This should be interesting

[potato]

I get what they are saying, but it seems they are referring to items that were once legally sold and became someone else's property. Here, we are talking about PFAL, an item that always was owned by twi. They never sold it to anyone, as far as we know. Therefore, it is still their property.

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.

The overview says that it does not include renting or leasing. Isn't that was twi did with PFAL, rented or leased it? It always belonged to them however.

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.

[oldiesman]

Potato, to my knowledge, what the guy is selling is the legal property of twi. It is their property. As always I could be wrong, but right now, I am deferring to what I know and the opinions of WhiteDove, Oakspear and Rum Runner.

It would be interesting if the item stays on ebay until April 12 and/or he does finally get to sell it. Maybe that'd be proof of sorts that what you are saying is more valid.

Edited March 16, 2009 by oldiesman

[Rejoice]

As I understand this...

The Ebay seller [second person] received this class from someone else [first person], not from TWI

If TWI had a written contract agreement with that first person, they could go after that first individual. [assuming they even know who it is].

Also, the second person could have obtained these forever ago in a garage sale or give away, or even thrift store that had no idea what it was!

Because TWI never had a written agreement with second person, they are out of luck as far as the limits of the law go.

Yes???

Edited March 16, 2009 by Rejoice

[potato]

As I understand this...

The Ebay seller [second person] received this class from someone else [first person], not from TWI

If TWI had a written contract agreement with that first person, they could go after that first individual. [assuming they even know who it is].

Also, the second person could have obtained these forever ago in a garage sale or give away, or even thrift store that had no idea what it was!

Because TWI never had a written agreement with second person, they are out of luck as far as the limits of the law go.

Yes???

BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER!

[Twinky]

No, if property is stolen, it stays stolen.

Caveat emptor.

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

At present, the item still seems to be on offer...

[potato]

No, if property is stolen, it stays stolen.

Caveat emptor.

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

At present, the item still seems to be on offer...

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.

[waysider]

Now, see, you guys just don't get. These aren't just any old books, these are The Holy Grail, lost since Paul was in knee pants.

for these were the days of PLAF---------------

For yea verily, it came to pass that in the end days of the class of Leonard, a mighty wind did roar throughout the land of the corn-ites and Gawd parted wide the covers of the holy silly-bus and breathed the gift of PLAF into the very pages.

And Gawd said, from this day forward shall the children of the Land of New Knockwurst be known as PLAFilites and unto their childrens' childrens' children shall there be more children.

[potato]

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.

Edited March 17, 2009 by potato

[Rejoice]

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.

it would seem that syllabi received through a class or any TWI program was paid for by the participants, through a fee or "spiritual partnership" [GADS!]. They always said the syllabus was for our eyes, but many of us bought them!

Edited March 17, 2009 by Rejoice

[dmiller]

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:

Edited March 17, 2009 by dmiller

[waysider]

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

Ha!---Hadn't thought of that!

We're in a new administration, The Age of "We Be Gone Now."

[dmiller]

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

Ha!---Hadn't thought of that!

We're in a new administration, The Age of "We Be Gone Now."

Caint fugg with the *flagship teaching*, ya know? :unsure:

Edited March 17, 2009 by dmiller

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

Now I see why lawyers make so much money....

WATCH THIS now, to see what may be on eBay3000, 91 years from now.

You mean 991 years from now, otherwise it is 2100 AD.

[socks]

Thanks for keeping me, uh...

Honest.

[chockfull]

What is likely to happen is TWI consults with their Columbus attorneys, ABS $$ at work. They may or may not decide to draft some kind of ownership challenge letter to eBay. eBay probably has corporate policy in place for challenging ownership. They certainly have dealt with this before. eBay could potentially have liability making a mistake on either side - either as a fence for stolen goods, or for a lawsuit for opposing legal ownership sales. The latter would negatively affect their reputation as an online commerce entity, so they would likely pursue it rather than a policy like YouTube has - if you challenge video ownership, they take it down while it's being sorted out. There are real damages that could be made a case for if they take down an item for sale, so they likely have a level of burden of proof.

The real likely scenario is that because eBay has $$$$, TWI may not pursue it beyond an initial letter. They only pursue small entities with less resources that they think they can push around with their capital. You know, like widows, small businesses, poor individuals, small churches, etc. And TWI has become a lot better at disguising what they spend on legal endeavors. They control the flow of information to their followers. As an example, how many TWI followers do you think have read even the publicly available financial statement posted in another thread? I would guess next to none. They completely bury any potentially damaging numbers, like the cost of retaining attorneys in Columbus, or the cost of pursuing the insurance company that dropped them like a hot potato after all the lawsuit payouts. I think one of those legal lawsuit documents disclosed that the BOD spend like over $20,000 per year on liability insurance on themselves. I mean how would you feel as a follower to know that more than all your annual ABS goes towards providing insurance for BOD members potentially breaking the law and getting sued?

Edited March 17, 2009 by chockfull

[WhiteDove]

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

Edited March 17, 2009 by WhiteDove

[WhiteDove]

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.

Edited March 17, 2009 by WhiteDove

[WhiteDove]

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.

Edited March 17, 2009 by WhiteDove

[waysider]

Ironic, isn't it?

Moving tapes across state lines has suddenly taken on a criminal importance, yet, when the subject of transporting human beings across state lines, for the purpose of debauchery (a federal crime under The Mann Act of 1910) was raised, it was glossed over. Go figure. :blink:

[Ham]

Guess we know what's important in da way, or is it, in da way mindset..

[oldiesman]

Perhaps it is you who should try to keep up

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

Yes I see that... I didn't make sense with that statement ... the point I was trying to make was that these are "essentially" bootlegs in the sense that they can't legally be sold because they are the property of twi.

I do agree with Potato in the sense that I think twi has the burden to prove that this particular set being sold on ebay belongs to them. How can they show it to ebay? There are probably ways, but do they want to go through all that hassle? I find it very interesting and maybe they will just let it go, but who knows?

[waysider]

If there genuine goal was to "move The Word", as they have professed for so many years, one would think they would embrace such a circumstance, despite a small monetary loss.

[oldiesman]

I fully agree. In fact, I think they should put all the sessions on the net in full color, for everyone to see, free of charge. :o :D

[Tzaia]

I'm sort of saddened that it is being listed as a "Buy Now" or "Make an Offer" option. Three declined offers - no idea what people are offering.

Bummer.

[Tzaia]

I fully agree. In fact, I think they should put all the sessions on the net in full color, for everyone to see, free of charge. :o :D

Interesting, yet naive idea.