Mar 8, 2002, 3:01 PM ET·27 posts by 12 posters·alt.tv.seinfeld
📌 Newsgroup😂 Loved it
Fans propose creating a dedicated newsgroup for sharing Seinfeld episodes and materials, with strong community support for moving episode trading to a separate forum.
First of all, I'm adressing to all you Seinfeld fans all over the world. Now, how hard it would be if we would open our own newsgroup, something like alt.binaries.multimedia.seinfeld, where we could all share our episodes? I myself have some of the episodes, and I would be happy to upload them somewhere. Unfortunately, the quality isn't the best, but someone here said about 1 month ago that he has all episodes in great quality (250 MB each).
I wanted to post a proposal on the alt.config but there aren't enough messages a day for the proposal to be aproved. So, I'm asking you guys: Let's all join forces and create a group where people can upload Seinfeld episodes ant any other Seinfeld material, and talk about the genial show that is Seinfeld, and all it stands for.
Go for it! I've suggested this idea in the past, and I fully support whatever it takes to move the talk of episode trading/sale to a more appropriate forum. If you create the newsgroup, I'll do my part by asking my ISP to add it, and by sending your way any episode traders who come here.
Actually, I don't even think that's necessary for new newsgroups in the alt.* heirarchy. However, I'm not intimately familiar with the details of the process, so don't quote me on it.
Trading is NOT illegal. Dont believe my words, call MPAA and ask is it illegal if someone sends you tapes/VCD/DVD/whatever and you havent pay a penny for it.
And BTW - this is not "US Citizens Only" newsgroup, there are many countries in the world with laws quite different than US.
I can understand that you *don't like* for sale/ for trade posts, but that does not make it illegal LOL
I believe this is incorrect. Of course, it depends on the material being traded, but just because money isn't being exchanged doesn't mean an action is legal. Furthermore, while it's true that laws may vary from country to country, *you* are in the US, right?
In the US, people can make backup copies of their music, movies, etc. for personal use. They can also sell/trade/give away the original CD/DVD/etc. (provided they don't keep any personal backups they may have created). However, you CANNOT legally sell/trade/give away the personal BACKUPS you made of any copyrighted material. I seem to recall (and correct me if I'm wrong) that on your site you have copies of DVD movies available for trade. This is most certainly illegal, even if you're only "trading" and money isn't changing hands.
I'm not sure what the laws are regarding the resale or trade of broadcast television shows. But since you've made this claim about the legality of it several times and it's apparently a big deal to you, I'll do you the favor of contacting CTTD and we'll see what they say. Agreed?
Ahh, I just checked your site and I see how you're pulling this scam. First of all, you're no longer trading copies of movies movies. And second, you specify:
"You must already *own* original copies of very same traded material and our trade is for backup purposes only; by agreeing to trade with me you certify that all of the above is true."
That's a huge load of bullshit, ain't it? In other words, recipients who receive your traded episodes must already have the episodes they're getting from you, right? Sounds like a tacit acknowledgement on your part that episode trading IS illegal, and this is your loophole around it. I mean, c'mon--why would people want to get from you episodes they already have?
Im not sure either, but using "common sense" - if something is given to you for free, there can't be any law preventing you from re-giving it for free again. (re-gifter anyone? ;-) Episodes were aired on public (free) tv, thus as last no one profits from trading them IMHO it have to be legal. Damn, actually isn't it like making free advertisement for the show? Perhaps traders should get some monies from the studio LOL ;-))
First
Tough words, buddy, Im not sure I like your conversation's tone... but no, it isnt BS. Read below.
getting
Perhaps I should change it with the next update of my site and add something that it is regarding those who live in USA only (or other countries with similar law, but I know of no other country where they would chase fans for trading episodes, much less for creating show's webpages etc!).
It is not a loophole of anykind; i placed this rule as first to get rid of all those folks who just want to buy any illegal copies just to resell them next. I had offers of up to $450 (USD) for Seinfeld series, but one look at that person site full of 'warez etc' for $5ea gave me idea whom I'm being contacted by. I dont trade movies as you suggest, Im tv series trader - if you notice, my movies list published there consist mostly of the movies that were released much later or not at all in other countries. I have much more movies than I listed there, would i want to profit in any way from illegal movies sale or trade (illegal copies I mean) I would have all my movies listed there, with prices, dont you think?
Doesnt i.e. Seinfeld series on 60 discs playable on dvd-player sounds better than 90 VHS tapes? I think it does, you gain convenience and lots of space on your shelf. That is one reason why someone who already have it would want to trade it for. And another example regarding movies: many folks like me had started their VHS tapes collection long time ago. Tapes gets worn-out, even damaged thru the time. Do you think they ought to buy another copy of the same movie ? (and pay royalties etc included in the price of another new original copy)? Certainly some folks would do so, but some would rather get another free copy from another trader, and it is still legal since traded copy of movie is being sent to the person whom also have had purchased same movie before, only his/her tape got damaged. "The Brick" or "The Wall" US stores chain (I forgot the name, havent been to States for so long) used to give you "lifetime warranty" for all discs or movies purchased at their store. Your tape got damaged - they replaced it for new one on the spot, no questions asked. Why they didnt charge you royalties etc for the replacement copy? - from the legal point of view they've still conducted trade - because when you purchased that movie for the first time you've paid your royalties for this copy, and replacing broken tape with new one is just replacing the media your purchased movie is on. Exactly same applies to trade IMHO.
And again - we are discussing this subject as if laws of USA would be implemented everywhere else in the world. Fortunately most of the world doesnt have that many bored and unemployed lawyers creating so many bullshit laws about nothing as there is in great USofA.
You implied somewhere in post before that 'I do live in USA'. No, I dont, and I wouldnt. I dont have enough money to hire Lawyers or Legal Advisors every time before I hit that "record" button on my computer or vcr. And I like everything to be called the way they are, not according to their Politically Correct translation. and so on and on and on. Just this discussion about - mind you *trade* , not sale of illegal copies - is best example of something being really detracted from normal ways of live and common sense in a healthy society. Perhaps dumping that tea in a harbor wasnt so good idea after all.
LOL, whoever said laws were about "common sense"? :-)
You seem to be hung up on this whole "but I'm not making any money!" bit. Sorry, but that's incorrect. If someone gives me a stolen car and I give it away for free, is it still a crime? Why or why not? Just because you taped something off of TV does NOT mean you control the rights to it. The television station has paid for the right broadcast the show. You have NOT paid for or otherwise secured the rights to broadcast or redistribute the show, no matter whether you're charging your recipients money, bartering, or giving it away. It's still illegal.
There are some "fair use" provisions, however, which allow consumers to make personal backup copies of material they own. For example, copying a CD they bought onto tape. And I believe you could give said tape to a friend IF they had also purchased the CD themselves, since again it's functioning only as a personal backup. With your episode tradiing it seems you may have found the loophole by specifying people must already possess the show, in which case it may fall under "fair use". Remember, this is presumably why you have that clause on your site, right? Or did you just copy that provision from someone else?
Flawed logic. Does that mean I can publicly air a television broadcast if I don't profit? NO, rebroadcasting is illegal. And again, I'm fairly certain distribution of shows in this manner is also illegal, since it falls outside the provisions of "fair use".
Intent has little to do with the law. "But officer, I didn't MEAN to run over that man while driving drunk!" Similarly, just because you have no desire to profit from your distribution of copyrighted material or because you have chosen not to distribute other material does not exempt you from responsibility if this is in fact illegal.
You have a Rogers cable subscription but don't live in the US? I guess I wasn't aware that they offered service in other countries. Since this discussion is about the application of law, you'll need to tell us what country you live in.
I just did a trace on your IP (24.157.255.220), and assuming it's correct you live in Toronto. Sorry, but your laws are very similar to ours regarding copyright infringement. More severe, in many ways! Have you heard about your government's recent proposal to add draconian taxes to all recordable media?
well, the server's IP im currently getting usenet from, to and through is i guess in Toronto, I could mask my IP or totally forge my headers, but I see no reason to do so - yet ;) but yes- I live in Canada. (we do have our share of stupid laws as well, but not as many as US)
well, you have some good points, and I agree all what you've wrote is 100% true when applied to the person who makes any profit from selling copies; I have read again our discussion and I can see your point of view regarding trade, and I agree with it partially. Same as You - Im out of arguments ATM and we can only repeat the same ones all over again; yet as you admitted - with my 'loophole" or whatever you call my trade rules (and I havent "steal' them from anyone - theyre proudly written in Canada by =DS= , shall I copyright them?;) , since I always ask everyone to read my trade rules before we even do any trade talk - according to you - I do perfectly legal trading with other folks :-))
now you have it - youre full of shit, homerrrr!! :-P
(sorry, but i couldnt resist :)
And returning to main subject of this thread - I am against movie piracy perhaps as much as MPAA is, but I am also against modern forms of 'racism' as it is shown in splitting the world in DVD Regions, and free market to me dont mean that few richest corporations should rule the world. But thats off-topic of off-topic.
Our government constitutes of bunch of morons, heck - how can you call it government, if it rather spend money on foreign countries citizens instead of helping its own citizens first... but thats another offtopic; Anyway I thought they already did it to 'audio CD-Rs', havent they? Or you mean *any* recordable media?
I'm not "hung up on 'Im not making money off it' bit" ;-) Your example is incorrect and i disagree with it: to acquire stolen car you/someone have to commit a crime, while the tc series are "given" to viewers. i wanted to write "given for free" but it would be incorrect - viewers have "paid" for the episodes in a form of viewing bundled commercials, werent they? ;-) Lots of companies out there (on the net) is paying for wieving advertisements, banners, commercials etc - so watching commercials on tv has its own value, doesnt it?
Ok ;-) Im just pulling your legs, but if you think deeper about it.... ;-)
well, "to distribute" would mean Im conducting any business 9profit involved), wouldnt it?
I think trading of tv stuff (not movies) is more like this scenario: youre not home, working late or whatever, you call your friend and ask to tape your fav. show; next day you pick it up, and maybe month later you return exact same favor to your friend - at which point has this become illegal?
[]
LOL you really wanna make me as bad looking as any given pirate possible :-(
I
That said "fair use" AFAIR is about time-shifted wieving of tv broadcast; there was no words on time limits for how long this time-sfifted wieving may be in use, and no restriction to who may wiev it; nor there was no specs to the format of media it applies to (Sony-Paramount case? anyway long time ago). If one person is allowing another person viewing of long-aired shows recorded off tv on VHS, VCD or any other format, without charging any money, and it is done in privacy of their homes - it is that said 'fair use" IMHO; You often repeat word 'rebroadcasting' which IMHO does not apply here in case of person-to-person trade at all; broadcasting would have taken place if these shows (recorded off tv) have been played (shown, viewed) in a public places, or to the group of people (i.e. meetings etc).
perhaps they dont. My actual ISP is @home ;-)
yes, that is important if we would have discuss just a single case (mine in this example), but I thought were discussing legal aspects of tv-content trade?
How about example of 'the Wall' stores I explained in previous post? if you were right then it is/would be example of legal corporate *trade* of copyrighted materials without helding such rights.
NO, which is the point I keep making. Whether or not you are profiting has absolutely NO bearing on the legality of it.
Say I give you a book. Does that mean you can photocopy it and give copies to anyone you want? Even for free? Obviously not--that'd be illegal. Likewise, you can't record something off of TV and give out copies, even for free. You can make a single backup for personal use, that's all.
That's an excellent question. And to be honest, I don't know the answer. I suspect it may fall into that grey area where it's technically illegal, but "everyone does it" and the studios aren't going to make a big stink about it for public relations reasons. Kinda' like how back in the 1980's, everyone traded tapes made from albums (and later CD's) often without realizing that it was illegal. "Cool album! Make me a tape?" Now with the increased focus on copyrights, we know this is clearly illegal even though it was widespread.
And don't forget that loaning a tape to a friend is in another league from sending someone the entire run of Seinfeld, on VCD and with the commercials edited out. Whereas CTTD probably wouldn't do anything about someone loaning a friend a tape, I imagine they'd be much more concerned about wholesale piracy, perhaps even in spite of the loophole you're hiding behind.
Right, and those legal aspects will vary from country to country, which is why I asked about your location.
I guess I really didn't see the point of that example. A retailer replacing damaged merchandise has nothing to do with a consumer trading personal backups with others.
For example, let's say you buy a CD and it becomes damaged. The store takes back your damaged CD and replaces it with a good one. You've still purchased exactly one CD, and you only have one CD. The store returns the damaged CD to the publisher, and is reimbursed. Everyone ends up "even steven".
If you instead get a replacement from a trader, again that falls in that area we already discussed where it's functioning as a personal backup to something you already own. Fair use.
The difference is if you get a personal backup to something you do NOT own. That is definitely illegal.
And there are limits under fair use. For example, a while back a company (sorry, can't remember which one; BMG maybe?) made available thousands of MP3's online, specifying you could only download them if you already owned the original CD's. This is kinda' like your trading scheme, no? But they were very quickly shut down since it was simply too easy for consumers to download MP3's when they didn't actually own the CD.
Here's an interesting test: if you're absolutely sure you're within the law, list your full name. Hell, I've added my full name to every Usenet message I've ever posted. If you're confident your activities are legal, you'll have no problem with this, right? ;-)
point taken, after i wrote my words i realized its not neccessary true
You keep giving me examples (stolen car, book) of the stuff where in every case you are trying to give away the stuff to which you have no copyrights or ownership to; but the broadcaster has indeed purchased the copyrights in your (and mine) name from the show's producer - because you and me, all of us, are getting it for free, and we are legally entitled to tape it and keep it for as long as we want to. If it wouldnt be true, we wouldn't have any right to copy anything off the tv, dont you agree? Im sure you do. So, again - lets say I give you a copy of entire set of Seinfeld - the very same one to which you were as much as me entitled to record it yourself when it was on tv - how in the hell it could be illegal? Thats nothing else than the 'time-shifted fair use' we are talking about.
but
Perhaps, but its also possible that according to that famous 'fair use' vcr case - perhaps we are legaly entitled to do so, because what I believe studios are after (or they should be) are people who try to make profit off any tv broadcasted programming because making profit certainly is not included in "fair use", while no-profit exchange of tv material falls under 'fair use'
that is good example, but still - it was always written on every CD since begining that "copying, public performance...etc...is prohibited". There are no signs like this on VCRs or other recording devices, and none of the aired shows is bearing such words. If both parties have same "wieving and recording" rights to aired show, and both parties fall under 'time-shifted fair use', why would it be illegal to send/receive (without profiting) copies of the show they both had same "wieving and recording" rights to, since the difference between them is the 'time-shift' - one person exercised his rights immediately and recorded the stuff off the tv, while other person is going to exercise his rights to view/record this show later by receiving copies from the first person?
.> And don't forget that loaning a tape to a friend is in another league from
commercials
I must disagree with it; one episode or entire series - this should be no different for any law (if there is any) prohibiting non-profit trade of such tv series
replacing
takes
own.
I think you are wrong! In this case I have same rights to copy this show off public tv as the person I am receiving its backup copies from, dont I? Thus i could have made the recording myself, but for any reason I didnt do it, and now i am exercising my right to own copy of this show and i am call my friend (or trader -doent matter) and ask him to make me my recordings - which isnt certainly illegal as you've agreed with me earlier.
i remember something like that; i think this service was removed because it was too easy to fool the website that you own original cd and download mp3s or something.
Hahaha, very smart, bravo! But not good :-) I would never list any of my personal data on the internet for any more important case or purpose, much less for the sake of proving nothing. Do You really want that insomniac-paraplegic-or-not psycho self-proclaimed-cop you-know-who to come and shoot me? :-) Sorry, no - cant do - I'm really affraid of Americans (the psycho ones) LOL But seriously - at this point you have to take my word for it - i dont 'hide' because i think it is illegal to trade; i am protecting my privacy as everyone else should. Two years ago for sheer curiosity I've paid $20 for online "personal data" search and i was in shock when they send me a list of what they were able to find about me knowing only my name & address - I mean: man!, there was even a list of my recent grocery shopping made at A&P that morning! Since then I dont use any 'shopper's saver/discount" cards, i limit use of credit cards as much as i can (and i rather withdraw cash from a card and make purchase than use the card at the store) etc etc. Before you call me paranoic spend your $20 and check your own "digital dossier", I guarantee you'll be surprised too.
Those who traded with may prove me (if any of them read this thread) that i never hid my real name in personal correspodence.
You can copy things off TV for PERSONAL use. Trading it to others (or any other form of distribution, regardless of profit or motivation) is a grey area, and I'm not familiar with the applicable laws.
Let's look at your example in more detail. My sister doesn't have cable, but I do. Is there anything wrong with me taping The Daily Show from Comedy Central and giving it to her? Why or why not? Or we can get rid of the cable aspect and just concentrate on broadcast TV: my college roommate in another state doesn't get my local Channel 23. Is there anything wrong with me taping a show (paid for by all its local advertising) and sending it to him in Illinois? Why or why not?
Let's take this example even farther--to an extreme. In my area, Time Warner is the cable company. Imagine I convince everyone else to drop their cable subscription, so that I am Time Warner's sole customer. Would it be legal for me to then tape cable problems and give them to others? After all, I'm getting the basic "lifeline" channels for FREE, right? The answer is simple--I'm NOT getting it for free. It's paid for in part by advertising. But that's all just a red herring--it doesn't matter if it's free or not. The broadcasters own the rights here, not me. I can make a PERSONAL copy of a program, but I have no right to distribute it. It gets even murkier when you realize that local affiliates have EXCLUSIVE contracts to air programming. Remember that big flap a couple years ago where DSS and Dish Network were broadcasting programming from certain local networks all over the country? By law, they had to stop doing that. These are the same principles. Yes, you're not broadcasting it, but the method of distribution is irrelevant.
Still not convinced? Okay, let's take it to the next level. Let's say I'm the only one in the entire *country* watching broadcast TV. No one else watches it AT ALL. Would it be legal for me to make copies of programs, edit out the commercials, and give 'em away on VCD? Why or why not?
Obviously these are extreme examples, but that's simply to better illustrate the principles involved.
Haven't we already covered this? Whether or not one profits by this is completely irrelevant. Again, refer to my example of giving away photocopies of a book for free. No profit, no foul? *Wrong*.
Bullshit. Before almost every sporting event, the leagues go to great pains to prohibit such actions by rattling off a long spiel. And I believe the same rules also apply to all other programming, even if not specifically enumerated every half-hour by an announcer. Instead, most stations air a short list of regulations (including info about contest rules, broadcasting power and frequency, and DISTRIBUTION restrictions) at about 2am in the morning, right before it either goes to color bars or informercials.
What is "wieving"? You lost me.
I dunno. Like I said, this is the grey area and I'm not personally familiar with the laws. But again, just because you have certain opinions about the "freedom of information, man!" doesn't mean that the laws will coincide with your personal beliefs. Companies go to great lengths to protect their property, and it's certainly conceivable that copyright law offers them this protection. Again, I have CTTD's phone number and we can call them for the definitive answer.
I wasn't referring to the legality of it, but to the types of behavior which would draw the attention of the companies involved. I agree that the application of the law (though not necessarily the punishment levied) would be the same for one episode or the entire series, just as it's the same for 1mph over the speed limit or 100mph over. But which violation of the speed limit will more probably result in legal action?
Again, it depends on a lot of factors. You're in Canada, I'm in the US. We're in different markets, the broadcasters who have paid for the rights are different, and the ADVERTISERS are different.
If you're talking about two neighbors, each with a TV antenna, that's a grey area we could discuss. But as soon as you get into different markets, etc., then I suspect it's all a moot point.
No, I agreed that trading for something you ALREADY HAVE (and/or possess the rights to) is legal.
The more I think about it, the more I suspect that trading recordings between markets would violate even the "fair use" provisions. For example, if you and I buy a CD, it's the same in both the US and Canada. If we both own it and you send me a copy of it on MiniDisc, I think that would be perfectly legal and acceptable. However, if you have a special version sold only in Canada with extra tracks that are sold separately in the US, then it would NOT be legal for you to send me a complete copy of yours on Minidisc.
I can actually think of a real-world example of this: in the US, a game in the Half-Life series called "Blue Shift" also included another add-on previously sold separately called "Opposing Force". But in the UK, "Blue Shift" did NOT contain the completel "Opposing Force" game. Now, I don't know what publishing rights Sierra Online worked out with this deal, but that's the way it is. If I and a British friend both own Blue Shift, it would NOT be legal for me to send him the complete Opposing Force game since he does not own the rights to it.
Similarly, I suspect that trading personal backups of TV programming broadcast in different areas may not be legal. Again, this is all just suposition; maybe what you're doing is perfectly legal, maybe not. But then, you're the one claiming that what you do is legal, and you apparently have no doubts; why should *I* worry about it? ;-)
Yep. Just like how you rely on the honesty of your customers who receive traded tapes.
Okay, point taken. I guess I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind listing MY name. But I can see why you might be apprehensive, especially since it sounds like you may have made some enemies. For what it's worth, I'm unlisted in the phone book, although that's mainly to cut down on telemarketers.
Tell ya' what: you email me your full name & address, and I'll forward it to CTTD and explain your little trading system. If you're so certain that your scheme is legal, you shouldn't have a problem with this. Consider it a matter of trust, since you've known all along who *I* am since I always list my full legal name. In return, I won't fly up to Toronto and "shoot you". ;-) Agreed?
I can settle this argument once and for all by watching an entire tv show - meaning including the credits. They read (from an episode of Just Shoot Me): This motion picture is protected under the laws of the United States and other countries. Unauthorized duplication, distribution or exhibition may result in civil liability and criminal prosecution. Copyright 2001, all rights reserved. This therefore means _any_ duplication or distibution must be authorized by (in this case) Universal Studios, meaning even trading episodes like DS is doing is considered illegal.
That's all I have to say about it, except to say that I do not care that trading or even selling episodes is going on, and this sort of thing is going to keep happening until the distributors finally put out official DVD's. (If they do that, I might even have to fork out and buy a DVD player.) And not just Seinfeld, but all shows we want to watch.
You know, it makes me wonder what the attitude of TV show traders would be if they were to produce something original and wanted to sell it. Wouldn't they want to control the distribution so that they received a royalty for each and every copy sold? Or would they be content to sell it to a few independent distribrutors who then copied and sold it without their participation?
It's hard to fathom how Jerry Seinfeld and anyone else receiving residuals from the show are being hurt financially by copyright infringement, because they're already rich beyond comprehension. But the fact is, must creators of copyrighted material are selling to a much narrower audience, and wouldn't have a hope of making dime one off their work, without the protection of these laws. This is especially true in the digital age where the Nth generation copy is an exact facsimile of the 1st generation copy.
That is another topic I've been thinking about too. Lets say some trader one day will put entire series (Seinfeld or other) on a DVDs, with beautiful work etc - this will happen soon, DVD-R burners are already cheaper, and more and more folks have beautiful cristal-clear digital cable/hdtv television - there should be a way to make it legal to *sell* copies of such set, and there must be a way to contact copyright owner and pay royalties ? But in a same time I think corporation like Columbia Tristar wouldnt even cosider talking to small joe about his few copies...
So true, and as a trader I tell you that is the reason I never wanted to sell my copy of Seinfeld; receiving money for something you do not owe is obviously immoral, and its a theft since itll be selling of something you do not owe.
Its a studio's fault - there wouldnt have been this discussion here, and there wouldnt be traders here - have they released damn VHS/DVD set of the show long time ago.
... John, I admit, I have some doubt now after our long discussion. I still think that *trading* (no profit etc) of the episodes is legal, but from our conversation I got to the point that some conditions have to be cosidered for trade to fall under 'fair use' act; i.e. I think traded episodes should have to include all aired commercials (since thats what paid for airing such episode), both trading persons would have to be from the broadcast/cable coverage where it has been aired etc, etc... or all this is BS and maybe it looks totally different in the eye of the law? ;-)
I dont wanna extend this thread much further, the best solution is to contact some authorities and get their opinion.
a
Nope :-) Youre suggesting exactly what I have in mind, but I'll rather do it without my personal involvment.
I am going to ask my law student friend about it, and with her help I will send an email to CTTD explaining the case, our discussion, and ask to clarify all these 'gray area' matters we couldnt have agreed upon.
I will post their reply here, as a continuation of our thread.
"homerr..2k2" wrote in message news:a6rijh$qa3$[email]...
trading/swapping episodes is far from producing thousands of illegal copies of *software* - which is copyrighted everywhere on earth, while recording television broadcast for home use is quite legal in most of the areas on the same earth; of course such narrow-minded person like you wouldnt see a difference.
i'm sure i have nothing to worry from the law enforcement people because i havent committed any crime, im more affraid of immoral self-proclaimed bonehead bastards like you, who usually after a while turn out to the darker side of their psychosis...
and why am i replying to you?! damn, how could i forget put you in my killfile LOL
We actually posted about a dozen other posts on the subject in this thread- -check 'em out for more discussion about whether or not trading TV ep's can be considered "fair use".
What about alt.binaries.multimedia.comedy ? Creating a binaries group for a show thats already dead would be huge hill to climb.Of course there's always irc: http://www.seinfeld-episodes.com/