Two things. If it’s from living memory - basically the 1950s and later - there is market potential, and the owners want to keep it theirs to exploit. If necessary, by holding back that content to actually create market potential.
If it’s from earlier than the '50s, its market potential is negligible except for a few undying classics. The rest - forgotten, obscure, whatever - is of value mostly as potential fodder for lawsuits. And yes, one day, if other revenue streams fail, big media may well turn from big-dollar show suits to lower-stakes, revenue-generating legal action.
Either way, they would be fools to give any of it away. And some of it - the obscurities - it doesn’t even pay to make available legally at all.
So? You track it down. You don’t just shrug your shoulders whine “it’s too haaaaaard to find the owner” and take his work.
There was a recent example where someone “tried to do the right thing” for some orphaned books and claimed the author was dead and they couldn’t find his estate. Trouble was, the author was alive and easily found with a simple Google search.
Orphan works are a definite issue, but simply taking something without asking permission from the copyright holder is just laziness.
First , it is an ethical principle to ask someone’s permission for using his property. “I borrowed you car; thought you wouldn’t mind.”
If a record company took someone’s recordings and made them available without asking permission, is that OK? If it’s wrong for Sony to do this, why is is right for a small startup to do this? The law applies equally to both, doesn’t it?
Second, copyright isn’t failing; people are just violating it. Copyright is failing in the same way that laws against murder are failing: people keep killing others, so that law must be failing, too.
Workers deserve to get paid for their labor. Creators deserve to get paid for their labor. Before copyright laws were developed, artists were low-paid servants, doing commissions for wealthy patrons. (Personally, I think art was better in those days, but most of the artists I know disagree.)
If artists cannot get paid for their work, most of them will go back to their day jobs. Then Bill Gates, George Soros, and the Koch brothers will determine which artists have careers.
I’d say it is more like sodomy laws, society had changed and nearly everyone was breaking the law. So what do you do? Try to enforce a law that has become unenforceable, or change the law?
*Yes I realize the analogy has problems, the point however is that nearly everyone of a certain age is violating a law and what is to be done about it.
Anyway, I think they shot themselves in the foot with this. Isn’t it possible that they might be gaining more future customers with the free advertising UKNova was providing.
The thing about UK Nova is that it supplied people with things that they are never going to be made available abroad. From news discussion shows to things with limited export potential like “Have I Got News For You”.
There are things I would really, really like to see but there is no legal mechanism for me seeing. The technology is available, but they will not use them. The BBC’s international version of iPlayer is a step forward, but it is just a single distributor, very slow with adding new shows and has a very limited library (I just checked, and the HIGNFY I mentioned above is now available).
I’d like to go with a legal option, just there isn’t one. That’s just stupid.
The problem will become self-limiting when nobody, apart from rich hobbyists, is producing creative works any more because there’s no tangible reward for doing so.
I am offering to pay for them. I’d like to subscribe to UK TV channels.
I cannot.
The best effort so far is the international iPlayer, which is slowly updated and has a very small library. A large amount (probably the majority) of UK channel’s output is never exported.
Why can’t they be more like the BBC Radio stations, broadcasting over the internet and blocking just the shows where there are rights issues?
UK Nova appeared because there was no other option. There still is no other option. Let me pay and I will pay.
Copyright has only a limited amount to do with that anymore. It’s far more likely that we are talking about someone who bought the copyright from someone else, who bought it in turn from someone else, and so on. And in quite a few cases, no one knows who owns the copyright anymore.
Again; it may well be impossible, not just hard. And it probably isn’t the work of the owner.
Not really.
It’s failing because it isn’t doing its job. When copyright is used to keep works from being reproduced at all rather than encouraging their reproduction, then it is failing. To quote one of the links I posted above, “70 percent of American music recorded before 1965 is not legally available in the United States”; that is an example of the failure of copyright law to do the job it was intended to do.
Or when no one obeys the law, or no one has access to most creative works because the law has become too onerous.
The other options are to do without or for fans to share unavailable items in a way that is less annoying to the copyright holder. (Possibly still illegal, but in the shrug zone, such as mailing VCR tapes.)
I’m a hypocrite on this issue, because personally, I love watching free content on YouTube and “sharing” mp3s. But if I was a copyright holder I’m sure I’d hate to see other people doing it. Even stuff that’s not commercially available at the moment is potential future income if it gets repackaged at a later date.
They weren’t pretending at all. They were being very open with what they were doing.
Your argument seems to be this:
a) It was legal.
b) Therefore, it was not the right thing to do.
That’s a fine opinion, but it’s not immutable fact, is it? I think the fact that these guys did it in the open and adhered to a set of strict raises it to a level of civil disobedience. In that light, it is in fact possible for “doing something illegal” and “doing the right thing” to exist in the same place.
This translates to “piracy appeared because there was no other option.”
If there’s no other option besides pirating copyrighted material, then there is no option at all. You don’t get to say “You’re not offering to sell your product, so I’m just going to take it.”
Some people equate piracy of intellectual property with theft. I’m not going to debate that issue, but suffice to say that I see a clear difference - one (theft) deprives the owner of property. The other (piracy) does not.
Our objection to piracy, then, should be couched in terms of what it actually does to the owner : When someone pirates intellectual property, they deprive the owner of a sale. There’s certainly harm there, right?
Well, not always. When the owner will not make the product commercially available - then piracy does no harm to the owner. No sale is lost, because no sale is offered.
So while piracy in such cases is still illegal, it is not wrong in any moral or ethical sense - because it does no harm.
If they aren’t selling, then they are negating the purpose of copyright. The whole copyright system exists in the first place to encourage them to sell.
That’s not at all true - freely distributing the material lowers the worth of both existing and future legitimate copies. Every illegally distributed movie or TV show lowers the overall value of the copyright. There’s definitely harm.
When the owner will not make the property commercially available, there are no existing or future copies.
Your second sentence, even if we assumed your first was actually relevant and accurate, is wrong - or, at least, heavily disputed. Many pirates will not buy the work even if they are unable to pirate. Others who focus on unavailable works will still buy the material when it is made commercially available even if they possess a pirated copy. And if a property lies fallow for too long, making it available via piracy can actually re-kindle interest in the work and increase its value.
With regard to television, the networks were slow to get on board with the internet as a means of distribution. Purely my opinion, but I think they just couldn’t be bothered initially. They had a distribution system in place that had worked for years and weren’t interested in risking capital developing what amounted in their eyes to “another method”.
As they realized that is was a viable method and a lot of potential customers were exploiting it (meaning no revenue for them), they got more serious. Experimenting with various means of web released content but always with little success. They are becoming more successful now as they have realized part of the appeal wasn’t just that it was free, but that it was generally centralized. You could go to one site and find all or many of the shows you were interested in. With availability on itunes and hulu we see that the networks are realizing this.
In my opinion, the networks would find it more lucrative to embrace torrents than fight them. They are the content holder, they could be the first to put a torrent up with the content they want. Some nominal advertisements, and more in show advertising content and they might find a profitable and more diverse means of distribution. Of course Nielsen would have to track torrents as well then for purposes of setting ad rates.
IDK, there would still be issues to address, and there would always be some people pirating (there are people pirating cable tv), but by and large I think most would move over to the legal content for earlier availability and a trusted source.
This confuses me. How does a copyright owner’s failure to produce work today affect the existence of already printed or potentially printed copies of the work?
Let’s say I own the copyright to an old cult classic kung fu movie - Fury of the Straight Dope. The movie is coming up on its 25th anniversary and my intention is to cash in with a re-release in about a year.
If the demand for FotSD is at x, and the video is not available for torrenting (for whatever reason), then I will benefit when I release it for sale on its anniversary. If the video is freely available on the internet, then its value is being lowered because every copy that is pirated lowers the overall demand of the product.
Anecdotal evidence about how “most pirates” or “some pirates” do or don’t do whatever doesn’t really affect that. My only point is that it’s a bit silly to say that pirating a non-available work does zero harm and is therefore ethically and morally justified. Go ahead and argue that the amount of harm it does is debatable or non-quantifiable, but ya can’t say that it’s zero.
Not sure I understand. If an Iron Butterfly song is currently not on an album or available for download, does that mean that it will never in the “future” be available commercially? Rhino Records could never release it on an Iron Butterfly retrospective package? And if there is not currently a DVD package of TV show, does that mean there won’t be one in the future
Those are rhetorical questions, but I honestly don’t understand your quoted contention. Yes, if the copyright owner never makes the copyright available there will be not future legal product, but how could someone know if that will happen?
As for whether it makes could sense for copyright holders to encourage free on-line availability to drum up interest, or to sell linked ads – it’s their call not ours.
The fact that the owner is not currently offering the property for sale does not mean that it was never offered for sale in the past, nor does it mean that it will never be offered for sale in the future. Piracy of the property today diminishes the value to the owner of any future sales they might choose to conduct.
If the value of the property can be increased by making it available, then making it available is certainly an option - for the owner.
edit: Looks like Baal Houtham already said pretty much the same thing…