Read the following with the implied caveat that I have never been involved in copyright law, please. I have to question the premise that we are as bad off (if not worse off) as ever regarding the distribution and use of the video. I also have to question the premise we'd better not put it back up on the web site for others to view or even to down load. I'm ready to be educated, though, so feel free to shoot away at the following beliefs that I hold dear and true. 1. My expectation is that the soon-to-appear, fine-tuned version of the video will have the ARRL copyright labeling placed physically as well as electronically on it and on any media used to promote it. If we haven't already planned to do so, I suggest we follow the leads of MLB and pro football and use a "This video is supplied solely for the . . . noncommercial use and showing on noncommercial, non-broadcast . . . "outlets (provided this remains necessary) statement to accompany the copyright notice. If something of this sort provides legal protection to baseball and football broadcasts, a relevant variation ought to protect ARRL and the video. 2. We can never prevent some idiot or idiots from misusing and abusing items/intellectual property of others, but the use of due notice consistent with proper diligence ought to protect adequately against their malicious actions. Specifically, a. if an ARRL antagonist misuses a video we distribute that has been duly identified as being copyrighted, we ought to be able to take meaningful legal action against him, and b. if someone distributes the video (which contains property copyrighted by composers, broadcast stations, etc.) in clear violation of the ARRL copyright and notices "we" placed on the video, the League should be expected to be held harmless. 3. Can the League and others associated with it be sued because someone abused (against our instructions) copyrighted material? Certainly. But, as we all know, I can sue most anyone, most anytime, for most anything. (I clearly was offended and suffered irreparable harm at the Board meeting by N2FF sitting immediately around the corner of the table from me and exposing me to his upper respiratory virus. Sorry Frank!) I've used enough bytes to try to make my point which can be summed up as: The League most certainly has or retains copyright attorneys to help in the publishing end of its business. Shouldn't we put them to work to tell us what can and what cannot be done without exposing us unreasonably to legal action, and how to go about doing just this? Our task, subsequently, would seem to be to act with due prudence by following the legal guidance of the experts in this area of the law, and go about doing the job of promoting Amateur Radio and ARRL. For what, if anything, it is worth. 73, Jim, K8JE (PS: In spite of my excessive use of them, I still have a few excessively-long run-on sentences left over. I will gladly sell these if anyone needs them.) Jim Weaver k8je@arrl.org