Discussion:
What TV shows would you like to see get a deluxe DVD release?
(too old to reply)
Joe
2010-08-26 13:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
Angus Rodgers
2010-08-26 13:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
SYNTAX ERROR 101 - PROCESSING ABORTED
Post by Joe
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
A lot of children's shows and cartoons (is there not a market for
them, or are they not respected - apart from The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, The Ren and Stimpy Show, ...? OK, some
are respected!):

Malcolm in the Middle
As Told By Ginger
The Big Knights
Clueless
Daria
Dexter's Laboratory
The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show
Earthworm Jim
Stressed Eric
Recess
Waynehead
Hey Arnold!
Extreme Ghostbusters
God, the Devil and Bob
Jumanji
Pepper Ann
Vicky the Viking
The Wild Thornberrys
The PJs
Rex the Runt
Aaagh! It's the Mr Hell Show!
Fairly OddParents

At least there's a complete set of The Powerpuff Girls (in NTSC,
not much use to me).

And some more comedy:

Kids in the Hall

But please, please, especially Malcolm in the Middle!
--
Angus Rodgers
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-26 15:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angus Rodgers
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
SYNTAX ERROR 101 - PROCESSING ABORTED
Post by Joe
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
A lot of children's shows and cartoons (is there not a market for
them, or are they not respected - apart from The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, The Ren and Stimpy Show, ...? OK, some
Kim Possible desperately needs an HD season set release, and not these
odd butchered collections.

Jonny Quest could use a redo and fix.

They need to go back and fix Kung Fu season 1.

I want 12 O'Clock High dammit! It looked like we were finally getting
the QM stuff, and then, nothing.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Angus Rodgers
2010-08-27 03:44:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:53:42 -0700,
Post by Anim8rFSK
They need to go back and fix Kung Fu season 1.
I haven't yet seen the DVDs (or indeed very many episodes of the
series, although I remember enjoying the ones I saw). What did
they do wrong with them?
--
Angus Rodgers
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-27 06:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:53:42 -0700,
Post by Anim8rFSK
They need to go back and fix Kung Fu season 1.
I haven't yet seen the DVDs (or indeed very many episodes of the
series, although I remember enjoying the ones I saw). What did
they do wrong with them?
Made them 16:9 by blowing up the 4:3 image and chopping off the top and
bottom.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Edward McArdle
2010-08-27 06:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:53:42 -0700,
Post by Anim8rFSK
They need to go back and fix Kung Fu season 1.
I haven't yet seen the DVDs (or indeed very many episodes of the
series, although I remember enjoying the ones I saw). What did
they do wrong with them?
Made them 16:9 by blowing up the 4:3 image and chopping off the top and
bottom.
Nobody has mentioned the Batman TV series! I would love to buy them all,
but apparently they are in copyright hell.
--
Edward McArdle
l***@yahoo.com
2010-08-27 12:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward McArdle
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:53:42 -0700,
Post by Anim8rFSK
They need to go back and fix Kung Fu season 1.
I haven't yet seen the DVDs (or indeed very many episodes of the
series, although I remember enjoying the ones I saw).  What did
they do wrong with them?
Made them 16:9 by blowing up the 4:3 image and chopping off the top and
bottom.
Nobody has mentioned the Batman TV series! I would love to buy them all,
but apparently they are in copyright hell.
--
Edward McArdle
Batman is number one beating WKRP by a small margin.
Michael Black
2010-08-27 15:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward McArdle
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:53:42 -0700,
Post by Anim8rFSK
They need to go back and fix Kung Fu season 1.
I haven't yet seen the DVDs (or indeed very many episodes of the
series, although I remember enjoying the ones I saw). What did
they do wrong with them?
Made them 16:9 by blowing up the 4:3 image and chopping off the top and
bottom.
Nobody has mentioned the Batman TV series! I would love to buy them all,
but apparently they are in copyright hell.
I bought the movie, as a token representation of the TV series.

Michael
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-27 16:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by Edward McArdle
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:53:42 -0700,
Post by Anim8rFSK
They need to go back and fix Kung Fu season 1.
I haven't yet seen the DVDs (or indeed very many episodes of the
series, although I remember enjoying the ones I saw). What did
they do wrong with them?
Made them 16:9 by blowing up the 4:3 image and chopping off the top and
bottom.
Nobody has mentioned the Batman TV series! I would love to buy them all,
but apparently they are in copyright hell.
I bought the movie, as a token representation of the TV series.
You'll note that any time anybody shows scenes from the show, they're
actually from the movie, which I have in Blu-ray. :)
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Merrick Baldelli
2010-08-28 12:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward McArdle
Nobody has mentioned the Batman TV series! I would love to buy them all,
but apparently they are in copyright hell.
I would actually spend money to get that given all the people
that starred as villains.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
Dragon Lady
2010-08-27 02:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angus Rodgers
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
SYNTAX ERROR 101 - PROCESSING ABORTED
Post by Joe
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
A lot of children's shows and cartoons (is there not a market for
them, or are they not respected - apart from The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, The Ren and Stimpy Show, ...? OK, some
Er...you consider those show's to be children's shows?
Angus Rodgers
2010-08-27 03:26:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:21:15 -0600, "Dragon Lady"
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Angus Rodgers
A lot of children's shows and cartoons (is there not a market for
them, or are they not respected - apart from The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, The Ren and Stimpy Show, ...? OK, some
Er...you consider those show's to be children's shows?
Evidently not, as my own childhood is far behind me, but all of
them are of interest to children (or teenagers), and none of them
is aimed solely at adults. It seems reasonable to me to consider
"children's shows and cartoons" as a category. The programmes in
this category which do seem to get some respect all seem to be
among those which are aimed more at adults than at children (and
I listed some of the best-known of these), but even they are all
loved by children.

I didn't try to be academically precise; should I have been?

Also, do you not think that the reason why these shows have not
got much (if any) DVD treatment is that they aren't aimed mainly
at adults, and are therefore not thought to deserve much respect?

I admit I am a bit puzzled as to why, if this is the explanation,
there is not thought to be a market for them, respectable or not.
So am I mistaken in my belief that their interest to children has
something to do with their neglect?

I'm also a bit puzzled that anime series do seem to get the DVD
treatment, even though many of them (of course not all) are aimed
at least as much at children as adults.

So perhaps I'm misunderstanding the reason for these programmes
not having received a full DVD release?

Malcolm in the Middle, by the way, was most recently shown in the
UK in a children's slot at around noon on Saturday, with the most
annoying 'yoof' presenter ever. I myself thought it should have
been scheduled as an adult programme, in much the same way as The
Simpsons (which it does not, however, resemble as much as some
listings suggest).

The Ren and Stimpy Show was also usually shown in a children's
slot, I think - although it's so long since it has been on UK
analogue TV that I'm not sure - whereas it would also seem to
fit more naturally into the same category as The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, American Dad, King of the Hill, etc.,
i.e. although enjoyable by children, it is aimed more at adults.
--
Angus Rodgers
Dragon Lady
2010-08-27 04:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:21:15 -0600, "Dragon Lady"
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Angus Rodgers
A lot of children's shows and cartoons (is there not a market for
them, or are they not respected - apart from The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, The Ren and Stimpy Show, ...? OK, some
Er...you consider those show's to be children's shows?
Evidently not, as my own childhood is far behind me, but all of
them are of interest to children (or teenagers), and none of them
is aimed solely at adults. It seems reasonable to me to consider
"children's shows and cartoons" as a category. The programmes in
this category which do seem to get some respect all seem to be
among those which are aimed more at adults than at children (and
I listed some of the best-known of these), but even they are all
loved by children.
I know The Simpsons and Futurama are out on DVD here, don't know about the
others, but I now people who wouldn't let their children watch these shows
because they are more aimed at adults than at children.
Post by Angus Rodgers
I didn't try to be academically precise; should I have been?
Nah. That's why I asked.
Post by Angus Rodgers
Also, do you not think that the reason why these shows have not
got much (if any) DVD treatment is that they aren't aimed mainly
at adults, and are therefore not thought to deserve much respect?
I think that's exactly why. Children (not teenagers, but younger children)
do not buy DVDs. Adults do. My kids used to complain about their dad
watching the same shows over and over again - even though they watched the
same cartoons over and over. Ironic.
Post by Angus Rodgers
I admit I am a bit puzzled as to why, if this is the explanation,
there is not thought to be a market for them, respectable or not.
So am I mistaken in my belief that their interest to children has
something to do with their neglect?
Is it their interest to children, or the assumptiont that because the
primary viewers are children, they don't interest adults? If so, the
producers are obviously mistaken.
Post by Angus Rodgers
I'm also a bit puzzled that anime series do seem to get the DVD
treatment, even though many of them (of course not all) are aimed
at least as much at children as adults.
Isn't most anime from Japan? I haven't watched at lot of it, so I don't
know much about it.
Post by Angus Rodgers
So perhaps I'm misunderstanding the reason for these programmes
not having received a full DVD release?
Malcolm in the Middle, by the way, was most recently shown in the
UK in a children's slot at around noon on Saturday, with the most
annoying 'yoof' presenter ever. I myself thought it should have
been scheduled as an adult programme, in much the same way as The
Simpsons (which it does not, however, resemble as much as some
listings suggest).
Heh. I never cared much for Malcolm in the Middle, but it was on TV long
enough to prove it was popular. I'm surprised it hasn't been put out on
DVD.
Post by Angus Rodgers
The Ren and Stimpy Show was also usually shown in a children's
slot, I think - although it's so long since it has been on UK
analogue TV that I'm not sure - whereas it would also seem to
fit more naturally into the same category as The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, American Dad, King of the Hill, etc.,
i.e. although enjoyable by children, it is aimed more at adults.
Never cared for Ren & Stimpy. Even when I was a child, my sense of humor
didn't run to those kind of shows. I was more into Scooby Doo. I also don't
care much for South Park. I think it's the running gag about Kenny getting
killed that turned me off on that one. I've never seen American Dad, but if
it's in the same category as the others, I'd agree they're more aimed at
adults than children. However, there is a market for children's shows, at
least in the U.S. I'm not sure why the shows you mentioned aren't coming
out on DVD. Perhaps they just don't think there's enough of a market to
make it worth while.
Wingnut
2010-08-27 05:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Also, do you not think that the reason why these shows have not got
much (if any) DVD treatment is that they aren't aimed mainly at adults,
and are therefore not thought to deserve much respect?
I think that's exactly why. Children (not teenagers, but younger
children) do not buy DVDs.
Children nag and moan until parents buy things *for* them. Market well
enough to children and adults end up opening their wallets just to shut
them up. Disney has built a fucking multi-billion-dollar empire on this
phenomenon, selling DVDs in particular, and has long had the money and
the clout to basically write one of the G8 nations' copyright laws to its
favor (and that one then exports it via international treaties to
virtually the entire developed world).
Post by Dragon Lady
I'm also a bit puzzled that anime series do seem to get the DVD
treatment, even though many of them (of course not all) are aimed at
least as much at children as adults.
Isn't most anime from Japan?
Isn't all of it, more or less *by definition*?
Dragon Lady
2010-08-27 19:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
Also, do you not think that the reason why these shows have not got
much (if any) DVD treatment is that they aren't aimed mainly at adults,
and are therefore not thought to deserve much respect?
I think that's exactly why. Children (not teenagers, but younger
children) do not buy DVDs.
Children nag and moan until parents buy things *for* them. Market well
enough to children and adults end up opening their wallets just to shut
them up. Disney has built a fucking multi-billion-dollar empire on this
phenomenon, selling DVDs in particular, and has long had the money and
the clout to basically write one of the G8 nations' copyright laws to its
favor (and that one then exports it via international treaties to
virtually the entire developed world).
Didn't say they were right. But I suspect that's their thinking.
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
I'm also a bit puzzled that anime series do seem to get the DVD
treatment, even though many of them (of course not all) are aimed at
least as much at children as adults.
Isn't most anime from Japan?
Isn't all of it, more or less *by definition*?
I dunno. Don't know anything about anime. I believe I already said that,
in the part you cut out.
Mike Henry
2010-08-27 10:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:21:15 -0600, "Dragon Lady"
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Angus Rodgers
A lot of children's shows and cartoons (is there not a market for
them, or are they not respected - apart from The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, The Ren and Stimpy Show, ...? OK, some
Er...you consider those show's to be children's shows?
Evidently not, as my own childhood is far behind me, but all of
them are of interest to children (or teenagers), and none of them
is aimed solely at adults.
False. South Park for a start, is aimed solely at adults. It is most
definitely uncompromisingly post-watershed.
Angus Rodgers
2010-08-27 12:16:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:18:01 +0100, Mike Henry
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:21:15 -0600, "Dragon Lady"
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Angus Rodgers
A lot of children's shows and cartoons (is there not a market for
them, or are they not respected - apart from The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, The Ren and Stimpy Show, ...? OK, some
Er...you consider those show's to be children's shows?
Evidently not, as my own childhood is far behind me, but all of
them are of interest to children (or teenagers), and none of them
is aimed solely at adults.
False. South Park for a start, is aimed solely at adults. It is most
definitely uncompromisingly post-watershed.
This is becoming a tangle. I was referring to the shows in my own
wish list; South Park was in my "apart from ..." list, which was
an aside. I know I didn't make this clear, and I anticipated at
the time that it might be confusing, but I didn't think it mattered
enough to rewrite my poorly-structured, poorly-punctuated paragraph.
I suppose this is poetic justice for my "syntax error" message. :-)

I thought I had already cleared up this point in my reply to Dragon
Lady, when I explicitly wrote: "The Ren and Stimpy Show [...] would
also seem to fit more naturally into the same category as The Simpsons,
Family Guy, South Park, Futurama, American Dad, King of the Hill, etc.,
i.e. although enjoyable by children, it is aimed more at adults."

You're surely not suggesting that children never get to see South
Park, or else that they don't enjoy it when they do get to see it?
--
Angus Rodgers
Mike Henry
2010-08-27 13:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:18:01 +0100, Mike Henry
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:21:15 -0600, "Dragon Lady"
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Angus Rodgers
A lot of children's shows and cartoons (is there not a market for
them, or are they not respected - apart from The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, The Ren and Stimpy Show, ...? OK, some
Er...you consider those show's to be children's shows?
Evidently not, as my own childhood is far behind me, but all of
them are of interest to children (or teenagers), and none of them
is aimed solely at adults.
False. South Park for a start, is aimed solely at adults. It is most
definitely uncompromisingly post-watershed.
This is becoming a tangle. I was referring to the shows in my own
wish list; South Park was in my "apart from ..." list, which was
an aside. I know I didn't make this clear, and I anticipated at
the time that it might be confusing, but I didn't think it mattered
enough to rewrite my poorly-structured, poorly-punctuated paragraph.
I suppose this is poetic justice for my "syntax error" message. :-)
:-)
Post by Angus Rodgers
I thought I had already cleared up this point in my reply to Dragon
Lady, when I explicitly wrote: "The Ren and Stimpy Show [...] would
also seem to fit more naturally into the same category as The Simpsons,
Family Guy, South Park, Futurama, American Dad, King of the Hill, etc.,
i.e. although enjoyable by children, it is aimed more at adults."
"aimed more at adults" isn't a clear enough statement for South Park IHMO.
Personally I think it shouldn't be seen by any children, although Sweden
disagrees with me. Teenagers maybe, children no way. Other programmes in
the list - fine.
Post by Angus Rodgers
You're surely not suggesting that children never get to see South
Park, or else that they don't enjoy it when they do get to see it?
Taking the South Park movie I see that it was 18-rated in some countries,
banned completely in some others, 15-rated in the UK, with lower ratings
in some others. But here in the UK at least, children could not legally
watch it in cinemas.

Which programmes parents allow their children to see in the home is their
business and not mine. But as far as the broadcasting laws in this country
go, South Park is uncompromisingly a post-watershed programme. Just
because the characters are children and it's animated doesn't
automatically mean that it could or should be watched by children. I think
it should not be lumped in the same category as programmes that are
properly suitable for children (but may have some adult content which may
go over their heads) like The Simpsons. Hope that clears it up :-)
Angus Rodgers
2010-08-27 14:34:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:56:25 +0100, Mike Henry
Post by Mike Henry
Which programmes parents allow their children to see in the home is their
business and not mine. But as far as the broadcasting laws in this country
go, South Park is uncompromisingly a post-watershed programme. Just
because the characters are children and it's animated doesn't
automatically mean that it could or should be watched by children. I think
it should not be lumped in the same category as programmes that are
properly suitable for children (but may have some adult content which may
go over their heads) like The Simpsons. Hope that clears it up :-)
***** you guys, I'm going home! :-)
--
Angus Rodgers
Dragon Lady
2010-08-27 19:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:18:01 +0100, Mike Henry
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Angus Rodgers
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:21:15 -0600, "Dragon Lady"
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Angus Rodgers
A lot of children's shows and cartoons (is there not a market for
them, or are they not respected - apart from The Simpsons, Family
Guy, South Park, Futurama, The Ren and Stimpy Show, ...? OK, some
Er...you consider those show's to be children's shows?
Evidently not, as my own childhood is far behind me, but all of
them are of interest to children (or teenagers), and none of them
is aimed solely at adults.
False. South Park for a start, is aimed solely at adults. It is most
definitely uncompromisingly post-watershed.
This is becoming a tangle. I was referring to the shows in my own
wish list; South Park was in my "apart from ..." list, which was
an aside. I know I didn't make this clear, and I anticipated at
the time that it might be confusing, but I didn't think it mattered
enough to rewrite my poorly-structured, poorly-punctuated paragraph.
I suppose this is poetic justice for my "syntax error" message. :-)
I thought I had already cleared up this point in my reply to Dragon
Lady, when I explicitly wrote: "The Ren and Stimpy Show [...] would
also seem to fit more naturally into the same category as The Simpsons,
Family Guy, South Park, Futurama, American Dad, King of the Hill, etc.,
i.e. although enjoyable by children, it is aimed more at adults."
You're surely not suggesting that children never get to see South
Park, or else that they don't enjoy it when they do get to see it?
Depends on which age group you're talking about. I'm sure lots of teenagers
watch and enjoy South Park. Personally, I wouldn't let anyone under the age
of 12 watch that show.
scott
2010-08-27 20:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Time-Life is issuing all five seasons of The Six Million Dollar Man, but
only in the States (initially).
Extravagan
2010-08-27 21:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by scott
Time-Life is issuing all five seasons of The Six Million Dollar Man, but
only in the States (initially).
There are ways to get around their stupid "region coding".
--
"I hope there are a lot of hardcore scenes in it. There should be more
of those in film and theatre as well." -- Stephen Newport in
<6880-4C73775E-***@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/677328fcf9d66063
Mark A
2010-08-26 15:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
Xena: Warrior Princess.

Regards

Mark
The Other Mike
2010-08-26 22:56:10 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:56:12 +0100, "Mark A"
Post by Mark A
Xena: Warrior Princess.
Interactive :)


--
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-27 00:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Mike
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:56:12 +0100, "Mark A"
Post by Mark A
Xena: Warrior Princess.
Interactive :)
--
Every episode hosted by Hudson Leick.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Mac Breck
2010-08-26 16:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
TV Shows That I MOST Want On DVD:
Brimstone (1998)
Strange Luck (1995)
Carol & Company (1990) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season Sets*.
The Carol Burnett Show (1967) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season
Sets*.
The Carol Burnett Show (1991) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season
Sets*.
Midnight Caller (1988)
Mike Hammer (1956) - Darren McGavin
The Outsider (1968) - Darren McGavin
Special Unit 2 (2001)
The Agency (2001)
Bearcats! (1971)
Duck Dodgers (2003)
Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer (1984)
Boomtown (NBC, 2002-2003) - Season 2 (6 episodes)
Keen Eddie - with the *original* music, not the elevator music which is
on the currently available Keen Eddie DVD set.


TV Shows That I MOST Want On DVD in Deluxe Editions (feature packed):
Brimstone (1998)
Strange Luck (1995)
Carol & Company (1990) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season Sets*.
The Carol Burnett Show (1967) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season
Sets*.
The Carol Burnett Show (1991) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season
Sets*.
Keen Eddie - with the *original* music, not the elevator music which is
on the currently available Keen Eddie DVD set.


* NOT dribbled out, one DVD at a time, containing only a couple of
shows, out of order, every 6 to 8 weeks via mail, with the singing and
dancing taking up valuable disc space, for $19.95 plus shipping &
handling, which would cost a *fortune* in the end to collect. God only
knows when you'd finally collect them all, *if* *ever* . i.e. Not via
that damned Guthy-Renker monstrosity which currently has a stranglehold
on the Carol Burnett material. :-||
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Max Eilerson: "The story of my life. I finally find a city like this,
intact, deserted for ten thousand years. Probably contains hundreds of
patents that I could exploit and I'm going to die. I can appreciate
dramatic irony as much as the next person, but this is pushing it a
bit."
Mac Breck
2010-08-27 12:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned
already available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release
could've included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't
available, what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a
deluxe DVD release.
Brimstone (1998)
Strange Luck (1995)
Carol & Company (1990) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season Sets*.
The Carol Burnett Show (1967) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season
Sets*.
The Carol Burnett Show (1991) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season
Sets*.
Midnight Caller (1988)
Mike Hammer (1956) - Darren McGavin
The Outsider (1968) - Darren McGavin
Special Unit 2 (2001)
The Agency (2001)
Bearcats! (1971)
Duck Dodgers (2003)
Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer (1984)
Boomtown (NBC, 2002-2003) - Season 2 (6 episodes)
Keen Eddie - with the *original* music, not the elevator music which
is on the currently available Keen Eddie DVD set.
Oops! Forgot "Newhart" Seasons 2 thru 6. Season 1 was released *2.5*
*years* ago. Can't expect much of a deluxe edition here because a
couple of the stars (Mary Frann & Tom Poston) have already passed. :-(
Post by Mac Breck
Brimstone (1998)
Strange Luck (1995)
Carol & Company (1990) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season Sets*.
The Carol Burnett Show (1967) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season
Sets*.
The Carol Burnett Show (1991) - Show Intros. & Skits ONLY - in Season
Sets*.
Keen Eddie - with the *original* music, not the elevator music which
is on the currently available Keen Eddie DVD set.
* NOT dribbled out, one DVD at a time, containing only a couple of
shows, out of order, every 6 to 8 weeks via mail, with the singing and
dancing taking up valuable disc space, for $19.95 plus shipping &
handling, which would cost a *fortune* in the end to collect. God
only knows when you'd finally collect them all, *if* *ever* . i.e.
Not via that damned Guthy-Renker monstrosity which currently has a
stranglehold on the Carol Burnett material. :-||
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Max Eilerson: "The story of my life. I finally find a city like this,
intact, deserted for ten thousand years. Probably contains hundreds of
patents that I could exploit and I'm going to die. I can appreciate
dramatic irony as much as the next person, but this is pushing it a
bit."
JNugent
2010-08-26 16:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
The Beverly Hillbillies (all of it - with ORIGINAL music).
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-26 18:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The Beverly Hillbillies (all of it - with ORIGINAL music).
What do you mean? Was the original music removed due to licensing
restrictions?
AuntyPalin
2010-08-26 21:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The Beverly Hillbillies (all of it - with ORIGINAL music).
Myself also. Have you seen the relatively recently released:

The Beverly Hillbillies: The Official Second Season
The Beverly Hillbillies: The Official Third Season

These are much better than The Ultimate Collection Season 1 and all
the other dribdrab releases without the original music.

I hope they eventually do all the seasons - whoa 9 of em?

Also, I'd like Northern Exposure. :-)

***********************************
www.AuntyPalin.com, facebook & twitter too
Brian Thorn
2010-08-27 02:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-27 03:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
That'll wait till after copyright expires, long after we're all dead.
Extravagan
2010-08-27 10:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
That'll wait till after copyright expires, long after we're all dead.
Oh, copyright's going to expire a lot sooner than that. The writing's
already on the wall for copyright. It's losing legitimacy in the minds
of more and more people even as it becomes increasingly easy to
circumvent massively online.
--
"I hope there are a lot of hardcore scenes in it. There should be more
of those in film and theatre as well." -- Stephen Newport in
<6880-4C73775E-***@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/677328fcf9d66063
Michael Black
2010-08-27 15:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
That'll wait till after copyright expires, long after we're all dead.
Oh, copyright's going to expire a lot sooner than that. The writing's already
on the wall for copyright. It's losing legitimacy in the minds of more and
more people even as it becomes increasingly easy to circumvent massively
online.
It's hardly likely they'll suddenly pull the rug out from the copyright
holders. In other words, whatever you think might happen, it won't
include taking copyright off material that is already under copyright.

At best, and I don't see it happening since there are good reasons
for copyright, there would be changes for future copyright material.

Michael
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-27 17:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by Extravagan
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
That'll wait till after copyright expires, long after we're all dead.
Oh, copyright's going to expire a lot sooner than that. The writing's
already on the wall for copyright. It's losing legitimacy in the minds of
more and more people even as it becomes increasingly easy to circumvent
massively online.
It's hardly likely they'll suddenly pull the rug out from the copyright
holders. In other words, whatever you think might happen, it won't
include taking copyright off material that is already under copyright.
At best, and I don't see it happening since there are good reasons
for copyright, there would be changes for future copyright material.
Fascinating. Do tell what the good reasons are for copyright that lasts
longer than one's adult years and decades after the author's death.

Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
David Johnston
2010-08-27 22:33:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:16:05 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Michael Black
Post by Extravagan
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
That'll wait till after copyright expires, long after we're all dead.
Oh, copyright's going to expire a lot sooner than that. The writing's
already on the wall for copyright. It's losing legitimacy in the minds of
more and more people even as it becomes increasingly easy to circumvent
massively online.
It's hardly likely they'll suddenly pull the rug out from the copyright
holders. In other words, whatever you think might happen, it won't
include taking copyright off material that is already under copyright.
At best, and I don't see it happening since there are good reasons
for copyright, there would be changes for future copyright material.
Fascinating. Do tell what the good reasons are for copyright that lasts
longer than one's adult years and decades after the author's death.
He didn't say anything about the specific length of copyright
protection.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 02:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Michael Black
Post by Extravagan
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
That'll wait till after copyright expires, long after we're all dead.
Oh, copyright's going to expire a lot sooner than that. The writing's
already on the wall for copyright. It's losing legitimacy in the minds of
more and more people even as it becomes increasingly easy to circumvent
massively online.
It's hardly likely they'll suddenly pull the rug out from the copyright
holders. In other words, whatever you think might happen, it won't
include taking copyright off material that is already under copyright.
At best, and I don't see it happening since there are good reasons
for copyright, there would be changes for future copyright material.
Fascinating. Do tell what the good reasons are for copyright that lasts
longer than one's adult years and decades after the author's death.
He didn't say anything about the specific length of copyright
protection.
I know. Kindly let him speak for himself, if he has something to add.
Feel free to offer your own opinion, instead of excusing others.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain? That would be "never", hence
the constitutional argument.
David Johnston
2010-08-28 03:53:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:29:34 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Michael Black
Post by Extravagan
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
That'll wait till after copyright expires, long after we're all dead.
Oh, copyright's going to expire a lot sooner than that. The writing's
already on the wall for copyright. It's losing legitimacy in the minds of
more and more people even as it becomes increasingly easy to circumvent
massively online.
It's hardly likely they'll suddenly pull the rug out from the copyright
holders. In other words, whatever you think might happen, it won't
include taking copyright off material that is already under copyright.
At best, and I don't see it happening since there are good reasons
for copyright, there would be changes for future copyright material.
Fascinating. Do tell what the good reasons are for copyright that lasts
longer than one's adult years and decades after the author's death.
He didn't say anything about the specific length of copyright
protection.
I know. Kindly let him speak for himself, if he has something to add.
Feel free to offer your own opinion, instead of excusing others.
I was just wondering why you were asking him to defend a position he
never offered in the first place.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 04:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Michael Black
Post by Extravagan
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
That'll wait till after copyright expires, long after we're all dead.
Oh, copyright's going to expire a lot sooner than that. The writing's
already on the wall for copyright. It's losing legitimacy in the minds of
more and more people even as it becomes increasingly easy to circumvent
massively online.
It's hardly likely they'll suddenly pull the rug out from the copyright
holders. In other words, whatever you think might happen, it won't
include taking copyright off material that is already under copyright.
At best, and I don't see it happening since there are good reasons
for copyright, there would be changes for future copyright material.
Fascinating. Do tell what the good reasons are for copyright that lasts
longer than one's adult years and decades after the author's death.
He didn't say anything about the specific length of copyright
protection.
I know. Kindly let him speak for himself, if he has something to add.
Feel free to offer your own opinion, instead of excusing others.
I was just wondering why you were asking him to defend a position he
never offered in the first place.
It's the length of the exclusive period that's the abuse.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply. It was a reasonable
legal argument, but the Supreme Court didn't agree.
David Johnston
2010-08-28 06:31:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:48:55 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 07:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit, so you're totally missing
the point. Besides, Congress will extend copyright another 25 years or so...
David Johnston
2010-08-28 07:32:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:11:58 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit,
What lawsuit?
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 09:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit,
What lawsuit?
Eldred v. Ashcroft
Thanatos
2010-08-28 12:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
Dimensional Traveler
2010-08-28 20:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
So "until one year before the universe ends" would be fine with you.
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Obveeus
2010-08-28 20:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
So "until one year before the universe ends" would be fine with you.
Just to play devil's advocate: why not make copyrights last 'forever'? No
one is really 'harmed' or prevented from a livelyhood by not having the
'right' to read/watch/recreate/modify for comercial purposes/etc... another
person's original material.
Barry Margolin
2010-08-28 20:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
So "until one year before the universe ends" would be fine with you.
Just to play devil's advocate: why not make copyrights last 'forever'? No
one is really 'harmed' or prevented from a livelyhood by not having the
'right' to read/watch/recreate/modify for comercial purposes/etc... another
person's original material.
Copyright and patent terms are an explicit compromise.
--
Barry Margolin, ***@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Obveeus
2010-08-29 12:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
So "until one year before the universe ends" would be fine with you.
Just to play devil's advocate: why not make copyrights last 'forever'?
No
one is really 'harmed' or prevented from a livelyhood by not having the
'right' to read/watch/recreate/modify for comercial purposes/etc... another
person's original material.
Copyright and patent terms are an explicit compromise.
A set timelength on a patent exists such that the benefit of the patented
idea (say a medicine that cures a disease or an electronic component that
allows wireless communication) is available to everyone (a benefit to
society) in due time. However, I would argue that there is no real 'benefit
to society' by ending a copyright. If 'Vampire Diaries' is forever
available ONLY to people that pay for it under the terms/control of the
original owners and their designated descendents, society is no worse off
for it.
Thanatos
2010-08-28 21:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
So "until one year before the universe ends" would be fine with you.
Just to play devil's advocate: why not make copyrights last 'forever'? No
one is really 'harmed' or prevented from a livelyhood by not having the
'right' to read/watch/recreate/modify for comercial purposes/etc... another
person's original material.
The argument is that extended copyrights lock up a society's shared
culture.
Obveeus
2010-08-29 12:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
So "until one year before the universe ends" would be fine with you.
Just to play devil's advocate: why not make copyrights last 'forever'?
No
one is really 'harmed' or prevented from a livelyhood by not having the
'right' to read/watch/recreate/modify for comercial purposes/etc... another
person's original material.
The argument is that extended copyrights lock up a society's shared
culture.
Nothing is 'locked up' unless the owners choose to make the piece of work
unavailable. Meanwhile, nothing is 'lost' to culture since culture is
evolving/changing at all times and is always nothing more than a product of
what is available.
Thanatos
2010-08-29 14:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
So "until one year before the universe ends" would be fine with you.
Just to play devil's advocate: why not make copyrights last 'forever'?
No
one is really 'harmed' or prevented from a livelyhood by not having the
'right' to read/watch/recreate/modify for comercial purposes/etc... another
person's original material.
The argument is that extended copyrights lock up a society's shared
culture.
Nothing is 'locked up'
No?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/09582310670.shtml
Post by Obveeus
unless the owners choose to make the piece of work
unavailable.
Which many do. The vaults at the movie studios are full of unreleased
material, some of which is literally just rotting away.

Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 21:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Just to play devil's advocate: why not make copyrights last 'forever'? No
one is really 'harmed' or prevented from a livelyhood by not having the
'right' to read/watch/recreate/modify for comercial purposes/etc... another
person's original material.
Might as well just burn everything a la _Farenheit 451_. Keeping everything
under control where it might be inaccessible or too expensive is too similar
a situation.

Let's stop teaching history and culture. Everything written or composed
or painted from the dawn of history is owned by whoever that author's
closest relative is. No one is identifiable many generations later, so
to be safe, keep it all out of view. Teach no more music, read no more
original historical documents.

Oh, retroactive application of copyright law is silly and cannot happen?
That's exactly what the case in question was about that the US Supreme
Court ruled on, retroactive copyright extension of existing works.
Thanatos
2010-08-28 21:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
So "until one year before the universe ends" would be fine with you.
I didn't express my personal feelings on the issue one way or the other,
so asking whether it would be fine with me is an irrelevancy. The law
says what it says.

However, as with most things in the law, reasonableness is the standard
that would likely be applied and "one year before the universe ends"
would likely fail that test. Since the Supreme Court hasn't seen fit to
overturn Congress's current copyright statute, the limit of
reasonableness would then logically fall somewhere in between.
David Johnston
2010-08-28 21:45:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:04:01 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
So "until one year before the universe ends" would be fine with you.
It's not about what's fine. It's about what's legal.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 21:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
I know what the US Supreme Court said, which the two of you just parroted
back. The point neither one of you, nor the Justices, grasped was that
anyone alive when the work is created will be unable to live long enough
to see the work fall into public domain. Therefore the Copyright Clause
interpreted in that manner removed any civil right the entire living population
has to create derivative works at any time.

Who would ever anticipate that the US Constitution would be interpretd in
that manner?
Thanatos
2010-08-28 21:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
I know what the US Supreme Court said, which the two of you just parroted
back. The point neither one of you, nor the Justices, grasped was that
anyone alive when the work is created will be unable to live long enough
to see the work fall into public domain. Therefore the Copyright Clause
interpreted in that manner removed any civil right the entire living
population has to create derivative works at any time.
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?

I must have missed that landmark legal decision.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Who would ever anticipate that the US Constitution would be interpretd in
that manner?
I'm actually on your side on this issue philosophically. You're just not
making valid legal arguments to support it.
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-28 22:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Thanatos
2010-08-28 22:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
Well, if Congress wasn't bought and paid for and constantly doing the
bidding of Disney and extending copyright every time Mickey Mouse was in
danger of falling into the public domain, they would have the legal
right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon. It just wouldn't be a
civil right.

Put it this way, everyone has the right to record a Beethoven symphony,
sell it, make money off it if it's good enough and people will buy it.
Beethoven's works aren't locked away under copyright for a century or
more after his death, where only his great-great-great-grandson can
license them. Why shouldn't everyone have a similar right to Mickey
Mouse?
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 23:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
Well, if Congress wasn't bought and paid for and constantly doing the
bidding of Disney and extending copyright every time Mickey Mouse was in
danger of falling into the public domain, they would have the legal
right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon. It just wouldn't be a
civil right.
Only copyright on the oldest Mickey Mouse cartoons could have fallen into
the public domain. As Disney still produces works featuring the character,
all of which would remain in copyright, a derivative would be tricky, indeed,
to avoid infringing on later works, but it could be done.

The oldest cartoons would be subject to distribution by anyone.
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-29 06:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
Well, if Congress wasn't bought and paid for and constantly doing the
bidding of Disney and extending copyright every time Mickey Mouse was in
danger of falling into the public domain, they would have the legal
right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon. It just wouldn't be a
civil right.
Put it this way, everyone has the right to record a Beethoven symphony,
sell it, make money off it if it's good enough and people will buy it.
Beethoven's works aren't locked away under copyright for a century or
more after his death, where only his great-great-great-grandson can
license them. Why shouldn't everyone have a similar right to Mickey
Mouse?
Why should they?

The reason Mickey is great is that it was financially beneficial for the
Mouse House to make him great and keep him great. Without that profit
potential he'd just be a scribble on a notepad.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Thanatos
2010-08-29 14:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Thanatos
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
Well, if Congress wasn't bought and paid for and constantly doing the
bidding of Disney and extending copyright every time Mickey Mouse was in
danger of falling into the public domain, they would have the legal
right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon. It just wouldn't be a
civil right.
Put it this way, everyone has the right to record a Beethoven symphony,
sell it, make money off it if it's good enough and people will buy it.
Beethoven's works aren't locked away under copyright for a century or
more after his death, where only his great-great-great-grandson can
license them. Why shouldn't everyone have a similar right to Mickey
Mouse?
Why should they?
Because it's our shared culture.
Post by Anim8rFSK
The reason Mickey is great is that it was financially beneficial for the
Mouse House to make him great and keep him great.
Same applies to Mozart. Before there was copyright, people were just as
creative and produced just as much fantastic art, literature, and music.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 23:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
I think it's outrageous that the producers of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
were forced to license each of the cartoon character cameos for that movie.
It must have been much too expensive to do, for we've never had another
movie like it.

They had to license Betty Boop, who had appeared in no new works in decades,
so it's not as if the studio was doing anything with it.

Even simpler than derivative works, older films cannot be distributed.
They cannot be exhibited. Anyone who wants to do so must be a license fee.

We've had several threads about older tv series being unavailable on home
video. Thank copyright law for it. If not, we'd have competing outlets for
copies of source material and there would be quality at different levels
to choose from.

The exclusive period should be 20 years. Somehow patent medicine survives
at 14 years.
Thanatos
2010-08-29 00:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
I think it's outrageous that the producers of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
were forced to license each of the cartoon character cameos for that movie.
It must have been much too expensive to do, for we've never had another
movie like it.
They had to license Betty Boop, who had appeared in no new works in decades,
so it's not as if the studio was doing anything with it.
Even simpler than derivative works, older films cannot be distributed.
They cannot be exhibited. Anyone who wants to do so must be a license fee.
We've had several threads about older tv series being unavailable on home
video. Thank copyright law for it. If not, we'd have competing outlets for
copies of source material and there would be quality at different levels
to choose from.
It gets even worse for sound recordings:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/09582310670.shtml
Wingnut
2010-08-29 04:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
I think it's outrageous that the producers of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
were forced to license each of the cartoon character cameos for that
movie. It must have been much too expensive to do, for we've never had
another movie like it.
They had to license Betty Boop, who had appeared in no new works in
decades, so it's not as if the studio was doing anything with it.
Even simpler than derivative works, older films cannot be distributed.
They cannot be exhibited. Anyone who wants to do so must be a license fee.
We've had several threads about older tv series being unavailable on
home video.
And those that are often have awful music substitutions. WKRP and Quantum
Leap most notoriously.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Thank copyright law for it. If not, we'd have competing outlets for
copies of source material and there would be quality at different
levels to choose from.
And yet people think long copyright terms *promote* progress. Somehow.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The exclusive period should be 20 years.
You've got an extraneous zero character there in your post.

Most works make 99%+ of the money they'll ever make in the first 2 years.
The rest either are megahits that just keep raking it in for decades (and
in their first 2 years rake in more than enough to incentivize their
production) or else are "sleeper hits" that suffered from poor marketing
early on (let poor marketers fail to ever turn a profit -- that's what
happens in every other industry if you don't market your products well
enough).

I see some sites posting more and more plausible-seeming arguments that
even 2 years can be shortened, all the way to zero, without noticeably
fewer works being produced, and we may even then see *more* and more
diverse works produced, for instance documentaries and assorted third-
party sequels, prequels, and alternative takes on things some of which
might be pretty good.

Of course a lot of the unauthorized derivative works would suck, but
Sturgeon's Law applies equally to the authorized ones, as anyone who
considers only Wrath of Khan and First Contact (or only Wrath and
Undiscovered Country, or only Wrath and the one with the whales) to be
any good among the Trek films could attest.
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-29 06:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
I think it's outrageous that the producers of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
were forced to license each of the cartoon character cameos for that movie.
It must have been much too expensive to do, for we've never had another
movie like it.
I doubt the licensing fees had anything to do with it. It was more a
technology deal. The right combination of old skills and new
technologies overlapped for a brief shining moment, and WFRR came out of
it. It couldn't have been done a decade before at all, and couldn't be
done a decade later, at least not well, but it's not a copyright thing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
They had to license Betty Boop, who had appeared in no new works in decades,
so it's not as if the studio was doing anything with it.
Sure she had. Betty was in a comic strip at the time Roger Rabbit was
produced, and existed as merchandise. She wasn't making movies, but she
was still plenty active.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Even simpler than derivative works, older films cannot be distributed.
They cannot be exhibited. Anyone who wants to do so must be a license fee.
We've had several threads about older tv series being unavailable on home
video. Thank copyright law for it. If not, we'd have competing outlets for
copies of source material and there would be quality at different levels
to choose from.
Nah. We don't get that now with public domain stuff, except in very
rare instances. Nobody's going to spend a fortune restoring a film if
somebody else can just dump an existing print onto a $4 DVD to sell in
the same bin.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The exclusive period should be 20 years. Somehow patent medicine survives
at 14 years.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-29 07:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
I think it's outrageous that the producers of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
were forced to license each of the cartoon character cameos for that movie.
It must have been much too expensive to do, for we've never had another
movie like it.
I doubt the licensing fees had anything to do with it. It was more a
technology deal. The right combination of old skills and new
technologies overlapped for a brief shining moment, and WFRR came out of
it. It couldn't have been done a decade before at all, and couldn't be
done a decade later, at least not well, but it's not a copyright thing.
What about in pure animation that wanted to use very old cartoon characters
from different studios without paying enormous licensing fees? That's
what I'm speaking of.
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
They had to license Betty Boop, who had appeared in no new works in decades,
so it's not as if the studio was doing anything with it.
Sure she had. Betty was in a comic strip at the time Roger Rabbit was
produced, and existed as merchandise. She wasn't making movies, but she
was still plenty active.
Was she? Good for the old flapper.
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Even simpler than derivative works, older films cannot be distributed.
They cannot be exhibited. Anyone who wants to do so must be a license fee.
We've had several threads about older tv series being unavailable on home
video. Thank copyright law for it. If not, we'd have competing outlets for
copies of source material and there would be quality at different levels
to choose from.
Nah. We don't get that now with public domain stuff, except in very
rare instances. Nobody's going to spend a fortune restoring a film if
somebody else can just dump an existing print onto a $4 DVD to sell in
the same bin.
People have been restoring old-time radio shows for decades as a hobby.
It's conceivable it would happen with movies, too.
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-29 13:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
Exactly. Most of the people I know that want copyrights to go away feel
they have the right to make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon; I just don't
get that mindset.
I think it's outrageous that the producers of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
were forced to license each of the cartoon character cameos for that movie.
It must have been much too expensive to do, for we've never had another
movie like it.
I doubt the licensing fees had anything to do with it. It was more a
technology deal. The right combination of old skills and new
technologies overlapped for a brief shining moment, and WFRR came out of
it. It couldn't have been done a decade before at all, and couldn't be
done a decade later, at least not well, but it's not a copyright thing.
What about in pure animation that wanted to use very old cartoon characters
from different studios without paying enormous licensing fees? That's
what I'm speaking of.
Why should I be able to use your characters without your permission, or
you mine?

I grant you I don't understand the mindset of "let's just sit on this
and ask for so much money nobody can afford it" either, but that doesn't
mean I think we should take it away from them. Being stupid or short
sighted or incompetent or just plain onery shouldn't be grounds for
losing your property rights.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
They had to license Betty Boop, who had appeared in no new works in decades,
so it's not as if the studio was doing anything with it.
Sure she had. Betty was in a comic strip at the time Roger Rabbit was
produced, and existed as merchandise. She wasn't making movies, but she
was still plenty active.
Was she? Good for the old flapper.
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Even simpler than derivative works, older films cannot be distributed.
They cannot be exhibited. Anyone who wants to do so must be a license fee.
We've had several threads about older tv series being unavailable on home
video. Thank copyright law for it. If not, we'd have competing outlets for
copies of source material and there would be quality at different levels
to choose from.
Nah. We don't get that now with public domain stuff, except in very
rare instances. Nobody's going to spend a fortune restoring a film if
somebody else can just dump an existing print onto a $4 DVD to sell in
the same bin.
People have been restoring old-time radio shows for decades as a hobby.
It's conceivable it would happen with movies, too.
Nobody's going to start making 4k blu-ray scans for fun, although the
best example of what you're saying is THE GREEN SLIME. For decades it
existed in various versions, none of them acceptable. You could get it
in Japanese letterbox, or English pan & scan, both different cuts. Some
mad genius married the English audio (it was shot in English, the
Japanese version was dubbed) and the Japanese video and did what he
could to restore the missing scenes and put together a fan-dub version
that's being circulated.

There are linear versions of PULP FICTION, too, and boy howdy is it a
lousy movie without that trick.

But for me, if Howard Hawks wants to sit on The Outlaw and never let
anyone but him watch it the rest of his life, well, hey, it's his movie.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 22:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in
the United States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld
the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright,
when during your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
I know what the US Supreme Court said, which the two of you just parroted
back. The point neither one of you, nor the Justices, grasped was that
anyone alive when the work is created will be unable to live long enough
to see the work fall into public domain. Therefore the Copyright Clause
interpreted in that manner removed any civil right the entire living
population has to create derivative works at any time.
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
I must have missed that landmark legal decision.
Probably should have phrased that as a removed natural right, to the extent
that English law didn't infringe on natural rights. Copyright was a newish
concept in English law.

Clearly the publishing clause in the First Amendment doesn't cover
this, as it was written after the copyright clause.
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Who would ever anticipate that the US Constitution would be interpretd in
that manner?
I'm actually on your side on this issue philosophically. You're just not
making valid legal arguments to support it.
Not being on the US Supreme Court myself, my opinion doesn't mean shit.
Thanatos
2010-08-28 22:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in
the United States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld
the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright,
when during your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
I know what the US Supreme Court said, which the two of you just parroted
back. The point neither one of you, nor the Justices, grasped was that
anyone alive when the work is created will be unable to live long enough
to see the work fall into public domain. Therefore the Copyright Clause
interpreted in that manner removed any civil right the entire living
population has to create derivative works at any time.
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
I must have missed that landmark legal decision.
Probably should have phrased that as a removed natural right, to the extent
that English law didn't infringe on natural rights. Copyright was a newish
concept in English law.
Clearly the publishing clause in the First Amendment doesn't cover
this, as it was written after the copyright clause.
Actually, the principals of statutory construction state that when two
laws, statutes or codes conflict, the most recent in time prevails.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 23:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Clearly the publishing clause in the First Amendment doesn't cover
this, as it was written after the copyright clause.
Actually, the principals of statutory construction state that when two
laws, statutes or codes conflict, the most recent in time prevails.
The United States Constitution is not interpreted in that manner. Certain
amendments supersede other clauses, typically thanks to a repealer.
The publishing clause of the First Amendment doesn't affect the copyright
clause. The militia clause in Article II, Section 8, is read with the
militia claues in the Second Amendment.

You're talking about something else.
Wingnut
2010-08-29 04:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
December 15, 1791.
Post by Thanatos
I must have missed that landmark legal decision.
It was a little before your time, and it was more a political than a
legal decision.
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Who would ever anticipate that the US Constitution would be interpretd
in that manner?
James Madison, for one, when he penned the First Amendment.
David Johnston
2010-08-28 22:04:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:40:32 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
I know what the US Supreme Court said, which the two of you just parroted
back. The point neither one of you, nor the Justices, grasped was that
anyone alive when the work is created will be unable to live long enough
to see the work fall into public domain.
Nah. I'm fully aware of that. So were the justices.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Who would ever anticipate that the US Constitution would be interpretd in
that manner?
Anyone who noticed that no specific term was written into the
constitution and hence Congress was free to set any term it liked.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-28 22:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in
the United States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld
the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright,
when during your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
I know what the US Supreme Court said, which the two of you just parroted
back. The point neither one of you, nor the Justices, grasped was that
anyone alive when the work is created will be unable to live long enough
to see the work fall into public domain.
Nah. I'm fully aware of that. So were the justices.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Who would ever anticipate that the US Constitution would be interpretd in
that manner?
Anyone who noticed that no specific term was written into the
constitution and hence Congress was free to set any term it liked.
Dude: Part of the argument against constitutionality was that Congress
extended copyright term of existing works. If retroactive extensions are
legal, then "limited term" has no constitutional meaning. If "limited term"
is not used in relation to the human life span, then it has no constitutional
meaning. All you're doing is repeating yourself.

Thanatos is wrong: There's no "reasonable man" test here, so if an extremely
lengthy period were created in law, far longer than the work could conceivably
be remembered, then it would have been found constitutional.

"Limited term" is a relative standard. So, what is it relative to? Obviously
not the human life span. Right now, it's relative only to the human concept
of time and until humans cease to perceive time in a linear fashion.

Scalia upheld the law's constitutionality, amusingly forgetting about his
originalist ideals.
David Johnston
2010-08-28 23:51:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:57:39 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in
the United States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld
the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright,
when during your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
I know what the US Supreme Court said, which the two of you just parroted
back. The point neither one of you, nor the Justices, grasped was that
anyone alive when the work is created will be unable to live long enough
to see the work fall into public domain.
Nah. I'm fully aware of that. So were the justices.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Who would ever anticipate that the US Constitution would be interpretd in
that manner?
Anyone who noticed that no specific term was written into the
constitution and hence Congress was free to set any term it liked.
Dude: Part of the argument against constitutionality was that Congress
extended copyright term of existing works. If retroactive extensions are
legal, then "limited term" has no constitutional meaning.
Sure it does. It means that they have to give a specific number any
time they pass such a law.

If "limited term"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
is not used in relation to the human life span, then it has no constitutional
meaning.
That's incorrect.
Wingnut
2010-08-29 05:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Scalia upheld the law's constitutionality, amusingly forgetting about
his originalist ideals.
Begging your pardon, but you seem to have somehow typed "amusingly
forgetting about" where it should probably have said "having been paid to
forget".
Horace LaBadie
2010-08-28 22:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:40:32 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
I know what the US Supreme Court said, which the two of you just parroted
back. The point neither one of you, nor the Justices, grasped was that
anyone alive when the work is created will be unable to live long enough
to see the work fall into public domain.
Nah. I'm fully aware of that. So were the justices.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Who would ever anticipate that the US Constitution would be interpretd in
that manner?
Anyone who noticed that no specific term was written into the
constitution and hence Congress was free to set any term it liked.
Mark Twain's testimony before Congress on copyright.

<http://www.thecapitol.net/Publications/testifyingbeforecongress_Twain.ht
ml>
<http://tinyurl.com/29gwtzc>
Thanatos
2010-08-28 23:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:40:32 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
I know what the US Supreme Court said, which the two of you just parroted
back. The point neither one of you, nor the Justices, grasped was that
anyone alive when the work is created will be unable to live long enough
to see the work fall into public domain.
Nah. I'm fully aware of that. So were the justices.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Who would ever anticipate that the US Constitution would be
interpretd in that manner?
Anyone who noticed that no specific term was written into the
constitution and hence Congress was free to set any term it liked.
But what others have argued, and with which I happen to agree, is that
the Constitution *does* limit copyright to a "limited time" and Congress
is doing an end-run around that limitation by constantly extending the
copyright period every time some big company's IP gets close to running
out. By doing so, they're in effect creating unlimited copyright terms,
even though at any given moment, the statute has a finite period written
into it.
Dimensional Traveler
2010-08-28 23:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:40:32 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain?
What does my lifetime have to do with it?
Because if copyright expires after one dies, then the "limited times"
provision of the copyright clause does not apply.
Sure it does. As long as there is still a theoretical time limit,
legally it doesn't matter how many generations elapse.
Future generations aren't parties to the lawsuit
They don't have to be. A limited time is a limited time, regardless of
who is party to a lawsuit.
I know what the US Supreme Court said, which the two of you just parroted
back. The point neither one of you, nor the Justices, grasped was that
anyone alive when the work is created will be unable to live long enough
to see the work fall into public domain.
Nah. I'm fully aware of that. So were the justices.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Who would ever anticipate that the US Constitution would be interpretd in
that manner?
Anyone who noticed that no specific term was written into the
constitution and hence Congress was free to set any term it liked.
Reminds me of working on the 2010 US Census and all the people who tried
to claim that the constitution said all the government can ask is "How
many people live here?". They didn't like having it pointed out that
all the constitution says is "perform a Census every ten years according
to whatever laws Congress passes" (paraphrased but not by much).
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Thanatos
2010-08-28 12:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Michael Black
Post by Extravagan
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
That'll wait till after copyright expires, long after we're all dead.
Oh, copyright's going to expire a lot sooner than that. The writing's
already on the wall for copyright. It's losing legitimacy in the minds of
more and more people even as it becomes increasingly easy to circumvent
massively online.
It's hardly likely they'll suddenly pull the rug out from the copyright
holders. In other words, whatever you think might happen, it won't
include taking copyright off material that is already under copyright.
At best, and I don't see it happening since there are good reasons
for copyright, there would be changes for future copyright material.
Fascinating. Do tell what the good reasons are for copyright that lasts
longer than one's adult years and decades after the author's death.
He didn't say anything about the specific length of copyright
protection.
I know. Kindly let him speak for himself, if he has something to add.
Feel free to offer your own opinion, instead of excusing others.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the United
States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific length for
copyright protection.
Fascinating. If you are age 25 when a new work is copyright, when during
your lifetime does it come into public domain? That would be "never", hence
the constitutional argument.
It's not the length that provides the unconstitutionality of the
argument, it's that Congress keeps extending it over and over, basically
doing an end run around the Constitution's "limited times" mandate.

If Congress set the length of copyright at 200 years, that would
technically be fine constitutionally, since that is indeed a limited
time. But by routinely extending it every time Mickey Mouse's copyright
is in danger of running out, they've basically turned the duration of
copyright into an unlimited term.
Extravagan
2010-08-27 21:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by Extravagan
Oh, copyright's going to expire a lot sooner than that. The writing's
already on the wall for copyright. It's losing legitimacy in the minds
of more and more people even as it becomes increasingly easy to
circumvent massively online.
It's hardly likely they'll suddenly pull the rug out from the copyright
holders.
Not right now it's not. Wait ten years though. Just you wait.
--
"I hope there are a lot of hardcore scenes in it. There should be more
of those in film and theatre as well." -- Stephen Newport in
<6880-4C73775E-***@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/677328fcf9d66063
Dimensional Traveler
2010-08-27 09:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
China Beach. (Original music, of course.)
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
lugnut
2010-08-27 15:17:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 02:50:09 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Brian Thorn
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
QUANTUM LEAP with original music restored.
WKRP IN CINCINATTI complete series with original music.
China Beach. (Original music, of course.)
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
And on the "never gonna happen" front, I'll also nominate The Wonder
Years with its music intact.

I was able to put it all on DVD a few years ago when ION aired the
series, but it would certainly be nice to get it without all the
syndication edits and weird time-compression speedup that ION added on
top of the normal syndi cuts.

-lugnut
Micky DuPree
2010-08-27 05:33:09 UTC
Permalink
_Colditz_, the early-70s BBC TV series, not the miniseries nor the
movie.

_Search_, the early-70s US TV series.

-Micky
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-27 07:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Micky DuPree
_Search_, the early-70s US TV series.
Good call.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Michael O'Connor
2010-08-27 10:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Hill Street Blues, of which only the first two (of seven) seasons were
released on DVD.

St. Elsewhere, only the first season (of six) was released on DVD.

The first three syndicated seasons of SCTV need to be released in
their entirety. Laugh Factory put out a compilation set of the pre-
NBC years with some of the episodes. I would also like to see the
final Cinemax season of SCTV released.
Angus Rodgers
2010-08-27 12:26:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 03:21:53 -0700 (PDT), "Michael O'Connor"
Post by Michael O'Connor
Hill Street Blues, of which only the first two (of seven) seasons were
released on DVD.
Seconded. (It wasn't on my list only for the selfish reason that
I have by now watched the whole series, thanks to having seen
most of it when it was first broadcast, and then caught up with
the programmes I'd missed when Channel 4 repeated the first four
seasons last year. (A great time for TV here in the UK, because
The Wire was also being shown in its entirety on BBC2! I mean,
a great time for repeats of great US TV in the UK.) :-)

An absolute classic, which people need to see.
--
Angus Rodgers
Michael Black
2010-08-27 15:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Micky DuPree
_Colditz_, the early-70s BBC TV series, not the miniseries nor the
movie.
_Search_, the early-70s US TV series.
I'd be more inclined to buy that on DVD than something that has aired
recently and even been in syndicated reruns.

I can't get excited about The Simpsons on DVD, for instance, since I've
seen most episodes so many times.

But of the few TV series I've bought on DVD, they are all from long in
the past, and I haven't seen them in reruns in decades.

So I bought "Jonny Quest", I'm not even sure if I'd seen it before
I got the DVD, none of it was familiar and while I remember ads for it,
I don't remember watching it. So it was a whole new experience for me.

I bought "Space Ghost", since I hadn't seen it since the sixties. That
was a letdown, a lot of repetition and not a lot to the an episode, yet
I bought it in part since I did enjoy it before I turned ten.

I admit that in both cases, the fact that they were complete in one set,
and didn't cost much, was a factor. I don't really want to buy a whole
string of volumes, and I'm not sure I'd be good at choosing a
representative season.

"Search" would fit that. I watched it, but don't have a lot of memory
about it, couldn't tell you about any specific episode. It had a short
run, it should be on one release. It's been long enough that it would
be tempting to see it again.

Michael
James Sidbury
2010-08-27 15:35:21 UTC
Permalink
I'd like the more recent series' of "The Tomorrow People". To me it was
much more enjoyable than the original ones.
Jerry Brown
2010-08-27 20:21:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:35:21 -0400, James Sidbury
Post by James Sidbury
I'd like the more recent series' of "The Tomorrow People". To me it was
much more enjoyable than the original ones.
There's a fairly bare-bones Region 2 release, if your player can
handle that.

Personally I preferred the early seasons of the original version, and
that is on R2 as well.

Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

<http://www.jwbrown.co.uk>
Arthur Lipscomb
2010-08-27 23:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Brown
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:35:21 -0400, James Sidbury
Post by James Sidbury
I'd like the more recent series' of "The Tomorrow People". To me it was
much more enjoyable than the original ones.
There's a fairly bare-bones Region 2 release, if your player can
handle that.
Personally I preferred the early seasons of the original version, and
that is on R2 as well.
Jerry Brown
--
The original version was released in Region 1. I saw the new version when
it first came out and wouldn't mind seeing it again. I saw the originals
for the first time a few years ago when they were released on DVD. I've
been tempted to buy them a few times; a new release with new features would
definitely add to that temptation.
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-27 16:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by Micky DuPree
_Colditz_, the early-70s BBC TV series, not the miniseries nor the
movie.
_Search_, the early-70s US TV series.
I'd be more inclined to buy that on DVD than something that has aired
recently and even been in syndicated reruns.
I can't get excited about The Simpsons on DVD, for instance, since I've
seen most episodes so many times.
But of the few TV series I've bought on DVD, they are all from long in
the past, and I haven't seen them in reruns in decades.
So I bought "Jonny Quest", I'm not even sure if I'd seen it before
I got the DVD, none of it was familiar and while I remember ads for it,
I don't remember watching it. So it was a whole new experience for me.
And? Was it good for you?
Post by Michael Black
I bought "Space Ghost", since I hadn't seen it since the sixties. That
was a letdown, a lot of repetition and not a lot to the an episode, yet
I bought it in part since I did enjoy it before I turned ten.
I admit that in both cases, the fact that they were complete in one set,
and didn't cost much, was a factor. I don't really want to buy a whole
string of volumes, and I'm not sure I'd be good at choosing a
representative season.
"Search" would fit that. I watched it, but don't have a lot of memory
about it, couldn't tell you about any specific episode. It had a short
run, it should be on one release. It's been long enough that it would
be tempting to see it again.
The only eps I've ever seen online of it were from a Canadian airing.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Jerry Brown
2010-08-27 22:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
"Search" would fit that. I watched it, but don't have a lot of memory
about it, couldn't tell you about any specific episode. It had a short
run, it should be on one release. It's been long enough that it would
be tempting to see it again.
I can remember a couple of episodes from when it was shown in the UK
in the seventies; one where the agent-of-the-week was kidnapped and
dumped on an island with his ear implant altered to torture him
periodically, and another where Burgess Meredith was kidnapped and
agent-of-the-week had to locate and rescue him (odd that the only
stories I can remember involved kidnappings of the regulars). It was
retitled "Search Control" here, most likely because there already a UK
show called "Search".

I have a VHS of the original pilot, Probe, from a nineties TV
reshowing. Hugh O'Brian was the lead, and John Giegud of all people
guest starred. Must transfer to DVD at some point. Great Dominic
Frontiere theme tune.

Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

<http://www.jwbrown.co.uk>
Dry Gulch Pete
2010-08-27 14:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
Curry and Chips by Johnny Speight with Spike Milligan, Eric Sykes and
Sam Kydd - six half-hour colour episodes when ITV went colour in the
fall of 1969.

I bet it's *still* funny!
trag
2010-08-27 15:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
I don't care about delux. I just wish that that the second season of
"Ned & Stacy" (Will & Grace before there was Will & Grace) would make
it to DVD. Similarly for seasons 2+ of "Who's the Boss".
Wingnut
2010-08-28 02:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
I don't care about delux. I just wish that that the second season of
"Ned & Stacy" (Will & Grace before there was Will & Grace) would make it
to DVD. Similarly for seasons 2+ of "Who's the Boss".
I think the reason there's a lot of only-season-1 DVD series out there is
because they release the first season, but only commit to mastering and
pressing discs for later seasons if the first one sells at all well.

So if a show doesn't do well on DVD, the first season is all you'll see.
Rkprcg ivn Ovggbeerag.
Harold Groot
2010-08-28 03:52:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:52:57 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by trag
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
I don't care about delux. I just wish that that the second season of
"Ned & Stacy" (Will & Grace before there was Will & Grace) would make it
to DVD. Similarly for seasons 2+ of "Who's the Boss".
I think the reason there's a lot of only-season-1 DVD series out there is
because they release the first season, but only commit to mastering and
pressing discs for later seasons if the first one sells at all well.
So if a show doesn't do well on DVD, the first season is all you'll see.
Well, then, obviously we need a Deluxe edition of WORMHOLE X-TREME!
(It was cancelled VERY quickly - but I understand the DVD sales were
surprisingly good....)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole_X-Treme!
lugnut
2010-08-28 15:07:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:52:57 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by trag
Post by Joe
Irrespective whether any former or current TV show/s mentioned already
available on DVD or Blu ray (but you reckon its release could've
included a lot more in the way of extras), or still isn't available,
what greatly admired TV shows would you love seeing get a deluxe DVD
release.
I don't care about delux. I just wish that that the second season of
"Ned & Stacy" (Will & Grace before there was Will & Grace) would make it
to DVD. Similarly for seasons 2+ of "Who's the Boss".
I think the reason there's a lot of only-season-1 DVD series out there is
because they release the first season, but only commit to mastering and
pressing discs for later seasons if the first one sells at all well.
So if a show doesn't do well on DVD, the first season is all you'll see.
Rkprcg ivn Ovggbeerag.
Which is understandable, but I think the 1st-season-test-run practice
hurts a lot of longer-running shows where the 1st season was not
nearly as good or not very representative of the rest of the series.
Not to mention that lots of people started holding off on buying the
S1 DVDs to wait and see if any other seasons would be released too so
they'd be less likely to get burned again by another
"one-season-wonder."

I'm surprised the studios haven't really begun using the
"burn-on-demand" market for TV series yet, since it'd be a great way
for people to finally get their shows without the studios having to
gamble on a large print run.

-lugnut
Snarktopus
2010-08-28 15:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harold Groot
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:52:57 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
[snip]
Birds of a feather?
Tim
2010-08-28 15:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snarktopus
Post by Harold Groot
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:52:57 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
[snip]
Birds of a feather?
Flock together?
Extravagan
2010-08-28 15:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snarktopus
Post by Harold Groot
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:52:57 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
[snip]
Birds of a feather?
I knew it! This newsgroup is the internet equivalent of a funny farm.
And here I am, the only guard watching all the inmates.
--
"I hope there are a lot of hardcore scenes in it. There should be more
of those in film and theatre as well." -- Stephen Newport in
<6880-4C73775E-***@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/677328fcf9d66063
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...