WhiteDove

Yeah, I forgot, you are the exception. . . .

Well, and a few others......

PFAL class:

"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ."

"It's Christ in VP Wierwille."

So, then, what defines "The Word".

Simple. Anything that comes out of the mouth of Wierwille because he is, after all, privy to knowledge that hasn't been known since Ephesus was a nothing but a bunch of spec. homes on the lake. By his logic, when he spoke, it was supposedly like Christ speaking. You would have to disregard PFAL to dispute that successfully.

Faulty logic It's Christ in me does that make me a lord? These statements are independant of each other.

It probably would not be as hard as you think OM. Consider what it means to make someone Lord in your life? Obedience. . . the suggestion of the MOG is tantamount. . . . who one listens to(Who taught us these "great" truths). . . who one considers the final authority. . . who one follows. . . who one emulates. . .

Now, if the actual Lord is absent(out of the picture). . . it is not hard to consider someone else in His place.

It was not blatant. . it was subtle.

Without mouthing the words VP is Lord. . . our actions said exactly that. . . we considered Him in place of the absent Christ. . . who we shamefully relugated to the end of a prayer or the means to an end.

Seems we all to some extent did replace Jesus with VP or some other wannabe leadership. That is what happens in most groups like TWI. . . that is why they usually fall apart when the big guy departs this earth. . . unless they get an equally charasmatic new leader, or they splinter into little groups. . . each with their own little MOG.

Just my opinion.

Is that mouse in your pocket named we? Because if not we don't apply to me. in which case you can supply I.

except.. Lynn, geer, to*nsend, etc. etc.. despite first hand knowledge of his true character, they still revere the vicster's "holy" name..

still think it (da way) was the most SIGNIFICANT stronghold of "truth" due to his mighty holiness, vicster I..

you tell me.. if that's not confessing him as lord, it's a darn close second..

P I I believe they would tell you they are thankful for what he taught them from scripture. Not the same as confessing him as lord, Not even close. I'm thankful for what my history teacher taught me as well but he is not my lord ,or a replacement for Christ. It's quite possible to recognize someone for their contributions to your life without worshiping them. One event does not necessitate the other.

Someone told me that Donnie's mom had passed away recently but I haven't had time to track it down, anyway here is the obituary. I thought more might notice it here feel free to move it to the memorials if needed.

Fugit, LaVon K.

ANDOVER - Fugit, LaVon K., 91, passed away on Sun, Mar 8 in Wichita. Born July 3, 1917, to Ray and Minnie (Kline) Painter in Kansas City, KS, she married Lewis Jewel Fugit and moved to Wichita in the early 40's. LaVon was preceded in death by her husband Lewis; children William, Eloise, and Donnie; and sisters Gwendaline and Delores. She is survived by son Robert, Andover; daughter Theresa Schmersey, Andover; brother Ray Painter, Jr., Tulsa, OK; 8 grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren. Services will be at 1 pm, Wednesday Mar 11 at St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church, 1321 N. Stratford, Wichita. Visitation will be from 4 to 8 pm Tuesday, Mar 9 with rosary at 6 pm also at St. Thomas Aquinas. Interment will follow at Calvary Cemetery 610 S. Vassar, Wichita. In lieu of flowers the family would ask that memorials be made to Parkinson's Foundation of the Heartland, 7800 Foster, Overland Park, KS 66204-2955. Services entrusted to Heritage Funeral Home 733-1020. Online memorials may be made at www.heritageofandover.com

Published in the Wichita Eagle on 3/10/2009

OBIT

It was orchestrated, and manipulative. He said all the *right* things, while his current actions tell a different story entirely.

Kinda reminiscent of ole docvic, eh?? Say one thing/ do another/ promote *abundance*/ and lead to poverty.

If it was truly *informative*, perhaps he shoulda been asked why he signed the bill authorizing those bonus'.

Naww - - - that would have been a *hard* question, and Barry isn't fond of them. His tele-prompter isn't programmed for *truth*.

^_^ :unsure: ^_^

Well at least he did not thank himself for coming again.

They asked me for the ebay #, thanked me and said they would take care of it.

Auction Ended

Naw there probably is no connection here............

All we know is "the item has ended."

Correction all YOU know is that the item ended. Do you think he suddenly did not want to sell the item? PLEASE.........Your not that dumb WW. Yeah I'm so sure he said to himself one day... Self .... I think I'll list an item on EBay so in a few days I can end it yeah that will be real cool.

very unlikely. they'd have to prove they own the set to get eBay to take action against a seller like that.

This item has ended.

Really??? Looks Quite likely to me ............. As I predicted it would not last long. Apparently we found out who has the rights despite the armchair lawyer who thinks they know. You might want to call EBay and see if they buy your first sale theory. Some people just won't listen.

Sorry, I missed that post...who said that classes were "gifted"?

I think this may be the big loophole in TWI's claim of complete ownership. Was The Way in Great Britain (Geer's former org) given rights to distribute anywhere? Or just the UK and Europe? If so, is it legal to distribute outside their "sales area"?

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that The Way of California that existed in the 70's, 80's etc and The Way West are one and the same?

I disagree. I can't see why TWI would do that.

I believe that all 50 "limbs", The Way of...Alaska, Alabama...Wyoming...etc...were incorporated in the states where they operated, the question is, where these corporations legally independent of The Way International?

Chris claims he was given rights to distribute anywhere, The Way at one point sued claiming yes they did give rights, but only to Europe. The short of it,After years of legal back and forth Chris won his case. That said to my knowledge he has never distributed any PFAL classes. Only the Walking in God's Power Classes.

To the best of my knowledge, the only period when PFAL class tapes were being handed out to individuals was during the fallout after Passing of a Patriarch, and I'd be willing to bet they weren't given out with the Way International's blessing.

Was it during that time, Galen (around 1986-89) that you were given the tapes?

There was a whole underground "vibe" during that time. I know in Ohio, leaders still on twi's payroll were scrambling around trying to "save" PFAL one way or another, either by stashing the sets of class tapes or whatever, because they were caught up in Geer's thing and expected to get fired and lose access to the materials.

During that time I almost got roped into transcribing the class to "preserve" it , but then I decided it was silly, since we had our Bibles and most of us had sat through the class a bunch of times and had all the reading materials anyway. I think I only got through the first tape from the first session.

VPW might have occasionally (more likely, rarely) given a set to someone for the purpose of running classes, but it wasn't a common practice. Ham, I was around from '72 until the late 80s, and I never heard of the tapes being given to AC grads.

I doubt whether the twi of today would bother to try to force anyone to give back any of the PFAL class tapes or videos. They don't even offer that class anymore, do they? Seems to me with all the time that's passed since anyone got these materials, and with the number of times they've changed hands, that it would be too costly in legal fees for twi to bother.

All legal nitpicking aside, the tapes and videos belonged to twi, not to individuals or individual states. They were loaned out, not given out, for the purpose of running classes.

Linda's remembrance is exactly correct.

they probably aren't, but I can't overlook the fact that they're a bunch of bullies :)

plus, OM tattled, and I'd hate to see a legit eBay seller dogged by twi

Only a matter of time ,they watch the ebay sales this would not be the first person that has had an auction pulled at their request.

ok, so your quote above, WD, (from here http://www.aallnet.org/committee/copyright.../firstsale.html or one of the other urls that has copied it) deals specifically with the issues of first sale as it relates to digital copies. I wouldn't consider their terminology the final word on what constitutes "first sale" since the article doesn't deal with the nuances of rights of exhaustion. that's why I suggested you try to keep up, because bending definitions to suit yourself is you M.O. and you're ignoring information that's already been provided.

I didn't bend anything I gave three sources they all said the same thing you seem intent on bending the definition.

it would be better to consult with the copyright code itself:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

So now you want to change and discuss copyright law , your the one who brought up first sale. Which was your argument, or are you just going to jump around until you find something that works?

other transfer of ownership includes gifts, as established by case law.

see http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/440377 paragraphs 11 and 34

therefore, we are back to the real issue, which is if twi "rented, leased or lent" the copy, they will have a signed contract stating those are the terms. otherwise, the copies were gifts, unless it can be demonstrated that they were stolen, in which case anyone twi accuses in court would have presumption of innocence and the burden would be on twi to prove that the tapes were stolen, provided the statute of limitations hasn't run out.

it also might help to keep the statutes of limitations for ohio in mind, although if the tapes were given to individuals in other states the prosecution may have to take place in the court where the crime supposedly took place.

Ohio limitations

http://www.clelaw.lib.oh.us/Public/Misc/FA...imitations.html

Receipt of stolen property is a type of crime in the legal code of the United States. It is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2315 to knowingly receive, conceal, or dispose of stolen property with a value at least $5,000 that is part of interstate commerce (i.e., been transported across state lines).

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved:

The person received or concealed or stored or disposed of items of stolen property.

The items were moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce.

The items had a value in excess of $5,000.

The person acted knowingly and willfully.

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person either received, concealed, stored, sold or disposed of the stolen property.

To be guilty of the offense, a person must know that the property had been stolen, but he need not know that it was moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce. The term "interstate commerce" merely refers to the movement of property from one U.S. state into another; and it is sufficient if the property has recently moved interstate as a result of a transaction or a series of related transactions that have not been fully completed or consummated at the time of the person's acts as alleged.

All US states also have laws regarding receipt of stolen property; however, there usually is no minimum dollar amount in many jurisdictions, and, of course, the requirement in Federal law regarding interstate commerce does not apply. Also, in many states (Ohio, for example), the burden to prove criminal intent is not as stringent or is nonexistent. This means that one can be charged with the crime - usually a minor degree of felony - even if the person did not know the item in question was stolen.

try to keep up here, WD.

if the person receiving the tapes didn't sign an agreement, then they are not bound by twi's claim of ownership. that's the point of the shrink-wrapped EULA cases, that a person is not bound by rules accompanying media unless they have actively agreed to them, either with a click box that prevents them from proceeding without agreeing, or with a real live contract with their signature. and the case that established first sale doctrine established that once someone has a legally made copy of something in their possession, the copyright holder cannot control redistribution.

if twi has a signed contract or "agreement" as you put it, then they can claim the tapes with a warrant if the person who signed the agreement currently holds them. if not, then they'll find themselves in a case like vernor v. autodesk.

OM, twi might still hold the copyright, but that doesn't mean they own the copies. see above. without a written contract, they have no claim.

Perhaps it is you who should try to keep up

The "first sale" doctrine says that a person who buys a legally produced copyrighted work may "sell or otherwise dispose" of the work as he sees fit, subject to some important conditions and exceptions. Section 109(a). In other words, if you legally buy a book or CD, "first sale" gives you the right to loan that book or CD to your friend. Libraries heavily depend on the first sale doctrine to lend books and other items to patrons.

Potato, you may be technically correct, but the person I spoke to at hq said that copies cannot be sold legally. All copies are essentially illegals, bootlegs. Unless of course, twi gives its permission to this guy. I would call the guy up and ask, but golly, I already called the source. Maybe you can call the guy and ask for his written contract from TWI? :)

.Oldies these are not a copy but an original set of tapes not bootlegs.

Shucks. I have a ton of SNS tapes here at the house ranging from 1975 to somewhere in the mid 1980's.

I was also a member of University Of Life, and I have some of those tapes here as well.

I paid for all of them. I sent in my money, twi sent me the tapes. I never signed anything.

For all the *legal beagles" out there -- can I sell these without recrimination from twi??

Regardless what the answer might be from the nay sayers --- I think I can.

I'm guessing that the *class* belongs in a different dispensation, eh??? :blink:

Of course however a set of class tapes numbered that were not sold, but stolen is a different matter.

oh Twinky, I almost forgot! this would be a case where presumption of innocence would actually apply! we shouldn't assume anyone who has a set of tapes has stolen them, since apparently people have legitimate ownership of some copies, given as gifts or for running classes with no terms for their return. the burden of proof would definitely be on twi here that they still own any copy floating around.

edited to add: IF THIS WERE A COURT OF LAW.

personally, I think twi can suck it.

I don't believe we have assumed that, we can though through documentation tell if they were or not.

QUOTE (Twinky @ Mar 16 2009, 06:27 PM)

No, if property is stolen, it stays stolen.

Caveat emptor.

You can only sell with as good a title as you yourself have

Coirrect Twinky, and they have a log to make the claim from if they choose to do so with

I love my dog ,although he did not disclose that he is a bacon strip addict, other than that there is not much BS to put up with.

without the signed contract, if someone ends up with copies of the tapes for whatever reason, like they're kicked out of twi or left of their own volition before returning them, they're free to sell or give them away or burn them if they like. it doesn't matter if there were written instructions included, as courts have already determined that shrink-wrapped EULAs aren't binding.

Assuming we were discussing shrink wrapped EULA's which we were not. We were discussing a class planning form which was used for requesting the use of a set of tapes for a specified time period , which had rules of use that accompanied them.

Oh yeah Galen, now that you mention it, sets did get shuffled that way, although mostly it was one set being shared by two or more classes I think in my experience. I also agree nothing was ever signed by me, (in my areas), and I did not "check them out" with library system cards or any negotiation.

Darn, no bids yet on it?

oooh, there is a Tower of Power album listed, with Skip Mesquite and Dave Garibaldi!

Funny Hap I just recently found a CD of Back to Oakland/Tower of Power at the used CD store. Even odder the young clerk actualy knew who they were and was surprised that someone else did. He said that was the only one he had ever seen come through the store.

When PFAL was handed to a TC for the purpose of running a class no documents were ever signed. No 'agreement' was negotiated. You were given the class to run it. Nothing else was considered.

The only 'briefing' that I ever got when doing PFAL classes for TWI, was that sometimes I would have to get a segment from another TC, and when done I had to pass it off to a third TC. Because there were so many classes running at the same time. that was the only form of briefing, or conditions put on handling the class.

I don't know why you would have not have been given an instructors guide with the tapes Galen ,but somewhere there was one. Session by session segment by segment it was mapped out. I'm looking at one as I speak.

attempting to make your point on the terminology of the word "sale" is weak at best.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/20...kwrap-eulas.ars

additionally, no bill of sale is required to sell most tangible items, cars being one exception I can think of. can twi prove he stole the materials? if they gave them to him without a contract for their return, then he owns them, therefore the first sale doctrine applies.

Weak...... right..... that's why every definition posted includes reference to first selling an item ,as opposed to your theory that it need not be so. Nothing weak there it is fact that it is the key component.

Speaking of weak your example speaks of giving away CDs and giving gifts despite the fact as stated by posters in the know , these tapes were never a gift, or given as such ,they were supplied to run a class for a specific time period to then be returned. You assume something was for sale it was not.

A lot of the argument about legality keeps going back to "first sale", but as WhiteDove, and now RumRunner have stated, TWI didn't sell PFAL. Class Coordinators, whether they were Way Corps or not, salaried or not, were acting as agents of TWI to make the class available for people to take. From everything I have heard about the rationale for distributing the class by people who were either out of TWI or acting at cross purposes with the BOT while still on salary or in a TWI-assigned position, it was not a legally reasoned out decision, but an effort to keep what they considered "The Word" available to the masses in the face of perceived apostacy by the "legal" leadership of TWI.

Correct

Whether these classes that are floating around are legal or not, surely it would take a lot of effort for TWI to track them down, and surely whoever has them now is at least one step removed from their being appropriated from their legal owners, TWI, and not liable for prosecution.

Well it would unles one was dumb enough to post it on ebay for the world to see . Yes? I agree there is thin ice for prosecution but I would thiink they could receive their stolen property back. They can prove there was never sale of the item and the tape set number will match their log of ownership.

Why doesn't someone just call the guy and ask him. He's listed a phone number and it's a real number. Then you could *gasp* stop speculating.

No one is speculating just explaining to someone that so far wants to ignore the obvious.

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. That means that copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule".

Read

The "first sale" doctrine says that a person who buys a legally produced copyrighted work may "sell or otherwise dispose" of the work as he sees fit, subject to some important conditions and exceptions. Section 109(a). In other words, if you legally buy a book or CD, "first sale" gives you the right to loan that book or CD to your friend. Libraries heavily depend on the first sale doctrine to lend books and other items to patrons.

Read

A legal principle that limits a rightsholder’s 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 music CD or a book, is not the same as owning the copyright of the item

Read

I'll repeat no tapes were sold, as such no first sale, they were not gifts nor were they leased or rented, They were sent as materials to run a class as an approved instructor for the Way International, upon filing a class materials request form which included the guide on how to instruct the class and care of materials that were in your possession. That form was signed and tape sets sent were numbered on that record as in your possession for the space of time allotted on that form, that you sent to run the class. The copyrights to the tapes belong to TWI, the tapes belong to TWI. They can prove that they do by the set number that was issued and recorded on your signed planning form, there is a shipping record of such to prove delivery. They hold the record of copyright.

in fact, they shouldn't have been allowed to reclaim their property without a warrant and a sheriff in attendance, after proving in court that they had a claim on the tapes.

Of course we had the option but then I knew that the materials belonged to them, what would be the point?

how did they specify it? is there a written contract signed by each person receiving the tapes, or a blanket contract filed somewhere signed by each borrower, as we do when we apply for a library card?

what I want to know is if there is a legal contract. if not, then the physical transfer of the tapes from twi to an individual qualifies as "first sale" and twi's downstream rights to control are terminated.

plus, anyone purchasing the tapes on good faith is not bound by any contract entered into by someone else with twi, so they are free to dispose of the tapes as they see fit.

I know you think you are an attorney but as I told you the tapes belong to The Way International. There is no first sale. or any other sale they own the copyrights ,and the tape sets always have always will. Those who gave ,loaned ,copied sets did so on there own much for the reasons Socks described, none the less though maybe they felt for good reason it still was not theirs to do so.

The "first sale" doctrine says that a person who buys a legally produced copyrighted work may "sell or otherwise dispose" of the work as he sees fit, subject to some important conditions and exceptions. Section 109(a). In other words, if you legally buy a book or CD, "first sale" gives you the right to loan that book or CD to your friend. Libraries heavily depend on the first sale doctrine to lend books and other items to patrons.

Class instructors once approved were loaned, not sold a set of tapes which have a set number. Each set is on record in the Limb as their property, I assume TWI has a master list for which Limb has what sets. once approved to coordinate a class you were issued a set of tapes, materials, a instructors guide which specifies how one is to run their class . At the end of that guide is specified that the tapes must be returned within a allotted time period. If one wishes to be a class instructor that was the arrangement . Believe me they kept control of where their stuff was, when they came to reclaim their property once they decided that we were no longer on their side they came with a printout of every piece, and they counted and packed each one.

RE: WD's last post quoting Galen (and me!)

Galen's position was that he was given a copy of PFAL by the Way (Limb) of California and that The Way of California was somehow independent of The Way International, giving them the right to give away PFAL, or assign rights to others. If I remember correctly, Galen received his copy during the so-called fog years when the leadership of the California Limb was not following the dictates of the Board of Trustees.

If a similar position is being taken by the person selling PFAL on eBay, I believe that they are mistaken in the assumption that the rights to PFAL were ever assigned for use without the supervision and control by The Way International.

I agree just because someone gave it to you does not mean it was theirs to give. The Way of Kansas was a seperate entity as well once but the tapes were property of the Way International.

Hey there White Dove. I don't know how to operate the *search* function here to isolate posts (like some folks can do),

but I do recall Galen saying that he was given the class to run at sea, while in the Navy (way back when), as a submariner.

I (also) seem to recall, he runs the class regularly in his area, since it was given to him to do so,

and it's his property (courtesy of twi).

Certainly he isn't in Colorado, and I don't think he's sell it.

Teach it/ run classes??

Yes. But sell it?? No.

I agree, I could not find the post about at sea but I did not dig to hard, but I remember as you do him posting it. But here is a similar one

Galen

Jun 27 2006, 11:25 AM Post #15

(Oakspear @ Jun 27 2006, 12:12 PM)

Maybe you should have specified that you were talking about running PFAL classes while still in The Way, then perhaps Galen wouldn't be so amazed that there were "rules".

Of course if you're running a bootleg class you can do whatever you want, but Twi had plenty of rules and expectations involved in running PFAL classes

We really have not changed the format or 'flavour' of how we have ran PFAL classes. From the first ones that we ran in our Twigs starting in the late 70s, through 80s, 90s, etc.

I understand that on the rare occasion when WC were around, trying to poke their noses into what happened in our fellowship, it always got uncomfortable. The brow-beating, ugliness, and power-struggles, ick. We have been truly fortunate to have had very little dealings with WC overall. As I have explained previously.

Since the Limb of California gave us a copy of PFAL in 1985, overall we enjoyed far less direct dealing with WC anyway.

Woops --- just took a look at the ad again. I see it's from Ft. Collins Co.

That wouldn't be Galen. He's on the east coast. :)

Exactly who I was thinking of David but I don't know that claim to be true or false only that it was made, which is why I wrote There may be some exceptions I know some have claimed they were given a set legally

I know the CD sets of the Sunday Night Services/ Tape of the Month that VPW taught come out of Denver but this is not the same person. Besides Sara told me that the rights to her fathers teachings since they were not copyrighted or copyrighted correctly belong in PD and that they signed a letter for permission to use them for the project from the family for any intellectual rights.. The Way contested the fact but in the end have left them alone. due to the legal position of their attorneys below.

The Way International does NOT hold a copyright to the Sunday Night Service tapes and Tape of the Month tapes by Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille. In fact, it would appear that these tapes were placed in the public domain by Dr. Wierwille and/or the Way International at the time they were distributed due to the fact that there was no copyright symbol placed on any of the tapes.In 1988 Congress passed the Berne Convention Implementation Act, Pub.L. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853-54 (Oct. 31, 1988) which eliminated the notice requirement completely for all works first published after March 1, 1989. However, prior to that Act the copyright issue would be controlled by the Copyright Act of 1909 (the '1909 Act')." Under the 1909 Act and prior to March 1, 1989, the Copyright Act required that each copy of a work distributed to the public be marked with a copyright notice." TransWestern Pub. Co. LP v. Multimedia Marketing Associates, Inc., 133 F.3d 773, 782 (10th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, "Failure to do so would inject the work into the public domain." Id. However, the Way International, by failing to adhere to the strict statutory formalities-- i.e., the copyright notice requirement—caused all of the works at issue (teachings by Dr. Wierwille) to be passed into the "Public Domain." "Once a work has passed into the public domain as a result of failure to provide adequate notice of copyright, it may freely be copied." Allied Mktg. Group, Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 1989).

This indicia requirement in the Copyright Act was not amended until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, which became effective March 1, 1989. Id. It was not until the Berne Convention amendments that the copyright notice became optional rather than mandatory. Id. See also 17 U.S.C. § 401(a); Norma Ribbon & Trimming, Inc. v. Little, 51 F.3d 45 (5th Cir. 1995). Since Dr. Wierwille passed away in 1985, all of the teachings at issue were produced prior to the Berne Convention Implementation Act and were required to have a copyright notice on each and every tape distributed in order for the copyright protection to be valid.

Prior to March 1, 1989, ownership of a valid copyright is established by proving the originality and copyrightability of the material and compliance with the statutory formalities (i.e. – having a copyright notice displayed on each work). Id. See also Allied Mktg. Group, Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 1989); Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 1984). Only after the Plaintiff meets their burden pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 410© does a defendant have the burden of overcoming it. Autoskill, 994 F.2d at 1487. Accord Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic International, Inc., 685 F.2d 870, 873 (3d Cir. 1982)

you can't legally make and sell copies of copyrighted material unless you have permission. I'm talking about something else. if twi handed over those tapes without a written contract prior to transfer specifying the conditions of their return, the person in possession can sell them, give them away, whatever, but they can't make copies for sale unless twi forgot to copyright the tapes. legally, twi can't now come along and say "we only loaned those out" unless there's a contract somewhere that says so. if there's no contract, their rights to first distribution have expired.

Exactly and they always specified their return as such if one has a set they belong to them. Now he may have purchased them say at a garage sale or second hand bookstore and as such he may think he has ownership, but if they are stolen goods the Way may have a case for their return, each tape set is numbered so it would be easy to produce a log to show ownership.