Found this post on the Reddit Babylon 5 sub

[AstroBoy]

This popped up on my feed in the B5 subreddit. Thought you all might be interested in it.

"Dear friends, today, I bring you something special. Something (hopefully) amazing. Something I truly hope you will all enjoy.Some time ago, I noticed a fellow on eBay selling some private recordings from various Babylon 5 conventions that took place during the 90s. Being the good person I am (and seeing the rather extortionate prices the individual is charging), I've decided to purchase the whole lot (to the tune of about $500), to rip it and put it online for everybody to enjoy. Fast forward 1 year later (I know, I know but life got in the way) to: today.I proudly present to you The Anla'Shok Historical Archives. The site is really basic as I hardly have time to make it look nice. The most important stuff, the content, is there. Well, mostly. I'll be updating the page in the coming days (ok, probably weeks) with more content. Be warned that - all together - this is a hefty 17 GB of data. And the quality ain't that great but what do you expect from a 90s amateur camera, right? Enough talk, here is the link and please enjoy. http://107.161.26.187/[UPDATE 01/29]: The server has now 2TB/month traffic which should be enough. Please feel free to share the link with anybody who might be interested. I have added a new download - audio recordings of BabCom 1996. They are in mp3 format so you can listen to them in your car, while riding a bus etc. Hope you like them.Some people messaged me about donations. I even got a reddit gold - thanks! As much as I appreciate your kindness, I do not ask for donations. I am just happy that you will be able to enjoy these. If you still want to make a donation, please send a check to "Rancho Viejo Montessori School, 29782 Avenida de Las Banderas, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688". This is a school that specializes in helping kids with hearing disabilities and Richard Biggs (who I'm sure is smiling at us from beyond The Rim) has often raised funds for this school. Why? Rick was deaf on one ear and hard of hearing on the other."

[Nastastu]

You are awesome!

[Triple F]

Amazing. Is there any indication as to the name of the person who did this.

[edit]
Scrub that…. He contacted me after sharing the info.

[Jan]

I have to admit that I'm not entirely comfortable with this but I'm not going to take it down...for now.

This is taking somebody's work and taking their control of it away from them for no other reason than the fact that somebody didn't like that s/he was charging "extortionate prices" for it. It was his work filming the cons so it was entirely up to him to choose what to charge for it.

I know that I wouldn't like it if somebody took control of all of the audio recordings I've done of JMS at conventions away from me. The difference is, that they can't because I haven't made them publicly available.

I'm not sure it's copyright infringement (technically, I think it is) but it's definitely pirating, despite any affectations of Robin Hood motives.

Jan

[Looney]

I have to admit that I'm not entirely comfortable with this but I'm not going to take it down...for now.

This is taking somebody's work and taking their control of it away from them for no other reason than the fact that somebody didn't like that s/he was charging "extortionate prices" for it. It was his work filming the cons so it was entirely up to him to choose what to charge for it.

I know that I wouldn't like it if somebody took control of all of the audio recordings I've done of JMS at conventions away from me. The difference is, that they can't because I haven't made them publicly available.

I'm not sure it's copyright infringement (technically, I think it is) but it's definitely pirating, despite any affectations of Robin Hood motives.

Jan

I am confused by what you are saying Jan. The recordings were purchased from the person, so the person gave up the recordings for a price. I gather it as a unique item, not something the seller was trying to mass market. I don't see the infringement? Am I reading it wrong? I mean if this person was trying to market the recordings as copywritten material in mass quantities I think there would still be copies available or some of us would have known about other sales or something, right?

[sarthaz]

I am confused by what you are saying Jan. The recordings were purchased from the person, so the person gave up the recordings for a price. I gather it as a unique item, not something the seller was trying to mass market. I don't see the infringement? Am I reading it wrong? I mean if this person was trying to market the recordings as copywritten material in mass quantities I think there would still be copies available or some of us would have known about other sales or something, right?

The person sold a single set of recordings, not the rights to redistribute them to the masses. A lawyer would have to weigh in on the copyright claim of a 20-year-old recording of a public event, in addition to the legality of selling said recording on eBay, but based on the spirit of copyright law, Jan is correct. We might all agree that this guy is a dickbag for selling these recordings on eBay for hundreds of dollars (I see "The Encounter" listed every now and then -- and it makes me want to puke every time), but if he has a legal right to sell it, then this is likely infringement. There are fair use stipulations that allow for archival of historically meaningful events, but publishing it to the very users who might actually purchase from this guy on eBay is kind of the definition of infringement as it directly affects his ability to sell his work.

I would like to applaud Jan for leaving this post intact, though, because I too am not sure of the legality here, and it's entirely possible that this is 100% legal. It is also incumbent on a copyright holder to defend his copyright, and in the absence of a clear copyright claim and a cease-and-desist to defend said claim, I don't think there's actually any legal infringement. It may be a semantic distinction, but I'm not sure it's technically infringement until the "author" asserts his copyright claim and notifies someone that he owns the rights to publish the information. I put "author" in quotes, because on top of that, I'm not sure this guy has a legal right to copyright this material in the first place.

Point being that I think Jan is theoretically correct (maybe even ethically, depending on your point of view), but there's no need to suppress the post.

[Jan]

I am confused by what you are saying Jan. The recordings were purchased from the person, so the person gave up the recordings for a price. I gather it as a unique item, not something the seller was trying to mass market. I don't see the infringement? Am I reading it wrong? I mean if this person was trying to market the recordings as copywritten material in mass quantities I think there would still be copies available or some of us would have known about other sales or something, right?

I really didn't want to make this a copyright issue (notice I didn't use the words infringement or copyright) but...When you purchase a book, does that give you the right to scan it and put it up for free online? Of course not. And anything filmed or photographed is copyrighted every bit as much as the written word whether or not it has a notice or watermark.

Now, I'm not entirely sure (but almost), but looking at the names of the files, it looks VERY much like a series of DVD and such sold on and off on Ebay for quite a few years. Mass market? No. Small market? Yes. So due to the Reddit person not approving of the price point, he took it upon himself to cut in on that market. I don't see that it was his place to do so.

Did the seller film all these himself? If it's the seller I think it is, yeah, I think he did a lot of it (he doesn't have B5 on auction right now so I can't check his ad copy) based on my memory of having read these auctions a while back. My memory might be faulty. It may not be the same seller. And that's why I'm leaving this up. My disapproval of his actions isn't really any more valid than his disapproval of the Ebay seller's.

Not meaning to turn this into any argument, but I thought I'd explain where I was coming from.

Jan

[Looney]

(notice I didn't use the words infringement or copyright)

Jan

Ummm. . .Yes you did. LOL LOL

I'm not sure it's copyright infringement (technically, I think it is) but it's definitely pirating, despite any affectations of Robin Hood motives.

Jan

Anyway, that is the answer I was looking for. If someone saw this item listed and sold in the past multiple times then there might be a question. My apparently incorrect understanding of the story was that the person recorded these segments and then was selling the original recordings - sale of the original recordings with no copies. That would demonstrate the seller having no further intent to distribute and I think might have no further claim on the copywrite unless they specifically stated said claim in the material. It seems pointless to claim the copywrite if you gave up the only copy. But you said you were pretty sure you'd seen this for sale in the past, so they are not one-of-a-kind recordings. It was still a nice idea to give the fans and I hope nothing bad comes of it.

[Nastastu]

When I read this I took it that they were selling the original recordings, not that they were selling multiple copies. Meaning whomever purchased it could do with it as they like.

Is it really legal to record an event like this and then sell the recording when you are not the one holding the event? I don't really see it as that persons "work". Sure they recorded the event but that doesn't entitle them to then turn around and sell it unless they were working with the event organizer with that purpose in mind. Something like going to a movie and recording it and then selling the recording.