but would not it make sense for Cedar Point to actually take orders for a DVD version if one did exist? I mean, why would it make sense to give a third party the heads up on something that you yourself do not even offer?

2) I could have sworn that one VHS Cedar Point video was selling for less than the version sold through Cedar Point's web site. Okay, so if Cedar Point is selling videos to these guys at the same price as that they are offering to the general public, and they turn around and sell them for less, stop me if I am wrong but that does not sound very profitable.

The whole debate for me now settles around whether or not they made unauthorized VHS or DVD copies of the Cedar Point videos and sold them. That is what needs to be answered.

Greg, I think the serious issue in all IP cases is where the line is between protecting copyrights and "fair use," which is probably the most vague term in this whole argument. Without going into too much detail (because I've got a class in a few minutes), I can tell you that my sociology class this week has been entirely based on IP, and several of the readings have brought up cases where the line between protection and fair use, and subsequently the line between "free" and "controlled" resources, is not quite where you'd expect it to be.

The advent of the Internet has caused such a huge new conflict in the IP world, and until regulations formally address exactly what you can and can't do with media and ideas on the Web, things like this (perhaps not specifically in the Horse Creek case, but in more of a general IP dispute kind of way) are going to happen with more frequency.

Ugh... let me spell it out for you. I know for a fact that this 15-year old kid knows Cedar Fair's lawyers on a first-name basis at this point. What else do you need to know?

And Homey... you've said your "piece" on this issue at least three times now. What horrible things are people "insinuating" that aren't true? The kid's a copyright infringer. It's pretty black and white.

I have been intentionally ignoring these threads for quite some time. Yet I feel compelled to make a statement. I will make it short and to the point:

Horse Creek has been selling DVDs and VHS tapes for several years with my pictures on the back. They also had images on their website that my brother (Peabody) and I took several years ago. I have never given permission for them to use my pictures in any way. Let me say that again... I NEVER GAVE PERMISSION FOR THEM TO USE MY COPYRIGHTED IMAGES.

For legal reasons, I can't really explain everything that has happened, but let me tell you a little... I contacted them and asked that they comply with a few of my requests, one of which was that they remove all of my images from their materials. However, I am reasonable was willing to let them continue using my copyrighted images if they were willing to compensate me for them. I don't believe I ever got an adequate response. To be honest, I have not even done anything about this case in a few months.

For the record, I had nothing to do with their website being shut down... I have my guess who did, but it was not me.

Let me make one thing clear... Lots of people steal my stuff. It pisses me off, and it is clearly illegal, but it happens. If I see someone using my pictures on a website, I politely ask them to remove it. 99% of the time they do and it is the end of the story. This case was a little different because HCP has been making money selling items with my copyrighted pictures on them. (In fact, you can still see the copyright in the corner of my Titan image on their box. They weren't even smart enough to crop off my info!)

I have no information about the legality of the video footage. I will let others deal with that issue.

So let me set the record straight: Did I shut them down? NO. Did I ask them to cease and desist? YES. I am glad they they might be gone: NO COMMENT.

This is my one and only statement. Gripe all you want, but that is what happened.

If you have any problems, please feel free to contact me via http://www.CoasterGallery.com and I will be happy to listen to your statements and talk as openly as I legally can.

Now let me get back to reading more interesting topics....

---

Nitro Dave said:
Greg, I think the serious issue in all IP cases is where the line is between protecting copyrights and "fair use," which is probably the most vague term in this whole argument.

---

Agreed, the line is VERY fine sometimes. There ARE some basic guidelines one can use, though.

Ask yourself,

1. Did I pay for something that can only be used at a single time (ie a CD, a book, a video)? Would someone else have to pay to use their own independently of me? If so, then I don't have rights to give or sell them a copy in any form.

2. Is this something I made myself? If not, has the person or people who DID make it given me permission to redistribute it (either explicitly, or through a license statement that puts it in the public domain)?

3. Is it something that I can readily turn into another format (ie MP3)? If so, and I have done so, I'd better make sure it is only being used in no more than one of those forms at any given time.

The later distinction becomes especially important for computer software -- for example, I have three PCs at home, and I have a purchased license to run Windows XP on each. Why? Because at any given time I MIGHT have more than one doing something, that is, "being used by me", even if I'm not sitting at the console. In fact that's FREQUENTLY the case, as I'll have the desktop in the office processing something while I'm in the living room on the laptop browsing the web.

This also gets to one of the fine lines you mention -- I sometimes stream my MP3s throughout the house to multiple computers for playback (I use ShoutCast for this, as an aside for the curious), so that I can listen to music while moving throughout the house doing chores and whatnot. In this case, multiple computers (all owned by me within the confines of my household) are playing back a single MP3 in sync. Legal? Maybe (only one copy of the MP3 is being read, and by one user, namely myself), maybe not (each PC is reading its own stream -- in effect, making a copy -- and generating its own audio). I would argue that it IS -- the LAN makes its own single entity. If I were to open my firewall and allow anyone other than me to connect to the server, now I've entered the realm of redistributing, which is a clear violation.

I'd LOVE to see the readings for your class.

*** Edited 4/28/2004 11:45:51 PM UTC by GregLeg***

Ok, now I really gotta jump into this topic as well. Some of you complained that everybody is just "assuming" that something at HCP might not be quite right and I can't really comment the thing about the CP video. But what I can tell you, and that is a FACT, is that HCP is selling that european coaster thrills video. I bought it from them while I was in the states for several month recently. A friend of mine over here in europe is selling those as well and when he was at my house one day he saw the tape I received from HCP. He was very surprised to see what had been sold to me. He later showed me an original copy. Here is what we found: the original tape has a different label on it that also shows the logo of the video, the HCP tape has not got that - the original tape is an industrial tape that is just as long as the feature, the HCP version is a standard 180 minute tape from the stores - the original tape has a high quality offset printed cover, HCP's version is color copied, the original tape has a check mark on the back (obviously made with a felt pen) that defines the video system, the original one (US version) states correctly NTSC, the HCP one says PAL (the mark is in the copied paper) although the video appears to be in NTSC format, and so on......
Finally, the quality of the original tape is way better that the copy I received from HCP. As my friend buys his product directly from the producers he also knows that they did never license the video to anybody else for replication.
I am really convinced now that something at HCP is not quite right. I am also quite pissed off that I spent so much money to get a bad quality rip off. But now with their website being down and all, I guess something must have happened...

Mike

Walt: Sorry I've been gone for a few days and not followed this thread to see your question to me. Joel (CaptainJoel) summed it up. Aside from that, it sounds like there's more to this story than either Joel or I are aware of!