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.
Jack Bohn
2010-08-30 00:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
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?
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.
As someone who knows anime, let me 'splain.

(I'll start by saying that the Japanese word "anime" refers to any
cartoon, while the American word "anime" means a cartoon made in
Japan, by Japanese creators, for a Japanese audience.)

As you might guess, anime fans are true fanatics. Plus, many fall
into that age group where they can now afford to buy the stuff they
longed for back when they were penniless kids. One final ingredient
is that their experience has been that anime is that HAS to be
acquired to be watched (tape trading back in the day) even now less
than 10% of the anime series on DVD in the store have ever been
broadcast on American TV. Combine all three, and it seems like a
desirable audience to sell to.
--
-Jack
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-30 00:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Bohn
As someone who knows anime, let me 'splain.
(I'll start by saying that the Japanese word "anime" refers to any
cartoon, while the American word "anime" means a cartoon made in
Japan, by Japanese creators, for a Japanese audience.)
Why is the Japanese word a French word?

I thought the Japanese wouldn't refer to animation produced by a studio
elsewhere in the world as anime.
Jack Bohn
2010-08-30 02:51:59 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:57:31 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Jack Bohn
As someone who knows anime, let me 'splain.
(I'll start by saying that the Japanese word "anime" refers to any
cartoon, while the American word "anime" means a cartoon made in
Japan, by Japanese creators, for a Japanese audience.)
Why is the Japanese word a French word?
I'm told (and find it easier to believe) that the Japanese adopted and
adapted the English word "animation," coincidentally converging with
the French word.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I thought the Japanese wouldn't refer to animation produced by a studio
elsewhere in the world as anime.
Again, I'm told they do: The Simpsons, Asterix, Akira, Betty Boop; all
"anime" to them. (All "cartoons" to me.)
--
-Jack
David Johnston
2010-08-30 03:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Bohn
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:57:31 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Jack Bohn
As someone who knows anime, let me 'splain.
(I'll start by saying that the Japanese word "anime" refers to any
cartoon, while the American word "anime" means a cartoon made in
Japan, by Japanese creators, for a Japanese audience.)
Why is the Japanese word a French word?
I'm told (and find it easier to believe) that the Japanese adopted and
adapted the English word "animation," coincidentally converging with
the French word.
TThe Japanese adopted the word "anime" because France was and is a
gigantic market for their cartoons long before they made much headway
in English speaking countries.
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I thought the Japanese wouldn't refer to animation produced by a studio
elsewhere in the world as anime.
Again, I'm told they do: The Simpsons, Asterix, Akira, Betty Boop; all
"anime" to them. (All "cartoons" to me.)
That is true. In Japan "anime" just means "cartoon".
Angus Rodgers
2010-08-30 03:34:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:51:59 -0400, Jack Bohn
Post by Jack Bohn
I'm told (and find it easier to believe) that the Japanese adopted and
adapted the English word "animation," coincidentally converging with
the French word.
Unless somebody has been having me on:

yubotu = "U-boat" = submarine!
aisukurimu = ice cream!
--
Angus Rodgers
Wingnut
2010-08-30 04:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angus Rodgers
Post by Jack Bohn
I'm told (and find it easier to believe) that the Japanese adopted and
adapted the English word "animation," coincidentally converging with the
French word.
yubotu = "U-boat" = submarine!
aisukurimu = ice cream!
Interesting the way a "u" got added after every consonant that wasn't
followed immediately by a vowel.
David Johnston
2010-08-30 04:32:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:25:31 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by Angus Rodgers
Post by Jack Bohn
I'm told (and find it easier to believe) that the Japanese adopted and
adapted the English word "animation," coincidentally converging with the
French word.
yubotu = "U-boat" = submarine!
aisukurimu = ice cream!
Interesting the way a "u" got added after every consonant that wasn't
followed immediately by a vowel.
It's just a rule of Japanese.
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
2010-08-29 14:09:40 UTC
Permalink
If 'Vampire Diaries' is forevervavailable 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.
That's your (objectively unmeasurable) opinion.

And you somewhat disingenuously picked 'Vampire Diaries' for your
example, which no one would care about.

Let's switch it to the Mona Lisa or the Pieta or "War and Peace" or
Symphony No. 5 in C minor. Plenty of people, whose subjective opinion is
just as valid as your own, feel that society would indeed be worse off
if those works had been copyrighted, locked away in vaults, never to be
seen again, by the descendants of their creators.
David Johnston
2010-08-29 16:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
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.
I would argue the converse. But then I consider entertanment to be a
benefit to society.
Obveeus
2010-08-29 17:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
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.
I would argue the converse. But then I consider entertanment to be a
benefit to society.
Entertainment isn't being removed from society. If something (episodes of
Vampire Diaries from 30 years earlier) doesn't exist on TV in reruns, then
something else will be shown instead. Society/culture goes on independent
of any of these copyrighted works and I find it quite silly for someone to
make the claim that culture/society is somehow better off with a painting of
the Mona Lisa rather than with any other painting of a woman's face. We are
talking about 'entertainment' value here and nothing more.
Barry Margolin
2010-08-29 17:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
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.
I would argue the converse. But then I consider entertanment to be a
benefit to society.
Entertainment isn't being removed from society. If something (episodes of
Vampire Diaries from 30 years earlier) doesn't exist on TV in reruns, then
something else will be shown instead. Society/culture goes on independent
of any of these copyrighted works and I find it quite silly for someone to
make the claim that culture/society is somehow better off with a painting of
the Mona Lisa rather than with any other painting of a woman's face. We are
talking about 'entertainment' value here and nothing more.
But some things are arguably more important to society than others.
Sure, something can easily replace "Vampire Diaries" or "Boom Boom Pow",
but will there ever be another Shakespeare or Beethoven?
--
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 17:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Obveeus
Entertainment isn't being removed from society. If something (episodes of
Vampire Diaries from 30 years earlier) doesn't exist on TV in reruns, then
something else will be shown instead. Society/culture goes on independent
of any of these copyrighted works and I find it quite silly for someone to
make the claim that culture/society is somehow better off with a painting of
the Mona Lisa rather than with any other painting of a woman's face. We are
talking about 'entertainment' value here and nothing more.
But some things are arguably more important to society than others.
'Arguably' being the key word. This is very similar to the 'back inmy day'
music was better, tv shows were better, movis were better, etc... stuff.
Post by Barry Margolin
Sure, something can easily replace "Vampire Diaries" or "Boom Boom Pow",
but will there ever be another Shakespeare or Beethoven?
Shakespeare is exactly on par with the vampire craze of today. Beethoven is
harder to measure because music style has changed so much (whereas plays
about family tragedy are still about the same today), but claiming that
Beethoven is somehow 'greater'/'better'/'more meaningful to society' than
Paul McCartney is nothing more than an argument for personal preference.

I maintain that 'society'/'culture' will not fall apart in the absense of
any of these pieces of entertainment. What is wrong with the idea that
those pieces of work that do continue to entertain people should continue to
be paid for? No one is being forced to pay and, if the price is 'too high',
people are perfectly free not to pay (and, no, it won't 'harm' them at all
to do without the piece of work they feel isn't worth paying for).
Wingnut
2010-08-30 03:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Barry Margolin
Sure, something can easily replace "Vampire Diaries" or "Boom Boom
Pow", but will there ever be another Shakespeare or Beethoven?
Shakespeare is exactly on par with the vampire craze of today.
Better not let Newport hear you say that.
Post by Obveeus
I maintain that 'society'/'culture' will not fall apart in the absense
of any of these pieces of entertainment. What is wrong with the idea
that those pieces of work that do continue to entertain people should
continue to be paid for?
The idea that artists, and artists alone, peculiarly deserve to be paid
over and over again and even given a gravy trail for their kids and
grandkids, for work they did once.
Post by Obveeus
No one is being forced to pay and, if the price is 'too high', people
are perfectly free not to pay (and, no, it won't 'harm' them at all to
do without the piece of work they feel isn't worth paying for).
That is true in a competitive marketplace, but not in the presence of
monopoly pricing, and in this particular instance we see some of the most
egregious monopoly pricing one ever will see (sometimes over 3000% markup
over marginal cost!), so your argument falls flat.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-30 03:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wingnut
The idea that artists, and artists alone, peculiarly deserve to be paid
over and over again and even given a gravy trail for their kids and
grandkids, for work they did once.
Not artists. Authors. Artists may be paid for repeats of their perfomances,
but not if someone else performs. There's a difference although it's
similar.
Wingnut
2010-08-30 04:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wingnut
The idea that artists, and artists alone, peculiarly deserve to be paid
over and over again and even given a gravy trail for their kids and
grandkids, for work they did once.
Not artists. Authors. Artists may be paid for repeats of their
perfomances, but not if someone else performs. There's a difference
although it's similar.
By "artists" I meant to include all creators of copyrighted works,
written, musical, painted, or whatever. For the most part they (can) get
royalties; some (specifically performers) seem to be excepted in that
particular role (but if they also write, or whatever...)
David Johnston
2010-08-29 17:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
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.
I would argue the converse. But then I consider entertanment to be a
benefit to society.
Entertainment isn't being removed from society.
Sure it is. We can see that from the number of versions of public
domain works we see.
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.
Obveeus
2010-08-29 17:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
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.
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
David Johnston
2010-08-29 17:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
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.
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
Obveeus
2010-08-29 19:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
No it isn't. It is simply exchanged for something else that will be 'part
of culture' instead.
David Johnston
2010-08-29 19:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
No it isn't. It is simply exchanged for something else
Hey, why bother having a rule against killing people? They'll be
replaced by new people, you know.
Obveeus
2010-08-29 19:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
No it isn't. It is simply exchanged for something else
Hey, why bother having a rule against killing people? They'll be
replaced by new people, you know.
Not a logical comparison/conclusion on your part.
David Johnston
2010-08-29 20:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
No it isn't. It is simply exchanged for something else
Hey, why bother having a rule against killing people? They'll be
replaced by new people, you know.
Not a logical comparison/conclusion on your part.
But they will! We won't have lost anything!
Obveeus
2010-08-29 20:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up
society
/
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
No it isn't. It is simply exchanged for something else
Hey, why bother having a rule against killing people? They'll be
replaced by new people, you know.
Not a logical comparison/conclusion on your part.
But they will! We won't have lost anything!
Your argument that you are 'owed' this content (and additionally that it is
'unfair' for the content to cost anything) is already illogical. The fact
that you want to extend the argument to a claim that culture/society are
injured/destroyed by any restriction to this content is even more illogical.
Now, claiming that 'killing people' is on par with corporate restrictions on
using copyrighted material is your next 'logical' step?
David Johnston
2010-08-29 20:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up
society
/
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
No it isn't. It is simply exchanged for something else
Hey, why bother having a rule against killing people? They'll be
replaced by new people, you know.
Not a logical comparison/conclusion on your part.
But they will! We won't have lost anything!
Your argument that you are 'owed' this content
I never made any such argument.

(and additionally that it is
Post by Obveeus
'unfair' for the content to cost anything) is already illogical. The fact
that you want to extend the argument to a claim that culture/society are
injured/destroyed by any restriction to this content is even more illogical.
I never made such a claim.
Extravagan
2010-08-29 22:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Your argument that you are 'owed' this content (and additionally that it is
'unfair' for the content to cost anything) is already illogical.
Your argument that it is 'unfair' for people to get the content at only
its marginal cost is the one that's illogical.

Your argument that monopoly gives greater benefits to society and boosts
innovation relative to a competitive marketplace is the one that's
illogical (and goes against every major scientific result on the subject
and even against several basic principles of economics).
--
"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
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-29 19:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
No it isn't. It is simply exchanged for something else
Hey, why bother having a rule against killing people? They'll be
replaced by new people, you know.
There's no evidence that Obveeeeeeus grasps sarcasm.
Wingnut
2010-08-30 03:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up
society / culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
No it isn't. It is simply exchanged for something else
Hey, why bother having a rule against killing people? They'll be
replaced by new people, you know.
There's no evidence that Obveeeeeeus grasps sarcasm.
Or reductio ad absurdum arguments.
Dimensional Traveler
2010-08-29 22:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
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.
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
David Johnston
2010-08-29 22:44:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:37:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
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.
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Since it wasn't always locked up, no.
Obveeus
2010-08-29 23:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:37:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Since it wasn't always locked up, no.
Does being part of 1920's culture/society give people from the 2020's world
a 'right' to see it as well?
Thanatos
2010-08-30 01:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:37:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Since it wasn't always locked up, no.
Does being part of 1920's culture/society give people from the 2020's world
a 'right' to see it as well?
It ought to.
Obveeus
2010-08-30 01:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:37:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Since it wasn't always locked up, no.
Does being part of 1920's culture/society give people from the 2020's world
a 'right' to see it as well?
It ought to.
Why?
Wingnut
2010-08-30 03:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:37:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Since it wasn't always locked up, no.
Does being part of 1920's culture/society give people from the 2020's world
a 'right' to see it as well?
It ought to.
Why?
Why not?

I ask why not in all seriousness. That which is not forbidden with strong
justification ought to be allowed. Please provide such a strong
justification or retract your (implied) assertion.

Or put another way the burden of proof is not on those asking for a
freedom of their own but on those asking for a restriction upon others.
Thanatos
2010-08-30 04:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:37:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Since it wasn't always locked up, no.
Does being part of 1920's culture/society give people from the 2020's world
a 'right' to see it as well?
It ought to.
Why?
Actually, it's up to you to justify why not. If you want the government
to restrict my freedom, you have to provide a compelling rationale for
doing so. It's not up to me to justify why I should be free to do
something in the first place.
Thanatos
2010-08-30 01:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
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.
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Not true at all. A movie could have been popular back in the 50s, and in
doing so become part of the shared culture, but if no one ever gets to
see it again, then it's lost to the ages.
Dimensional Traveler
2010-08-30 02:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
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.
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Not true at all. A movie could have been popular back in the 50s, and in
doing so become part of the shared culture, but if no one ever gets to
see it again, then it's lost to the ages.
Removing copyright won't change the fact that things get lost to the ages.
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Wingnut
2010-08-30 03:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
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.
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up
society / culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Not true at all. A movie could have been popular back in the 50s, and
in doing so become part of the shared culture, but if no one ever gets
to see it again, then it's lost to the ages.
Removing copyright won't change the fact that things get lost to the ages.
That paints it as a black-and-white matter: either some things get lost
or no things get lost. But it's not: fewer things may get lost in one
case and more in the other.
Thanatos
2010-08-30 04:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
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.
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Not true at all. A movie could have been popular back in the 50s, and in
doing so become part of the shared culture, but if no one ever gets to
see it again, then it's lost to the ages.
Removing copyright won't change the fact that things get lost to the ages.
No, but it'll sure help.

(And I'm not suggesting we "remove copyright". I'm merely advocating
that the length of the current terms, which are constantly either being
extended or under consideration for extension, are ridiculously long.)
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-30 04:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
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.
A piece of work not being available does not in any way lock up society /
culture.
Untrue. That part of culture is lost.
If its locked up, it never became part of "culture" in the first place.
Not true at all. A movie could have been popular back in the 50s, and in
doing so become part of the shared culture, but if no one ever gets to
see it again, then it's lost to the ages.
Removing copyright won't change the fact that things get lost to the ages.
No, but it'll sure help.
(And I'm not suggesting we "remove copyright". I'm merely advocating
that the length of the current terms, which are constantly either being
extended or under consideration for extension, are ridiculously long.)
We weren't discussing no copyright protection, just a far more limited
term than we have now, removing the protection after some shorter time.
Dimensional Traveler
2010-08-29 22:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
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.
So?
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Obveeus
2010-08-29 22:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
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.
So?
Exactly. I'm not sure how society/culture is 'locked up' simply because it
doesn't have access to some specific work of entertainment. Society/culture
will go on just fine with or without access to any particular piece of work.
David Johnston
2010-08-29 22:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
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.
So?
Exactly. I'm not sure how society/culture is 'locked up' simply because it
doesn't have access to some specific work of entertainment. Society/culture
will go on just fine with or without access to any particular piece of work.
Just as it will get along just fine with or without the life of any
given human being?
Obveeus
2010-08-29 23:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Exactly. I'm not sure how society/culture is 'locked up' simply because it
doesn't have access to some specific work of entertainment.
Society/culture
will go on just fine with or without access to any particular piece of work.
Just as it will get along just fine with or without the life of any
given human being?
You have already established that you think killing people is the same as
denying them the ability to watch an episode of Vampire Diaries. No need to
keep repeating yourself.
David Johnston
2010-08-29 23:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Exactly. I'm not sure how society/culture is 'locked up' simply because it
doesn't have access to some specific work of entertainment.
Society/culture
will go on just fine with or without access to any particular piece of work.
Just as it will get along just fine with or without the life of any
given human being?
You have already established that you think killing people is the same as
denying them the ability to watch an episode of Vampire Diaries.
No, I think killing people is a greater loss. You on the other hand,
are arguing that if something can be replaced, then it is no loss at
all.
Obveeus
2010-08-30 01:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Exactly. I'm not sure how society/culture is 'locked up' simply because it
doesn't have access to some specific work of entertainment.
Society/culture
will go on just fine with or without access to any particular piece of work.
Just as it will get along just fine with or without the life of any
given human being?
You have already established that you think killing people is the same as
denying them the ability to watch an episode of Vampire Diaries.
No, I think killing people is a greater loss. You on the other hand,
are arguing that if something can be replaced, then it is no loss at
all.
Nice smoke screen, but quite clearly you are the one repeatedly claiming
'killing a person' is no different than refusing to give away the cartoon
figure you created because both are a 'loss'.
David Johnston
2010-08-30 02:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Exactly. I'm not sure how society/culture is 'locked up' simply because it
doesn't have access to some specific work of entertainment.
Society/culture
will go on just fine with or without access to any particular piece of work.
Just as it will get along just fine with or without the life of any
given human being?
You have already established that you think killing people is the same as
denying them the ability to watch an episode of Vampire Diaries.
No, I think killing people is a greater loss. You on the other hand,
are arguing that if something can be replaced, then it is no loss at
all.
Nice smoke screen, but quite clearly you are the one repeatedly claiming
'killing a person' is no different than refusing to give away the cartoon
figure you created because both are a 'loss'.
And why would you think that?
Wingnut
2010-08-30 03:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Exactly. I'm not sure how society/culture is 'locked up' simply because it
doesn't have access to some specific work of entertainment.
Society/culture
will go on just fine with or without access to any particular piece of work.
Just as it will get along just fine with or without the life of any
given human being?
You have already established that you think killing people is the same
as denying them the ability to watch an episode of Vampire Diaries.
No, I think killing people is a greater loss. You on the other hand,
are arguing that if something can be replaced, then it is no loss at
all.
Nice smoke screen, but quite clearly you are the one repeatedly claiming
'killing a person' is no different than refusing to give away the
cartoon figure you created because both are a 'loss'.
No; ALL he's claiming is that both are a loss.

And now you have conceded that locking up "intellectual property" IS a
loss.
Thanatos
2010-08-30 00:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
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.
So?
Exactly. I'm not sure how society/culture is 'locked up' simply because it
doesn't have access to some specific work of entertainment. Society/culture
will go on just fine with or without access to any particular piece of work.
No one is claiming it won't "go on". I'm not sure what you're even
arguing there. That somehow everyone will just freeze in place or
something?

Of course it will "go on", just that some of society's best works will
be lost forever.
Thanatos
2010-08-30 00:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
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.
So?
So those people who care about preserving a shared culture think that's
bad.
Obveeus
2010-08-30 01:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Thanatos
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.
So?
So those people who care about preserving a shared culture think that's
bad.
'Preserve a shared culture'? Sounds more like 'exploit a former culture'.
Wingnut
2010-08-30 03:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
Post by Thanatos
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.
So?
So those people who care about preserving a shared culture think that's
bad.
'Preserve a shared culture'? Sounds more like 'exploit a former culture'.
What are you, the culture equivalent of a deathist? Cultures should die,
fading eventually from memory? Why?

You are aware of the old adage that those who do not learn from history
are doomed to repeat it, aren't you? There's a damn good reason to
preserve all knowledge and literature down the ages.
Thanatos
2010-08-30 04:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Thanatos
Post by Thanatos
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.
So?
So those people who care about preserving a shared culture think that's
bad.
'Preserve a shared culture'? Sounds more like 'exploit a former culture'.
I guess if you consider my viewing the Mona Lisa as an exploitation of
it, sure.
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.
David Johnston
2010-08-29 16:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
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.
I don't actually agree. I don't think that writers and composers were
as productive before they could make a living doing it.
Obveeus
2010-08-29 17:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
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.
Good to see that you agree/admit that copyrights have not limited the
creative production of art, music, or literature in any way.
Post by David Johnston
I don't actually agree. I don't think that writers and composers were
as productive before they could make a living doing it.
the Mozart types did make their livings doing it, though. Sure, there were
the Van Gogh types that only became big after death, but most of those
cultural icons had patronage (a form of pay) that allowed them to 'create'
all day while being well fed, well clothed, and invited to all the best
homes/parties.
David Johnston
2010-08-29 17:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
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.
Good to see that you agree/admit that copyrights have not limited the
creative production of art, music, or literature in any way.
Post by David Johnston
I don't actually agree. I don't think that writers and composers were
as productive before they could make a living doing it.
the Mozart types did make their livings doing it, though.
Thanks to royalty being willing to act as their patrons. It was a
much more restricted revenue source.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-29 18:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
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.
Good to see that you agree/admit that copyrights have not limited the
creative production of art, music, or literature in any way.
Post by David Johnston
I don't actually agree. I don't think that writers and composers were
as productive before they could make a living doing it.
the Mozart types did make their livings doing it, though.
Thanks to royalty being willing to act as their patrons. It was a
much more restricted revenue source.
Not throughout his entire adult life. You're thinking of Hayden.

Bach didn't have princely patronage.
Wingnut
2010-08-30 03:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
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.
Good to see that you agree/admit that copyrights have not limited the
creative production of art, music, or literature in any way.
Again, the onus is on those restricting others or proposing to restrict
others to prove their case for said restrictions benefiting society (not
just themselves, or one industry sector, or some particular small group
of people however defined and whatever their talents).

If copyright has little to no effect *either* way on "promoting the
progress" but does restrict people and inflate various prices then
copyright ought to go away. If copyright does increase the creative works
produced up to a length x (likely around 2 years at most), and further
lengthening it fails to further increase works (or shows very steeply
diminishing returns, or even starts to *decrease* works by interfering
with the creation of derivative works and other works that reference
earlier works), then it should be no longer than length x.
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
I don't actually agree. I don't think that writers and composers were
as productive before they could make a living doing it.
the Mozart types did make their livings doing it, though. Sure, there
were the Van Gogh types that only became big after death, but most of
those cultural icons had patronage (a form of pay) that allowed them to
'create' all day while being well fed, well clothed, and invited to all
the best homes/parties.
Thus proving that alternative business models exist besides "restrict
copying and deriving, and charge for the privilege of doing so".
Thanatos's links to Techdirt lead one quickly to a veritable cornucopia
of additional business models. And then there's always compulsory
licensing.
Dimensional Traveler
2010-08-29 22:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
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.
So they shouldn't be rewarded for adding to our culture? Copyright
should be revoked as soon as something becomes popular and/or widely
recognized?
Post by Thanatos
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.
Before copyright, creative individuals found benefactors who would pay
them to produce material for the benefactor's personal pleasure.
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
David Johnston
2010-08-30 01:27:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:30:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thanatos
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.
So they shouldn't be rewarded for adding to our culture?
In Mickey Mouse's case, everyone who actually played a roll in doing
that is long since dead.
David Johnston
2010-08-29 16:25:51 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?
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.
What's the reason Robin Hood is great?
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
Thanatos
2010-08-29 14:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Why should I be able to use your characters without your permission, or
you mine?
Why should you continue to get paid for work you did decades ago? Or
even worse, why should your great-grandson get paid for work he didn't
even do, just because he's distantly related to you? Or even worse than
that, the attitude of the entertainment industry that I should have to
pay them over and over for the same thing, every time I move content
I've already paid for once onto another medium.

I don't get to do that any of that. When I go to work, I get paid *once*
for what I do. (As do the vast majority of people in society.) I don't
get royalties for the eight hours I put in back on March 12, 1997, nor
do I get to control what people do with the product I produce once they
buy it. Nor do my heirs get to demand a continuing stream of revenue off
that work long after I'm gone. Yet the entertainment community seems to
think they're entitled as a matter of natural right to get paid forever
for work they did once, and to control what everyone else does with it
until the end of time.

A few weeks back, composer Jason Robert Brown had a debate with a young
fan of his that went viral, concerning the reasonableness of sharing
digital copies of his sheet music online. One of things he said to her
was this:

"I've got bills to pay and I don't pay them by working at a
hedge fund. If I were to die tomorrow, the lifestyle that
I have built up for my family would be severely endangered,
but at least the continuing royalties from the performances
of my shows might pay for my childrens' college educations."

This statement made me chuckle, because if he *did* work at a hedge
fund, well, then his family wouldn't continue to get his salary if he
died suddenly. Brown (and others in the entertainment industry) totally
ignore this fact with an incredible sense of entitlement. They think
that for some reason, because this is how they feed their families, it
has to continue and the government has to make sure that it does through
force of law. Yet no one else has that kind of legal protection for
their livelihoods. Just them.

If you want to read the full exchange, it can found here. It's actually
a pretty good read with good points on both sides.

http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2010/06/fighting_with_teenagers_a_
copy.php
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
No one's taking anything away from anyone. IP is an infinite good, not a
scarce one.
Post by Anim8rFSK
Being stupid or short sighted or incompetent or just plain onery
shouldn't be grounds for losing your property rights.
But copyright is not a property right (although I'll grant that the
modern courts have bastardized the concept so much that it currently
resembles one). Copyright is an artificial monopoly granted for limited
period of time as a trade off in order to "promote the progress of
science and the useful arts", per the Constitution.

It is not your right to get every possible penny from your work. That's
the European copyright system. Rather, our system is designed that you
get enough to create, which promotes progress. But money that does not
go toward promoting progress is not an entitlement.

As Alex Feerst (professor of IP Law at Stanford Law School) argues, one
thing that needs to happen is that the copyright system needs to stop
conflating two issues ­ payment and ownership/control of copies. These
should be conceptually separated. They are connected under our current
system, but they are not naturally or necessarily connected. If we could
imagine other ways for an artist, e.g., a songwriter, for example, to
get paid for his work (maybe we can't, but assume for argument's sake we
can), then whether or not people "take" the song is beside the point.
The artist only wants to stop people from taking things because he needs
to get paid. If he got an acceptable income from his work, he would
probably not care about who plays or doesn't play his song. This is
because, unlike a screwdriver or other tangible good, it is not bound by
physical world zero-sumness. In fact, he'd probably prefer such a system
because he'd get paid and at the same time a greater number of people
would hear his song.
Wingnut
2010-08-30 04:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
It is not your right to get every possible penny from your work. That's
the European copyright system.
Then the European system is *really* horrible and it's no wonder our
media are saturating the world, along with (increasingly) that of other
large industrial nonEuropean countries like India and Japan and even
Canada.

When you entitle one side of some type of transaction to capture 100% of
the surplus value in the exchange, then you force the other side to be
able to gain 0% of the surplus value, and they're left with zero
motivation to engage in the transaction. Normally-functioning markets
have *some* of the surplus value accue to *each* side.
Post by Thanatos
As Alex Feerst (professor of IP Law at Stanford Law School) argues, one
thing that needs to happen is that the copyright system needs to stop
conflating two issues ­ payment and ownership/control of copies. These
should be conceptually separated. They are connected under our current
system, but they are not naturally or necessarily connected. If we could
imagine other ways for an artist, e.g., a songwriter, for example, to
get paid for his work (maybe we can't, but assume for argument's sake we
can), then whether or not people "take" the song is beside the point.
The artist only wants to stop people from taking things because he needs
to get paid. If he got an acceptable income from his work, he would
probably not care about who plays or doesn't play his song. This is
because, unlike a screwdriver or other tangible good, it is not bound by
physical world zero-sumness. In fact, he'd probably prefer such a system
because he'd get paid and at the same time a greater number of people
would hear his song.
Best of all, most non-copyright-dependent business models cause him to
make more money the more his work is shared and copied around, as the
"IP" acts as advertising for whatever actually makes him the money, or in
the case of compulsory licensing schemes or taxpayer subsidies, the money
is apportioned more to artists whose work is most downloaded/whatever.

(Compulsory licensing/subsidy schemes have the problem of "clickfraud"
style gaming of the system though. The best bet for artists right now
would be to find a business model that doesn't rely on those OR on
restricting copying, because, copyright or no copyright, what they
release WILL be pirated online. Business models reliant on restricting
copying aren't helped by piracy, though the evidence thus far is that
they aren't affected much by it at all; business models that use the "IP"
as advertising however benefit from "pirating" of that "IP".)
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-29 17:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
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?
That's not phrased correctly. I don't have the right to use your characters.
You have the privilege of preventing me from using your characters. So the
question to ask is Why should society give you this privilege?
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
I have enjoyed many decades of old time radio. Copyright is fuzzy as very
little of it was set up so that the owners could readily enforce copyright
years later as everyone assumed there was no value beyond the original
broadcast. Because of this anomoly, plenty of us got a lot of pleasure
out of an older form of entertainment that would have been lost to the
world, effectively abandoned by its owners.
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
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.
Glad to hear it. I'm less concerned about formats that might be created for
home video versus somebody doing something to come up with the best possible
master from available source material. Once the master is created, it can
be distributed in cheaper formats.
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
I'd love to have special laws that apply uniquely to me. I'm just as
entitled as anyone else.
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-29 18:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
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?
That's not phrased correctly. I don't have the right to use your characters.
You have the privilege of preventing me from using your characters. So the
question to ask is Why should society give you this privilege?
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
I have enjoyed many decades of old time radio. Copyright is fuzzy as very
little of it was set up so that the owners could readily enforce copyright
years later as everyone assumed there was no value beyond the original
broadcast. Because of this anomoly, plenty of us got a lot of pleasure
out of an older form of entertainment that would have been lost to the
world, effectively abandoned by its owners.
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
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.
Glad to hear it. I'm less concerned about formats that might be created for
home video versus somebody doing something to come up with the best possible
master from available source material. Once the master is created, it can
be distributed in cheaper formats.
But nobody will spend the money to create that master if they can't own
it. Studios will stop preserving their films at all, and just burn the
originals like old Johnny Carson tonight show tapes.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
I'd love to have special laws that apply uniquely to me. I'm just as
entitled as anyone else.
--
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 18:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
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?
That's not phrased correctly. I don't have the right to use your characters.
You have the privilege of preventing me from using your characters. So the
question to ask is Why should society give you this privilege?
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
I have enjoyed many decades of old time radio. Copyright is fuzzy as very
little of it was set up so that the owners could readily enforce copyright
years later as everyone assumed there was no value beyond the original
broadcast. Because of this anomoly, plenty of us got a lot of pleasure
out of an older form of entertainment that would have been lost to the
world, effectively abandoned by its owners.
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
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.
Glad to hear it. I'm less concerned about formats that might be created for
home video versus somebody doing something to come up with the best possible
master from available source material. Once the master is created, it can
be distributed in cheaper formats.
But nobody will spend the money to create that master if they can't own
it. Studios will stop preserving their films at all, and just burn the
originals like old Johnny Carson tonight show tapes.
I'm not impressed. Studios don't do enough to preserve recent shit that's
likely still exploitable, as we've discussed in the B5 threads, and a lot
of preservation work is being done by nonprofits anyway. If it's important
to someone, it'll happen. I think copyright makes it less likely. Maybe
someone would go into the business of cleaning up old works and distributing
copies therefrom profitably. If you want archiving, then change the law
to encourage this specifically, like giving someone who does significant work
a period of exclusivity, as I assume a new master isn't a new work for the
purpose of copyright.

The copyright privilege was never about encouraging the owner to keep anything
intact during the exclusive period.
Anim8rFSK
2010-08-29 23:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
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?
That's not phrased correctly. I don't have the right to use your characters.
You have the privilege of preventing me from using your characters. So the
question to ask is Why should society give you this privilege?
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
I have enjoyed many decades of old time radio. Copyright is fuzzy as very
little of it was set up so that the owners could readily enforce copyright
years later as everyone assumed there was no value beyond the original
broadcast. Because of this anomoly, plenty of us got a lot of pleasure
out of an older form of entertainment that would have been lost to the
world, effectively abandoned by its owners.
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
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.
Glad to hear it. I'm less concerned about formats that might be created for
home video versus somebody doing something to come up with the best possible
master from available source material. Once the master is created, it can
be distributed in cheaper formats.
But nobody will spend the money to create that master if they can't own
it. Studios will stop preserving their films at all, and just burn the
originals like old Johnny Carson tonight show tapes.
I'm not impressed. Studios don't do enough to preserve recent shit that's
likely still exploitable, as we've discussed in the B5 threads, and a lot
of preservation work is being done by nonprofits anyway. If it's important
to someone, it'll happen. I think copyright makes it less likely. Maybe
someone would go into the business of cleaning up old works and distributing
copies therefrom profitably. If you want archiving, then change the law
to encourage this specifically, like giving someone who does significant work
a period of exclusivity, as I assume a new master isn't a new work for the
purpose of copyright.
You would assume incorrectly; the new master is in fact protected in
it's own right.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The copyright privilege was never about encouraging the owner to keep anything
intact during the exclusive period.
--
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
2010-08-30 00:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Anim8rFSK
But nobody will spend the money to create that master if they can't own
it. Studios will stop preserving their films at all, and just burn the
originals like old Johnny Carson tonight show tapes.
I'm not impressed. Studios don't do enough to preserve recent shit that's
likely still exploitable, as we've discussed in the B5 threads, and a lot
of preservation work is being done by nonprofits anyway. If it's important
to someone, it'll happen. I think copyright makes it less likely. Maybe
someone would go into the business of cleaning up old works and distributing
copies therefrom profitably. If you want archiving, then change the law
to encourage this specifically, like giving someone who does significant work
a period of exclusivity, as I assume a new master isn't a new work for the
purpose of copyright.
You would assume incorrectly; the new master is in fact protected in
it's own right.
Is a new master considered a new work for the purpose of the law? In that
case, if the term of copyright were reduced to a more reasonable time
in law, maybe that's the only change necessary.
Dimensional Traveler
2010-08-29 22:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
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
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.
If you can be forced to sell it, you don't own it in the first place.
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Obveeus
2010-08-29 22:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
If you can be forced to sell it, you don't own it in the first place.
Apparently, some people want 'eminent domain' laws to extend to 'stuff they
find entertaining'. I wonder where such a concept that 'culture'/'society'
owns things will end. What if I write a novel, but do not publish it
becasue I didn't want to? Does that still mean that everyone else has a
right to copy it? To read it? To use its characters for other
stories/mediums as they see fit? Has 'culture'/'society' been 'locked up'
if I fail to publish my work?
Adam H. Kerman
2010-08-29 22:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Apparently, some people want 'eminent domain' laws to extend to 'stuff they
find entertaining'. . . .
You're an idiot, Obveeus. Thanks for ruining what might have been an
interesting discussion.
Dimensional Traveler
2010-08-30 02:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
If you can be forced to sell it, you don't own it in the first place.
Apparently, some people want 'eminent domain' laws to extend to 'stuff they
find entertaining'. I wonder where such a concept that 'culture'/'society'
owns things will end. What if I write a novel, but do not publish it
becasue I didn't want to? Does that still mean that everyone else has a
right to copy it? To read it? To use its characters for other
stories/mediums as they see fit? Has 'culture'/'society' been 'locked up'
if I fail to publish my work?
And if you write something and "The People" want you to write more, can
they require you to? And how would that not be slavery?
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Wingnut
2010-08-30 04:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
If you can be forced to sell it, you don't own it in the first place.
Apparently, some people want 'eminent domain' laws to extend to 'stuff
they find entertaining'.
Don't be silly. Eminent domain is if I get the government to seize your
house or something. This is more like if you patented the house, tried to
stop anyone else from building any, and some "pirates" got sick enough of
living in caves that they just started ignoring the silly rule saying
only you got to live in a house (and anyone who paid your exorbitant
"licensing fee" for the privilege). You still get to keep *your* house.
Post by Obveeus
I wonder where such a concept that 'culture'/'society' owns things will
end.
The concept that's troubling is that an individual (or worse, a
corporation) can own an idea and put up a fence around it (or put up a
tollbooth). That's like letting one person fence off little bits of other
people's land, disk drives, brains ...

Nobody's suggesting that society owns things, but rather that ideas
shouldn't/can't be owned at all.
Post by Obveeus
What if I write a novel, but do not publish it becasue I didn't want
to? Does that still mean that everyone else has a right to copy it?
The right to privacy still applies.
Post by Obveeus
Has 'culture'/'society' been 'locked up' if I fail to publish my work?
No, but if you do publish it and then subsequently try to unpublish it
(e.g. take it out of print, forbid anyone else making copies, and stymie
resoration/archival efforts with legal threats), then it has.
Wingnut
2010-08-30 04:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
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?
Why shouldn't we? Once again, the burden of proof is not on one seeking
his own freedom but on one seeking to restrict others.
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
That is all fine and dandy when it's *property* you're talking about,
like a particular chair. But suppose someone wanted to prevent anyone
from having or making any similar chair, or any chairs at all, and not
just to control the exclusive use of his own chair?

This is what happens when you give someone "property-like" "rights" over
*all copies of a thing* and not just over *his own* copies.

Make the term length very short (or even zero) and the problem mostly
goes away though.
Post by Anim8rFSK
Being stupid or short sighted or incompetent or just plain onery
shouldn't be grounds for losing your property rights.
Property rights? Let me tell you about property rights. There are certain
bit patterns I'm forbidden to arrange my own disk drives into because
they'd infringe someone's "property" "rights" in a copyright or a patent
somewhere. Their "property" "rights" tread all over my actual property
rights. And every time a new copyright or patent is issued, that's
slightly less I'm legally allowed to do with a computer I bought and paid
for. It cost $500 new, but bit by bit its actual value is slowly whittled
away by the government taking tiny bits of my property rights in it and
transferring those bits, unconsented-to by me, to assorted inventors and
artists (using those terms very loosely, since the former includes the
author of the one-click patent and the latter the painter of "Voice of
Fire") out of an unsubstantiated belief (with growing *countervailing*
evidence) that doing so encourages inventors and artists.
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
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
Why the hell not? People burn DVDs for fun now. Blu-Ray discs can't be
that far behind, once the technology to author the things comes down in
price and computers, disk drives, and editing tools get a bit beefier in
their capabilities.
Post by Anim8rFSK
There are linear versions of PULP FICTION, too, and boy howdy is it a
lousy movie without that trick.
The original is lousy or the linearized version is lousy?
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
Sit on his own copy? Sure. Including if it's the only copy. Suppress
anyone else from keeping other (already released) copies around,
archiving them, preserving them, and duplicating them? Justify, please.
David Johnston
2010-08-29 16:29:06 UTC
Permalink
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
What was the comic strip?
Wingnut
2010-08-30 03:56:31 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
Why not?
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.
Maybe because most public domain stuff right now is a century old and
only a few old fuddy-duddies like Stephen Newport show much interest in
it. If you had contemporary, recently popular stuff in the public domain
maybe you'd see more activity around that material.
Post by Anim8rFSK
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.
What if they got people who wanted the film restored to chip in? If the
funding thermometer hits its target, work commences; if not, nothing gets
done and the money gets refunded.

What about other business models? Restore popular films for free as a way
of demonstrating film-restoring skills; get hired to do private
restoration jobs on secret government UFO films from the forties or
something, or hired by curators of museums or something.

There's also the taxpayer-funded route: if archiving and restoring
cultural artifacts is important to society it may be worth giving the
mandate to the Library of Congress or something to do such work, or to
fund private restoration efforts.

A privately-administered X prize for the best restoration of film Y also
comes to mind.
Thanatos
2010-08-30 04:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wingnut
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
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.
Maybe because most public domain stuff right now is a century old and
only a few old fuddy-duddies like Stephen Newport show much interest in
it. If you had contemporary, recently popular stuff in the public domain
maybe you'd see more activity around that material.
And then there's also the growing trend of allowing big corporations to
take stuff that already in the public domain and locking it up with
copyright.

Go try and make your own version of The Little Mermaid or Pocahontas,
two stories that have been around for centuries and are (supposedly)
well within the public domain and see what Disney does to you.
David Johnston
2010-08-30 04:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by Wingnut
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
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.
Maybe because most public domain stuff right now is a century old and
only a few old fuddy-duddies like Stephen Newport show much interest in
it. If you had contemporary, recently popular stuff in the public domain
maybe you'd see more activity around that material.
And then there's also the growing trend of allowing big corporations to
take stuff that already in the public domain and locking it up with
copyright.
Go try and make your own version of The Little Mermaid or Pocahontas,
two stories that have been around for centuries and are (supposedly)
well within the public domain and see what Disney does to you.
Not a damn thing. Disney can only sue me if I do a version of "The
Little Mermaid" with talking fish.

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
2010-08-29 16:37:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 04:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by Thanatos
When did the ability to create derivative works become a civil right?
December 15, 1791.
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.
Do you realize that the question you are responding is "Who would ever
have anticipated that the US Constutition would be interpreted so that
Congress could just use its power to set to copyright term length to
longer and longer lengths"? And that you have no evidence that James
Madison intended to repeal the Constitutional provision allowing
Congress to set copyright terms?
Wingnut
2010-08-30 04:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 04:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
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.
Do you realize that the question you are responding is "Who would ever
have anticipated that the US Constutition would be interpreted so that
Congress could just use its power to set to copyright term length to
longer and longer lengths"? And that you have no evidence that James
Madison intended to repeal the Constitutional provision allowing
Congress to set copyright terms?
At that time, copyright covered copying. Period. There was no provision
for restricting creation of "derivative works" at all. Derivative work
creation thus fell squarely under the auspices of free speech and free
speech alone, Constitutionally speaking.

Whichever amendment to copyright law originally added the concept of
derivative works and made their creation an exclusive right was, in my
opinion, unconstitutional, though unfortunately the courts obviously
disagreed.
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
lugnut
2010-08-29 16:04:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:37:35 -0400, Extravagan
Post by Extravagan
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
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/677328fcf9d66063
Sorry to disappoint, but nope, I ain't Wingnut.

-lugnut
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...