I was just wondering if it's against site policy to post links to UM segments that are viewable online. And if so, why? Just asking. :wave:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y77/BigTMan/ninja.jpg

Well I'm mainly just enforcing the rules that TJ has. Here is what he posted on the rules thread:

providing DIRECT links to illegal material is automatic grounds for banning. This includes linking to full episode downloads or viewing of episodes (such as youtube.com).

He may be able to give you more specifics but I don't think the segments on youtube are necessarily on there legally. I did hear that SNL is upset that scenes from their show are showing up on there. So if it were known to the powers that be that we were providing links to watching segments illegally online SO could suffer some repercussions. I'm sure the saying "better to be safe than sorry" applies in this case.

Okie-Dokie. :wave:

Hey, it's my 100th post! GET JIGGIE!! :banana: :banana: party: :mango :mango

Hey, it's my 100th post! GET JIGGIE!! :banana: :banana: party: :mango :mango

Congratulations! :lol:

Oh yeah, trust me, they can sure enough tell from which site a link to a video was accessed from. And if someone from Lifetime (although I would think it unlikely, given their blaise attitude towards UM) were to look into it, they might not like the fact that a site called SITCOMSONLINE.COM is linking to their content. Definitely better safe than sorry. Having said that, though, the worst I would forsee coming of it is them sending a "cease and desist."


Well I'm mainly just enforcing the rules that TJ has. Here is what he posted on the rules thread:

providing DIRECT links to illegal material is automatic grounds for banning. This includes linking to full episode downloads or viewing of episodes (such as youtube.com).

He may be able to give you more specifics but I don't think the segments on youtube are necessarily on there legally. I did hear that SNL is upset that scenes from their show are showing up on there. So if it were known to the powers that be that we were providing links to watching segments illegally online SO could suffer some repercussions. I'm sure the saying "better to be safe than sorry" applies in this case.

Its just the whole litigious vibe that seems to be vogue with the entertainment industry these days. From the copyright owners to everyone on down, I don't think they like the internet very much.

Look what has happened with all the mp3 sites that used to be around as late as 1999. You can hardly find an mp3 site around anymore and free file sharer services are being shut down left and right. People are getting sued over swapping movies and music over the internet.

These are litigious times people and although it might not be right a site like Sitcoms Online would literally be painting a bullseye on itself if TJ was to allow downloads or even links to sites that offer downloads.

Its best to keep distribution of segments to dvd/video tape trading because thats something that the above mentioned copyrighters and people involved in the entertainment industry either

A) don't care about
B) realize its impossible to stop that "underground train"

The only main issue with the Underground Railroad system of trading episodes is that as a minor, I'm unable to to get any of the compilations that are created or traded. That's why I liked EoF's site so much.

Oh well. The ultimate dream would be to have a big UM site with a bunch of segments and such, just like EoF's but keeping all kinds of segments up, not just the rare ones.

Um...yeah, I'd never download UM episodes. Nope, not I. :whistle:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y77/BigTMan/24houdelini.jpg

Its just the whole litigious vibe that seems to be vogue with the entertainment industry these days. From the copyright owners to everyone on down, I don't think they like the internet very much.

Look what has happened with all the mp3 sites that used to be around as late as 1999. You can hardly find an mp3 site around anymore and free file sharer services are being shut down left and right. People are getting sued over swapping movies and music over the internet.

These are litigious times people and although it might not be right a site like Sitcoms Online would literally be painting a bullseye on itself if TJ was to allow downloads or even links to sites that offer downloads.

Its best to keep distribution of segments to dvd/video tape trading because thats something that the above mentioned copyrighters and people involved in the entertainment industry either

A) don't care about
B) realize its impossible to stop that "underground train"


Good lawyer debate here(and PS I'm not a lawyer and the next few lines are my opinion and not legal advice--my lawyer made me say that;) ). If I send you my video tape its not illegal. If I copy my video and send it to you it probably is illegal... "reproduction" without the copyrighters consent. (Essentially this is what the Supreme Court decided in the Napster/RIAA case).

But here's another weird thing.. I can make 1 copy of my dvd/cd/cassettes as a back up. "The working copy clause".. but can I transfer media (ie cd to .wav file)? Probably not again the Napster desicion however a previous case the Supreme's ruled it WAS ok for users to tape songs off the radio(tv programs?) for their own use at a later date.. hence we have VCRs.

I don't understand the differences, but I do understand both sides.....

No doubt DD hit the nail on the head... its old media vs new media

But here's another weird thing.. I can make 1 copy of my dvd/cd/cassettes as a back up. "The working copy clause".. but can I transfer media (ie cd to .wav file)? Probably not again the Napster desicion however a previous case the Supreme's ruled it WAS ok for users to tape songs off the radio(tv programs?) for their own use at a later date.. hence we have VCRs.


Not to confuse you, but perhaps there is NOT two sides to it. I can't tell from what you've written, but it sounds to me like the Napster ruling may have overruled the previous case you're talking about (the one where it's okay to tape songs and tv shows off their respective mediums for their own use. IMO, I don't see a difference between pulling songs (or video clips) off of YouTube for your own use. However, if you were screening Unsolved Mysteries parties and charged something like $10 per person to watch, I would think THAT would be a blatant violation of the copyright law. :nonono:

I'm actually taking an Independent Study class in Entertainment Law as part of my Law Degree. I haven't started yet, but I'll let you know when I get to the part about Napster and digital media... it's an interesting part of the law!:cheer:

The thing is, you cannot download anything from YouTube... you can only view stuff. I don't see what the big deal is.

They just get very paranoid about this kind of stuff and it runs from everything from posting screencaps of tv shows to video clips and sound files. They get very paranoid about anything they own a copyright on showing up on a "fan site" - Getting back to what I mentioned about the "underground train" - The thing is as far as swapping stuff through the mail like "Unsurpassed Mysteries" or Crystaldawn's "Best of Unsolved Mysteries" sets yes if you go by the "red letter of the law" we both are probably violating some copyright law here by sharing this stuff with you

However this is something that unlike the "internet related material" the industry seems to turn a blind eye to and has for years because it would be nearly impossible to govern and in the end I don't think that tape trading is costing them much money but selling these items is a different thing all together.

or Crystaldawn's "Best of Unsolved Mysteries" sets

"Best of Unsolved Mysteries", huh? Thats not what you referred to it in an email. :p

Not to confuse you, but perhaps there is NOT two sides to it. I can't tell from what you've written, but it sounds to me like the Napster ruling may have overruled the previous case you're talking about (the one where it's okay to tape songs and tv shows off their respective mediums for their own use. IMO, I don't see a difference between pulling songs (or video clips) off of YouTube for your own use. However, if you were screening Unsolved Mysteries parties and charged something like $10 per person to watch, I would think THAT would be a blatant violation of the copyright law. :nonono:

I'm actually taking an Independent Study class in Entertainment Law as part of my Law Degree. I haven't started yet, but I'll let you know when I get to the part about Napster and digital media... it's an interesting part of the law!:cheer:

Confusing.. YES.. I took a few semesters of Broadcasting/Entertainment Law in the 90s before the big Napster debate.. I'm hoping you can tell me the latest when you get done!:p (good luck with your classes too!)

I can't give the cases beyond the Napster/RIAA one which I read something about recently, but essentially you're right Ricci in that the Napster ruling (to me at least) made this already very fuzzy law even fuzzier. I'm not sure why its legal for me to record music of the radio, or a tv program, possibly even share my one and only cassette with a stranger but its illegal for me to take my music which I've purchased convert it to a file and do the same thing. This is where I think the RIAA won because they argue that by making mulitiple copies of their music/the tv program/the movie.. you are subverting their copyright to reproduce it and make $$ off it because with modern technology its much easier for individuals to reproduce an artist work.


As for understanding both sides what I should have added is that I understand the copyright holder (who went through the effort to make the work,protect it with a copyright and want to make a profit off of it) vs the people who have purchased music and want to put it into their own collections (maybe I want to make one cd of the Rolling Stones to the Clash to Count Bassey to Beethoven) or share a tv show between friends.


As for whether everyone swapping UM episodes here is going to jail, lets just say I'm on board with DD on that one! Last time I checked we were at war. Who among us does not know at least ONE person who has seen a movie before it got officially released to DVD? :wave: