egafd.com

As to question 1, since something doesn't have to be published in order to be copyright, then the question of whether it is legal to publish and distribute does not arise. The case in the USA in the early 80s where the Mitchell Brothers sued a pirate and won, even though the showing of their stuff in cinemas was being prosecuted at about the same time, also seems relevant - mentioned in that C5 documentary the other day.

this is the UK, not USA - unless copyright is a universal legal phenomenon. The Mitchell brothers in the USA copyrighted 'Behind the green door' and went to a US court.

I think the principles are similar as far as copyright is concerned though there may be differences in detail. And I think precedents from UK are sometimes cited in US and vice versa as both systems are based on English Common Law. The House of Lords decision on Pinochet was regarded as a possible precedent for other countries for example. Also porn suppliers have been done under the Trades Descriptions Act in this country for NOT supplying the hard core advertised even though it would have been illegal to do so. Don't see why the same wouldn't apply to copyright, though whether it would be worth the risk and the bother to take someone to court is another question.

No doubt some legal expert will now shoot me down in flames.

A few years ago some satellite dealers thought they were safe selling pirate viewing cards for Channel Bizarre (a british channel broadcasting extreme porn from an overseas uplink). It was a great channel with good films including the original uncut Dover volumes. Some unpleasant stuff like scat aswell but the good films outweighed the nasty poo-poo and enema stuff.

The owner of the channel instructed solicitors to write to the pirate dealers informing them that unless they desisted action would be taken. The pirates beleived that they were safe because the channel was broadcasting material that was illegal in the UK and therefor could not be protected by the UK courts. The pirates instructed a QC who specialised in copywrite law who told them that even though the material was illegal here it still was protected by copywrite.

So in other words Alec is correct. Unless the QC is also wrong!

On balance I'm on the side of the producers but I think that their case would be strengthened by giving us punters some idea of the cost of producing a typical show rather than the rather vague 'thousands' and how the 25 to 30 quid that we spend on a Your Choice tape gets divvied up.

They way some of the guys on the forum write is crazy, to lump Marino and the other producers like myself with the likes of Sony is a sign of madness. If guys think a VHS-VHS copy is ok to watch then there fuckin sad, I run my copies from DV-VHS I even use hi-grade TDK or BASF tapes. I print covers to match the vids and use Ammary cases..Why because I care what the punter gets even if they don't give a shit about it themselves. Basically the guy who complains about spending ?15.00 on a real McCoy copy like the above direct from a producer is a fuckwit and deserves ripped off by a pirate and laughed at by his mates for being a cheap-skate.
When the new Rangers shirts came out I alway bought it from the RFC shop why ? partly because it supports the club but mainly because I wouldn't show my face down the pub with a moody shirt on. Millions of real club/national football/sports fans think the same.
Well ponography is the same by the best quality whatever your bag is,

Phil McC