potato

I'm super impressed by your use of cum hoc ergo propter hoc while simultaneously employing anaeresis to make it seem even more significant.

I also have absolutely no doubt that there are people assigned to watch this site. lcm himself said so, and a closed and paranoid system like twi wouldn't suddenly stop ignoring the buzz. I agree. Catcup, I'm so sorry.

LOL! gawd you make me laugh. do you know what first sale is, where it came from, and where it's codified? since you obviously don't, I'll explain it. first sale doctrine (later expanded to "exhaustion of rights") regarding a copyright holder's control over copies they have distributed was established by case law about 90 years ago and is now codified AS copyright law. I'm not jumping around anywhere, I've been speaking to the same point all along, which is whether or not twi has any rights to control copies without proof of ownership. if they didn't report the copies stolen, didn't have anyone sign contracts for lease/rent/lending, and in all likelihood the statute of limitations has run out on any possible cases of theft(which would have to be proven in court), it's all likely moot at this point because twi has no rights to the tape sets floating around. very unlikely. they'd have to prove they own the set to get eBay to take action against a seller like that.

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

I think "belonged" (past tense) being the operative word in the cases of tapes and other class materials being sold on eBay. it's amazing how little it can cost to strong-arm someone with a threat, if the person being strong-armed doesn't realize the threat has no legal teeth. that's why I think the legal nitpicking isn't really nitpicking. it's discussing whether twi's claim to something in someone else's possession is valid. who knows who might read this thread in the future after twi demands property they have no right to?

hm, that makes all of this even more interesting. it's possible they're all owned and controlled by twi, but it also brings up the possibility of contractual obligations of each limb coordinator to the state corp. rather than to hq - i.e. who actually employed the l.c.'s? were they contractually obligated to the state corp. or to the international corp.? for instance, if a limb coordinator could just order class tapes and they were sent without ownership being addressed contractually somewhere, then that might actually constitute "first sale" and exhaustion of twi's rights to control the tapes if the l.c. was employed by the state corp.

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. it would be better to consult with the copyright code itself: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 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

are you asserting that exhaustion of rights occurs only after a SALE (i.e. exchange of money for goods)?

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.

that appears to be the real problem. if it wasn't stolen, then whoever has it can do what they want with it. if it was stolen, then twi must have made a report of the theft, or they decided to just let it go. but, it would look pretty stupid to file a report that they gave some tapes to someone and the someone didn't give them back. ok, provide proof that the tapes don't belong to the person presently in possession. can't do it? too bad. I heard all about the "stolen" materials for years. but the bottom line is, if materials were provided to employees so they could do their jobs, then you've got to prove you still have a right to the property. you gonna demand they give back every pen, notebook, whatever that you provided? that's not going to fly. you give them a manual or a book to help them do their job then you'd better make them sign an agreement to give it back. I'm sure plenty of people didn't feel obligated to give stuff back on a verbal agreement when twi didn't keep their promises. so what? I don't see that as being too big a deal. I own syllabi. we were told they were "for our eyes only" and lcm made a big deal out of people selling them, saying it was stolen property. whatever. from where I sit, all twi materials in my possession belong to me and I'll do what I want with them. I didn't sneak onto grounds and shoplift copies. they were handed to me. they're mine.

BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER!

you're still missing the point, OM. it isn't their property unless they have a written contract stating it is. copies were given away, and they are subject to exhaustion of rights the same way an item obtained by purchase would be. the only way to limit that is by contract, and the only way for a contract to be valid is if it is agreed to in writing. otherwise, twi could go back to the people who were given sets of tapes and now claim they were only loaned, or people could take back gifts at will. the law protects against that by requiring contracts as proof, and making seizure of property illegal without a warrant. yes, renting and leasing is allowed, but it requires a contract. you never rent equipment or DVDs without signing a contract, and your library card involves signing a contract. without a contract, you wouldn't be under any legal obligation to return equipment, DVDs or books.

hell no. your reasoning is based on ignorance of copyright law and about what copyright is. go read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine pay attention to the Overview, that should sufficiently explain it.

poised to deliver another one of his usual spurt-chill tirades du jour, he opened his mouth, and realized that a crowd of corps and staff had gathered to watch. some had come forward, hoping his holy spittle would fall on them, hoping it would heal them from being deaf, dumb, blind and lame. he pulled back his shoulders and sucked in his paunch, almost preening now that he had an audience. he strutted a little, then turned on me with burning eyes. he stared for a minute, and it seemed like a big fat devil spirit was looking at me saying "nah nah-nah nah nah!"... then he struck his pontificating pose, and opened his mouth to deliver a sermon (with me as the example, of course)...

I agree with you, but I bet he could have passed a lie detector test if he was in his narcissist zone. I think he had delusions of grandeur and creating stories was no different for him than giving a factual account of what he had for breakfast.

btw this is a scream "Potato, you may be technically correct, but the person I spoke to at hq said that copies cannot be sold legally." if I'm technically correct, I'm technically correct. it doesn't matter what the person at hq said unless they have a signed contract to back it up. throwing the word "but" in there makes it look like people at hq have some special knowledge of how first sale doctrine ceases to exist for them. copies can be legally sold provided they are legally made copies and there is no contract preventing them from being sold.

yeah, I'd trust some jerkoff at twi before I'd trust a copyright lawyer! NOT. copies are not bootlegs if twi made them. bootlegging is the making of illegal copies. the eBay auction sure looks like the real deal to me. eBay already got its butt handed to it for taking down auctions for legally owned property based on claims of license infringement, so I doubt it will get involved in this dispute without an order from a judge.

I think you're both "right", based on my own observations of narcissists. their pathological need for admiration leads them to become what people want. if vpw saw that people wanted what these other spiritual leaders offered, then he HAD TO offer something so people would want him like that. he became those people - less because he admired them than because other people did. I think this extended to the most toxic of the corps people, too. it was less genuine admiration of the bullies higher up the food chain that inspired them, and more admiration of the admiration they received.

it is a personality disorder, in the same group as sociopathic and borderline. of the three, only borderline responds to treatment. it is unlikely that it will be "bred out" since narcissists are extremely adept at becoming what people most need/want for the period of time needed to get them on the hook, then using them until they're all used up, which usually involves breeding with at least one of them. most of them figure out how to fly under the radar of the law, mostly by terrorizing the people they use. I'm ashamed to say that I contributed to a narcissist passing his genetic material on, but fortunately narcissism doesn't appear to be genetically inherited.

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.

I found this article interesting and wanted to post it for others (not just women) who experienced isolation and abuse in twi and are still dealing with depression, anger, health issues, and feelings of social isolation. it seems that long term effects of isolation and abuse are common, even 5 years after getting away people still have symptoms at a higher rate than people who were never abused. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/11/domes...lity/index.html

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.

the courts have established that no sale is necessary for a change in ownership to have taken place. if Disney can't stop someone from doing something, twi sure can't. what I really want to know is if there was a contract specifying the use of the tapes when they were given to the individuals. you said there was something they signed regarding care of the tapes and running the class, but was it a contract for the return of the tapes when specific conditions were met? because if it wasn't, then twi did not retain any legal ownership rights. and just to clear up any possible confusion, copyright ownership is separate from ownership of a legally distributed copy of something. a copyright owner cannot control the distribution of a legally made copy past their own transfer of it to someone else. the exception to "first sale" termination of control of a tangible object is if it becomes subject to lending under the terms of a written and signed contract at any point in the distribution chain.

pure and simple, if there is no written contract specifying use, physical transfer of a tangible object means a transfer of ownership. first sale doctrine applies and your friend can legally sell or give away his copy at will. it is possible to abandon a copyright and place something in the public domain, but it is an active and not a passive thing... they'd have to announce it somewhere. otherwise normal copyright law applies. if it was ever distributed without notice back when notice was required, subsequent copyright notices would constitute an illegal copyright claim because you can't take something out of public domain once you place it there.

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.