News shouldn't be protected from Youtube, etc.

If the various media organizations wish to portray various programs as “news”–that is, information of significant importance to the general public–then they should have no such IP protection as is granted to movies, etc. (i.e., pay to see the bearded lady). I would include Stewart, Colbert, etc., who are ostensibly entertainment but convey the news like the serious.

In the past, promulgation via Youtube or similar media was simply impossible and therefore a non-issue. Now it’s possible and therefore an issue.

To say, “Hey this is essential; it’s news and you ought to know about it,” is to invite promulgation implicitly. They should be glad such importancies are reaching many minds through whatever media.

As for copyright law and whatnot, I’m not arguing doing so doesn’t violate them; we just need new law.

I’m reading this as you think various media organisations portray programmes which are not news (e.g. entertainment) as news. I agree with that. Your way of saying this makes my think you think that this is a bad thing. I agree with that. You think they should be punished. I agree with that, sort of. I wouldn’t include The Daily Show and The Colbert Report though, those shows make clear it’s just entertainment. No more news than Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live.

But why punish them by making them fair game to rebroadcast verbatim? Why not handle it like any other violation of journalistic ethics is handled?

They are inviting everybody to reiterate their “news”, as in me making a Bagistan Latest Update show and every week telling what they’ve said and shown, citing as needed. You aren’t suggesting that I should be able to start BNN - a channel rebroadcasting CNNs content tape-delayed by 15 minutes with my own commercials interleaved, are you?

Or did you mean I should be able to tape the news and send it to some friends of mine who missed it for discussion, not profit? Then I agree and I wouldn’t hesitate to do so even though I have no idea if its legal.

But Youtube is a venue that can easily be abused. If a certain news (or pseudo-news) programme would be available there regularly and in full, then they risk losing most of their paying viewers and their income.

If this is thought out as a punishment for pretend-news being broadcasted, wouldn’t that also punish the innocent real-news?

Reminds me, that Half-Hour News Hour thing still on?

I disagree. Saying something is useful is hardly admitting that people shouldn’t have to pay to get it. Moreover, things like current events and the science of the physical world and the geography of cities and states are of course in the public domain. However, things that document these, such as news reports and scientific papers and maps, have a content and a value above and beyond the phenomena they document.

Article 8 of the US constitution provides for promoting the arts and sciences by granting temporary intellectual property rights that can be used to enforce coercive monopolies, and this has worked very well. Why should we change such a successful system?

Might be, but I saw a news article saying it wasn’t getting renewed. It’s dead.

No, not with commercials. And not with all the commercials cut out, broadcasting everything verbatim.

My thought is not that this would be a punishment for some type of transgression. What I mean is that a news program implicitly (and often explicitly) is saying that its content is of extreme importance and everyone should be aware of it. If so, then that content should be promulgated as much as possible. Once it’s on Youtube, the media companies shouldn’t turn around and say, “Hey, that’s my IP, give me money.”

We keep changing the system–to give BigMedia absurdly long and extensive copyright protection. If the system has worked so well, why does Disney need new protection ad infinitum?!