CBS Refuses To Preserve Jack Benny Footage 323
goosman writes "The president of the International Jack Benny Fan Club had the opportunity to review some holdings of the CBS vaults while assisting them with some transfers. In the vaults she found 25 shows on film that were unreleased, but in the public domain. The IJBFC offered to pay for the digitization and preservation of these shows; they got a letter of enthusiastic support from the Benny estate. CBS has so far refused to allow this preservation to happen." BoingBoing and TechDirt have both covered this act of cultural destruction.
Management Types... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do these people run things?
Re: (Score:2)
What's kind of weird, and leads to the purposeless drift in modern American business, is that they're also the ones supposedly telling people what to do, so it's a rudderless ship of automatons following other automatons' direction. Oh, sure, technically their bosses are the shareholders, but shareholders in diffuse-ownership companies exert no real control.
Re:Management Types... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of blame to go around. The responsible parties, in order:
It's always painful to see culture, protected TEMPORARILY by the authorizing document (constitution) in order to encourage its creation for EVERYONE'S BENEFIT, destroyed by a government and its minions out of control.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd reverse the order, and tchange it to "big business and its minions, the government": it's not as if politicians care one way or the other, but their paymasters do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everybody but us, huh? You know... the people who elect the politicians who write the laws and appoint the members of the supreme court. Oh.. and continue to make CBS rich. No no no... not us.. we don't have anything to do with it. We are totally blame free. "minions out of control"... just who the hell do you think is responsible for controlling them? God? They aren't out of order... You're out of order!
Re:Management Types... (Score:5, Insightful)
Grow up, this has nothing to do with copyright law.
TFA even says that they're in the public domain. The only thing stopping anyone from preserving this stuff is the fact that the only copies in existence are owned by CBS. CBS owns the medium on which these things are stored and they are perfectly within their rights, even if the constitution prohibited any sort of copyright whatsoever, to refuse to give them to anyone for any reason they damned well feel like.
They're not refusing the right to copy the work(they can't) they're refusing to hand over tape reels which they own to someone else. It's not the right thing for them to do, but it is within their rights, and would be within their rights even if intellectual property were outlawed.
Unpublished works = private property (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA even says that they're in the public domain.
Possibly true, although TFA does not provide much to justify this assertion. The shows were not broadcast (i.e. unpublished), so it is not at all certain that they will enter the public domain. The copyright status was not stated in TFA, which quoted a CBS exec as saying the rights situation was muddled.
If a work is kept private, it need not ever enter the public domain. Its owner may choose to release it, but there is no obligation to do so. If a work is published under copyright, it will eventually enter the public domain (although the wait is appallingly long). If it is published without copyright, it is immediately in the public domain.
From the third-hand information in TFS & TFA, it seems that these shows were not broadcast or released in other form. Unpublished works are private property, so CBS' stance is legally correct, whatever the wishes of others.
Grow up, this has nothing to do with copyright law.
...
...they're refusing to hand over tape reels which they own to someone else. It's not the right thing for them to do, but it is within their rights, and would be within their rights even if intellectual property were outlawed.
And this is what makes the copyright vs public domain issue moot. Even if everyone has the right to copy them, CBS is not a public library and is under no obligation to hand over their tapes. But if they were registered for copyright, should not a copy have been submitted to a library of record (e.g. LOC)?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Either you have absolutely no idea what is going on here or you are just a fucking moron.
1) There are no rights to sign away if CBS allows digital copies of the films to be made because they would already be in the public domain.
2) Why would the company doing the preservation agree to backup and give all materials to CBS? The reason that they offered to make digital copies is so they could release them to the public.
In addition, the GP is exactly correct in what he said. CBS owns the films and they don't ha
Re:Management Types... (Score:4, Interesting)
yeah. I get it.
My point is is that if they were merely interested in preserving the media, CBS would probably be all for it. But (I would bet) there aren't; they want to preserve it, AND release it.
If they were actually interested primarily in preserving a historical artifact, they would agree to do it and allow CBS to retain sole possession. CBS might even sweeten the deal a little and let them have a 160x140 15fps version to release into the wild in return...unless they really are concerned with music copyrights, or something on that line.
Re:Management Types... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually there is another possiblity.
TV (and movie executives) have seroius ramifications if they suffer the 'embarrassment' of releasing something and then someone else making money off of it.
This is a big reason why many execs refuse to even license out a show (which brings in some profit) because no one wants to be branded as an exec that let something 'get away'.
In this case, the VP is probably worried that the preservation might be popular. The probabily of profit is too low for them to do it themselves, but the risk of someone else doing it is too high (with no reward), so the safest option is to let it die.
This is what happened with Invader Zim for instance. Nick did not think it was profitable for them and did not want to produce it, but it wold be career suicide to sell it to another network if it became profitable there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The number of copies was limited because the people who had them never made any copies. These were never broadcast, never sold, there were no copies made. Copyright didn't stop anyone from making copies, the people who made it just didn't make any copies for anyone else.
As I said, even if copyright law didn't exist. Even if owning ideas was banned by the constitution upon pain of death, it wouldn't make any difference in this case. The only known copy of the shows is the copy created by CBS when they filmed
Supreme Court (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's the supreme court's fault that they misuse article III as if it were article V, which it in no way resembles or implies; it's the supreme court's fault that they disobey the constitution on behalf of the entire government; it's the supreme court's fault that the government is operating far outside its constitutionally authorized bounds.
The supreme court set themselves up -- unauthorized by the people -- as those who could re-define the constitution. Then, on top of that, they worked, and are working, to destroy everything it stands for. That's why they're at the top of that list. They enable the congress to make, and keep in force, laws that are explicitly forbidden, or not authorized, by the constitution.
The constitution has one critical flaw: It has no teeth. Violating it, on the part of judges, legislators... there is no penalty. Because of this, they can do whatever they want. And they do. This is why we are suffering under the inversion of the commerce clause. This is why we have ex post facto laws. This is why eight of the ten amendments of the bill of rights have been turned into caricatures of themselves in currently extant law. And this is why copyright law no longer resembles anything even vaguely implied in Article I, section 8, paragraph 8.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I would still blame Congress more, for actually passing the laws, rather than the Supreme Court for failing to invalidate them. Congressmen also swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, which ought to mean not passing unconstitutional laws, even if the Supreme Court would not strike them down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I blame the people of the united states for being witless sheep and not rioting and chasing down congress with torches and pitchforks.
The laws we have are OUR OWN FAULT.
Not that my opinion matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not that my opinion matters (Score:4, Insightful)
You shouldn't degrade people like that. Horse fuckers have feelings too.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You shouldn't degrade horses like that. Horses have feelings too.
Re:Not that my opinion matters (Score:5, Informative)
As a big fan of Jack Benny's work I have to say CBS aren't a bunch of mother fuckers. They're a bunch of horse fuckers.
They can't be both? Mother fuckers don't have to be fucking a human mother.
Re:Not that my opinion matters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not that my opinion matters (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not that my opinion matters (Score:5, Informative)
Pity Johnny Carson is also dead. He and Benny were extremely close, and he would have raised holy hell over this. And the dude had a lot of clout.
Can't get outraged, though. Media conglomerates have already used up most of my outrage, and I want to save what's left for genocide, the Republican party, and other serious stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reasoning behind this from CBS is that any media released that is in the public domain will cause people to being drawn away from watching new things with copyright on that the media business can do money from.
So expect that original footage going out of copyright are going for destruction instead of re-release since they can't make money from it.
Exception would be well-known footage since that would be bad PR.
Benny is great (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the stuff in Looney Tunes / Merry Melodies comes from Benny. And he's the master of timing. It's brilliant.
I best remember him as an mst3k punchline (Score:4, Funny)
Whenever the camera focused on an old-timey radio the bots would call out "The Jack Benny Program!"
I'm double-dating myself, first for referencing mst3k and second for getting the joke. But dating yourself is legal in west virginia.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Uh uh uh, let's see, uhhh.... "That wouldn't be so bad, but it looks like he got stuck with the ugly one."
Oh come on, that was at least a single.
revoke ALL their copyrights (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:revoke ALL their copyrights (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is that they never distributed them. That's like saying that Abraham Lincoln's estate is legally required to make all of his private journals available to you.
I agree that's its a dick move to keep these works locked up, but I think that it would be dangerous to Force people to make their out-of-copyright works available. Copyright provides powerful tools to entities to control their creative works, but some protection is needed afterwards. If I created something privately, then no one should be able to compel me to release just because its copyright is up. Yes, if they have a copy of the work, then they are free to do what they want with it. It's sort of like the GPL; you don't have to opensource your changes, unless you distribute it. If you keep it private, then it's fine. That's how I feel about this; if they want to keep it private, that's fine.
Again, I wouldn't do the same thing if I were in their position, but I certainly understand why they do it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem is these aren't their works, they're Jack Benny's works. They only held the copyright. If the Jack Benny estate supports releasing them then they should be released.
Re:revoke ALL their copyrights (Score:4, Insightful)
Who owns the film? That is really the only question the needs to be answered. If CBS owns it, then there is nothing the fans or anyone else can do other than raise hell till someone listens.
Look, if I owned a classic Picaso painting, just because one of Picaso's theoretical descendants want it digitized would not give them to right to take the painting from me. Copyright only limits what the owner of the media can do when distributing or reproducing it, and it expiring does not suddenly put restrictions on the owners. In fact, all it does to CBS is remove restrictions on what they can do with the film.
Re:revoke ALL their copyrights (Score:4, Insightful)
But nobody here is proposing that your Picasso be taken from you. Some folks just want to hire a professional, at no cost to you (except, perhaps, to be a courteous host) to shoot a picture of it. They want to do this so that more of the world can see the work, not because they'd like to deprive you of your possession, which you would retain.
(Note: I'm not saying that you should let them photograph your hypothetical Picasso, nor am I casting any judgment in the matter. I'm just clarifying your analogy, which fairly reeked of the "copying == stealing" mantra, whether you intended it that way or not.)
Re:revoke ALL their copyrights (Score:4, Insightful)
They only held the copyright.
That makes them their works. I'm with fandingo; they are being supreme jerks about this, but it's their property and they can do as they please with it. Now, if there were copies out there somewhere, those could be legally redistributed (unless the concerns about songs in the skits are correct).
Re:revoke ALL their copyrights (Score:4, Insightful)
If you happen to hold the physical media that the only copy is on, you are its guardian, not its owner.
There is no meaningful discussion that I can have with someone whose concept of property rights encompasses this idea. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Re:revoke ALL their copyrights (Score:5, Interesting)
Your point is well taken if you automatically assume that everything is copyrighted. It technically is today, but not in practice.
Lincoln's estate should not be required to make his journals available because he never sought copyright protection for them. Same goes for your private works.
CBS did seek such protections for their works, therefore, they should be required to make them available if they are the only copies in existence.
If you want the power of copyright, you must release your works (that's the point of copyright), and should be required to make a copy on demand if your copy is the only one available. Preferably we'd have a copy on file at the Library of Congress, but we're not there yet.
Re:revoke ALL their copyrights (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright is automatic. Could you please send me all your old VHS movies which have entered the public domain? I want to copy them.
Re: (Score:2)
The policy used to be the other way...if you had a movie and forgot to include a proper copyright notice, it lapsed into the public domain. There are some famous examples of this such as the movie Charade with Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant.
Therefor you could tell if they sought protection by whether or not
Re:revoke ALL their copyrights (Score:4, Informative)
For some reason, I can't mod you up. I couldn't mod another thread either, FF is acting up. I'll say I support your stance.
As much as I don't agree with it, the content still belongs to CBS. You can't expect me to give up something I own just because the copyright on it has run out if I still own it and have never opened it up for distribution before. If I sold someone a copy at some point, and the copyright expired, they could copy it and distribute it at will, but if I own the only copy and don't want to give it up, I don't - and shouldn't - have to.
CBS is still a bunch of dicks, this much is clear.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a social contract at work
Well, there actually isn't a contract. Copyright provides monopolistic control of a work for a period of time. That is it. The receiver of those benefits has no duty or obligation to do anything when copyright expires.
You are right that CBS is being completely stupid in what it is doing (and I have written to them to complain), but they have no legal obligation to preserve anything.
But since there is no contract, there is no obligation by the people to preserve the length of the copyright protections. C
Re: (Score:2)
That's not at all how public domain works. Should I have all my copyrights to everything I've ever done revoked just because I can't manage to produce a copy of a picture I drew in kindergarten that happens to be public domain now? After all, everything you create automatically has copyright.
Just because it's public domain, that doesn't mean they are required to GIVE you a copy of it, or do anything at all to facilitate that copying. It only means that if you happen to have a copy of it, you can freely dist
Eminent domain (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the federal government could appropriate the masters via eminent domain and make them available through the Library of Congress.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They can probably use the Patriot Act, it can do everything.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the lobbyists will explain to the people in government that if they can't copyright it and make money off it, nobody gets it because it's their property after all and they can do what they want with it. It's not like they have a legal obligation to preservation of history and culture.
What is the point of buying copyright laws if you can't be sure to be able to release
While the material may not be protected... (Score:5, Insightful)
...by copyright, as long as CBS owns the only copies they control it and it is, therefor, not in the public domain. The copies are their property to do with as they see fit.
Re:While the material may not be protected... (Score:5, Insightful)
> The copies are their property to do with as they see fit.
Indeed, and since they have (as yet) not figured out a way to "monetize" these shows, they would, I'm sure, rather see the tapes destroyed rather than release them for consumption in the public domain.
I'm pretty sure this behaviour can be referred to as an act of bastardry.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure this behaviour can be referred to as an act of capitalism.
Re:While the material may not be protected... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why haven't they quoted a price? In capitalism, everything has a price. Also, fans could organize and ask them what their price is, possibly even scrape up some dough and make an offer.
But not sure I like the precedent of rewarding them for being cowardly greedy jerks. So also, or only threaten to sue them if they won't play ball. That can be a credible threat. Anyone can sue for any reason. Even if a suit is tossed out of court, it still costs them. But it may be possible to come up with some
Perfect Example (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a perfect example of all that is wrong with copyright as it exists today. Protection is granted to creators in order to increase works available to the public, not hide them away.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a perfect example of all that is wrong with copyright as it exists today. Protection is granted to creators in order to increase works available to the public, not hide them away.
Eh? The copyright has expired. So what does this have to do with copyright? The only right involved is the right to control your own material possessions (i.e. the physical recordings). That doesn't expire.
Re:Perfect Example (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh?
Just because I've released a binary under protection of copyright, doesn't mean that the source code used to produce that binary should ever become public just because the copyright on the binary has expired.
Your tirade is absurd.
What else do you wish for from Santa Claus? That when copyright on a book expires, all of the author's original notes, manuscripts and sketches become public? Or when copyright on a movie expires, that the script become public? That when the protection expires on an article o
Re:Perfect Example (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a book, you can copy and modify the book, building on it and creating derivative works. If you have a program, you cannot do that without source code. The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create works which can eventually be built upon. If that is impossible then copyright has no purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
The works were never released. What you are asking is the equivalent of breaking into my private residence and gaining access to my grandfather's diaries. They were copyrighted by him the moment he wrote them, and that copyright is now expired. But you can't have them. No sir, fuck off.
Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
CBS claims that there could be music clearance problems--which is an entirely legitimate possibility. The episodes are probably public domain because when they were made copyrights had to be renewed and there's little chance they were renewed. But if the music came from any outside source, it's quite possible that they *did* renew it, leaving the music in copyright today--and leaving CBS liable for serious damages in court if they just give the episodes to some fans to copy. Blame the copyright system, but do not blame CBS.
Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is someone liable for what someone else does with a copy sold or loaned to someone else? If I run down to the local library and make a copy of a CD, is the library on the hook? Definitely not.
CBS can sell or lend their reels to this group and say "oh, by the way, the music might still be copyrighted, so you might want to check on that if you're going to make copies".
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is someone liable for what someone else does with a copy sold or loaned to someone else?
Since the copyright laws were passed. They allow for selling of a portion of rights to parties. What those parties do with the copies, or by their inability to control the material they're entrusted with, what they allow to happen to those copies, can devalue the portions of the rights not entrusted to them. They can be held liable for loss by the owner. Likewise, if the owner allows the portion under their control to be compromised, devaluing the portion they previously sold rights to, they can be held lia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In that case, what does CBS mean by, "there are so many issues with those shows, that even if we took the time to figure it out, we still almost certainly wouldn't do the deal"?
(From TFA, of course.)
Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Replying to my own article because it's even worse than that, as said in a very interesting comment in the boingboing article: apparently
1) the person who started this whole thing sells copies of shows, and they're not all PD.
2) she's a fan who's using this as an excuse to expand her collection.
3) her claim that she was "overseeing the color specials transfer" seems to be a lie.
4) CBS is willing to license these episodes out; they did not, as falsely claimed, say that it would be too much trouble even if they could iron out the legal issues
5) the episodes are not some unique thing that only CBS has copies of
Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed, the slashdot summary *is* wrong. See posting #31 at the BoingBoing article -- a Ms. Laura Leff is a major fan of Jack Benny. She sells both PD & copyrighted Benny shows:
"The 25 Benny shows as well as the full run of the series is stored at CBS in state of the art facilities... CBS is also aware of the fact that Ms. Leff has a library of many existing shows and charges for making copies; dupes of both copywritten and PD shows are offered from her website."
CBS seems to be fairly reasonable; Ms. Leff apparetnly is making much noise for her own benefit.
Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Blame the copyright system, but do not blame CBS.
How much money did CBS contribute towards getting the current copyright laws enacted?
Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong (Score:5, Funny)
We are te public ... (Score:2)
Re:We are te public ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a problem with the current copyright system as well. There is no mandate that a copy be put on file with the Library of Congress so that when the copyright does expire, someone might have access to it.
By my calculations, the copyright on Windows 1.0 expires in 2080. Do you think anyone will have a binary sitting around, much less the source to that program at that date? Highly doubtful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the copyright on Windows 1.0 expires in 2080. Do you think anyone will have a binary sitting around [...] at that date?
For the sake of future generations (and their computers), I certainly hope not.
Re: (Score:2)
The content is yours to copy and redistribute as you wish, once the information is in the public domain. The individual manifestation of that data, be it book, film, whatever, is not covered by copyright and is owned. It's owner, in this case CBS, gets to decide who has access to it.
Really, is this so confusing? /. rants about how the MP/RI/AA want to control physical media, but then people make strange arguments like this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Die CBS Die (Score:2)
Well! (Score:5, Funny)
Those films can't be in the public domain. They're only 39 years old.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At the time, you had to explicitly renew your copyright at 28 years [upenn.edu]. For example, a fair number of old Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1930s and 1940s are in the public domain [wikipedia.org] because the owner at the time, Associated Artists Productions, failed to renew the copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FWIW, the gp's joke is a reference to Jack Benny's perpetual age of 39. He celebrated it 41 times.
BTW-- for anyone unfamiliar w/Jack Benny's work, he was amazing. A wonderful comic persona--he played a kind of exaggerated alter ego based on himself, much like Woody Allen or Gary Shandling or Larry David -- known for his self-deprecation and wry delivery... he had awesome timing... he'd would typically get laughs just from his silent reactions...
I used to watch his show back on CBN, which was an extension
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No longer the case, we have been shafted, again. Monetization Uber Alles. From Wikipedia:
"In 1993, Republic Pictures, which was the successor to NTA, relied on the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend (which involved another Stewart film, Rear Window) to enforce its claim to the copyright. While the film's copyright had not been renewed, the plaintiffs were able to argue its status as a derivative work of a wo
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Those films can't be in the public domain. They're only 39 years old.
Perhaps CBS is just THINKING IT OVER!
Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing (Score:5, Informative)
Here (with his permission) is a comment from Stan Taffel, who is a media preservationist and posted this to the Association of Moving Image Archivists listserv (AMIA-L). According to Stan, this controversy has been orchestrated by a fan club person who sells copies of the shows. Stan also tells me he's just been speaking with a company who is trying to secure a license to release the shows. Again, I'm just reporting what others have said, and have no personal stake or opinion other than that these shows should be made available to those who fervently want to see them.
Stan's comment:
"I have spoken to my source at CBS and am happy to report that the "hype" is just what it is; all hype.
CBS is ready and willing to sub license any property (as they did with Studio One etc.) for a fee.
Laura Leff, the "President" of the Jack Benny Fan Club she began a few years ago, is very good at
generating P R and has done a very good job at starting a Facebook petition against CBS and getting
articles and giving interviews pleading for the release of 25 Benny shows. She says that CBS has "locked"
these films away and will not be preserved. This is not the case.
The 25 Benny shows as well as the full run of the series is stored in state of the art facilities. The film elements
are safe and in good shape. CBS is also aware of the fact that Ms. Leff has a library of many existing shows
and charges for making copies; dupes of both copywritten and PD shows are offered from her website.
While I applaud her tenacity and love for Jack Benny (she organized a fine website and a convention a few
years ago), it seems that the truth has been diluted and the actual state of the predicament has been reported
in error. She is great at "self promoting". What it boils down to is this: She is a huge fan who just wants to
have copies of the shows and has gone this route to try and obtain them. CBS doesn't know how she was
"supervising" a transfer of one of the color shows as that is not her job. True, it was an NBC special and
maybe she was invited to see a conversion but "supervising"? She is friends with Joan Benny (Jack's
daughter) so perhaps that's how she was invited to see the inner workings. She has gained attention to her
fan club and her plight, however misrepresented it is.
CBS is not the enemy here; they will sub contract The Jack Benny out. As these are supposedly P D shows
(and that's not definite) there are other sources to locate them and once they're out, anyone can dupe them
and sell them for no fee. CBS isn't the only source for 16mm kinescopes. They even told her to try to find
them through other avenues, fully aware she wants to add them to her "collection".
Should these films be available - of course. However, business is business and CBS pays for the storage
of these and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elements and that's not cheap. To give copies to her
for her archive is not so simple even if she pays for her copies. Maybe some company will come forward
and these shows will be seen. Time will tell."
Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, this line here is the real crux of the matter, and I think reflects a market failure.
There's nothing 'market' about copyright: it would not exist without government and is entirely a government failure.
Because these shows are in the public domain (I haven't verified this, but I'm taking the claim at face value), CBS can't see a way to profit from them--if they release these episodes on DVD, there will be nothing illegal about ripping and sharing them.
I don't believe that's true: perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe that CBS would have copyright on the DVD even if the shows on it are public domain... anyone else with a copy of the original show would be allowed to make their own DVD, but not to copy one that CBS created.
Re: (Score:2)
CBS would be able to copyright any new stuff they added, like the DVD's menu. However, the shows themselves would be public domain. Someone else could copy just the shows from the DVD, repackage them (with their own copyrighted menu) and distribute that.
However, IANAL, so I could easily be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in public domain. (Score:2)
If I write a book when I'm 20, then publish it when I'm 70, my Copyright will extend from the year I published it, not when I wrote it.
A show like this is the work of many people (not just one person). Therefore if CBS wants to release the footage or destroy the footage, it's up to them. While I'm unfamiliar with Jack Benny, but if there is a 'big stink' raised in regards to this not being released, then they might decide to make anyone visiting their vault sign an NDA about its contents.
But if they don't d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I write a book when I'm 20, then publish it when I'm 70, my Copyright will extend from the year I published it, not when I wrote it.
That's not true. Since at least the Berne Convention in the 1970s, copyright protection is automatic, and publication is not a prerequisite. Your work is copyrighted the instant you lift your pen. Under the Berne Convention, however, whether you wrote the book when you were 20 or when you were 70, the copyright would still extend to 50 years after your death. Later amendments to copyright law in the United States have extended the term further, and the situation can get fairly complicated for "works for hir
The article is grossly misleading (Score:5, Informative)
The headline and article are grossly misleading. CBS is not opposed to preserving this material. Rather, it is unwilling to assume the legal costs of protecting itself against copyright infringement suits if it distributes the material. While I agree that this is an unfortunate effect of the current copyright regime, it simply is not true that CBS is refusing to preserve these shows. They have not discarded them or destroyed them; they're keeping the originals in their vault.
Poor NBC (Score:5, Funny)
Poor NBC. They can't even hold the title of "biggest jerks" for more than a week. Congratulations, CBS, the new champs.
How could they.. (Score:2)
How could they drop one of the most important people on TV? hmmmm.
Even the historical record would be of value 50 years later. I'm sad
Not so fast (Score:4, Insightful)
They should find a friend at CBS with influence (Score:3, Interesting)
Celluloid Decay (Score:2)
I fully expect more of the same, as long as its going into public domain and cant be used as a money maker by the studios more and more titles are going to mysteriously suffer celluloid decay...after all what good is preserving it if its not going make you any money. At least that the view of most of Hollywood. Good will is fine as long as its something like a tribute or telethon that can bring in ratings and ad revenue.
National Archives eminient domain? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if the National Archives would consider beginning eminent domain proceedings to force a buyout of the material.
As it is in the public domain, its "eminent domain price" would be its auction value of the originals after high-quality copies have been made available to all for free.
Just Donate Them (Score:3, Insightful)
Well! (Score:2)
Lies, Damned Lies And Hyperhype (Score:2, Insightful)
There is so much in the summary, the articles and the web pages associated with this that fall somewhere between hype and bald faced lies that I'm not going to waste my time picking it apart. Someone saw a sympathetic audience and played it. You've been played like Clapton's Strat and you made exactly the music they wanted you to. Too bad nobody saw fit to investigate any of this. Anyone that actually gave shit about anything more than the chance to spout off might have at least tried to contact any of the
sadly, this is an example FOR copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
This has almost nothing to do with limiting copyright, quite the opposite. It is more of an example of what things would be like without copyright. Try to make a good copy of the Mona Lisa. Museums often don't allow you to bring a camera with a tripod to the museum, and for exactly this reason. They have the original copy, and have no good protection of copies being made.
How does this get modded up. (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is about making an artificial scarcity, not quality control.
Flat out wrong, twice.
Many museums permit camera's, tripod or not. Secondly I can buy Mona Lisa towels, curtains, place-mats, tablecloths and reprints in a copyright-fearing western nation because you are permitted to replicate the image as it's out of copyright.
Now if, I say if a museu
Inaccurate heading (Score:4, Informative)
Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's play devil's advocate for a second.
These materials are in the public domain. This means that CBS, who owns the physical media on which these performances are recorded, would owe no royalties or other payments to any other rightsholders should it choose to air them or sell them or monetize them in any other way.
The fanclub wants them preserved (which in this case means copied) and is willing to pay for this, thereby turning what is a potentially valuable asset with no liabilities attached into a worthless commodity.
Jack Benny's estate supports the fan club's desire to copy... I mean, preserve the content... however the basis of the request to do so is that the material is in the public domain, so the estate has no more right than anyone else to determine what should happen to it, which leaves only CBS, which owns and possesses the physical media.
This is being called destruction, since presumably CBS has no actual plans to do anything with this footage: if it did, presumably it would have done before now. So if they do not choose to allow copying... I mean, preservation, and something were to happen to the originals in their possession, it would be lost.
This is admittedly a shame, and is a fault of how such things have been handled up to now. It certainly would be nice if CBS, and other holders of such materials, had a friendly policy of allowing such materials to be disseminated once they enter the public domain.
However, no one should be surprised when this doesn't happen. From now on, content creators need to be careful about what arrangements they enter into with publishers and distributors, and arrange for physical copies to be archived somewhere, undistributed, ready for preservation when rights expire and materials enter the public domain (assuming this ever happens again in our lifetimes).
Correct Response (Score:5, Funny)
(long pause) WELL!
Re:Correct Response (Score:5, Funny)
Now cut that out
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your idea might have merit, if it did not involve either:
1) Stealing CBS's property (taking the film somewhere else and copying it. The show might be PD, but it's their celluloid)
or
2) Using CBS's equipment/resources to copy it without their permission. (Also stealing).