Slashdot Mirror


CBS Refuses To Preserve Jack Benny Footage

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.

29 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. Management Types... by conureman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why do these people run things?

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    1. Re:Management Types... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lots of blame to go around. The responsible parties, in order:

      • Supreme court
      • Congress
      • Lawyers
      • CBS

      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.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Management Types... by Eskarel · · 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.

    3. Re:Management Types... by jythie · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. Not that my opinion matters by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:Not that my opinion matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You shouldn't degrade people like that. Horse fuckers have feelings too.

  3. Benny is great by XanC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of the stuff in Looney Tunes / Merry Melodies comes from Benny. And he's the master of timing. It's brilliant.

  4. revoke ALL their copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, refusing to allow this public domain work to be restored at no cost to them means they are not holding up their end of the copyright bargain and so they should now lose their rights and protection under said laws. There's a social contract at work and it's stupid acts like this and the Sonny Bono perpetual protection of Mickey Mouse Act that make me have no qualms about "pirating" material when I feel like it. If they don't want to play nice then I see no reason to play their game at all.

    1. Re:revoke ALL their copyrights by fandingo · · 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.

    2. Re:revoke ALL their copyrights by muridae · · Score: 3, 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.

    3. Re:revoke ALL their copyrights by demonlapin · · Score: 3, 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).

    4. Re:revoke ALL their copyrights by adolf · · Score: 3, 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.)

    5. Re:revoke ALL their copyrights by demonlapin · · Score: 3, 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.

  5. Eminent domain by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps the federal government could appropriate the masters via eminent domain and make them available through the Library of Congress.

  6. While the material may not be protected... by John+Hasler · · 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.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:While the material may not be protected... by BlackSabbath · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:While the material may not be protected... by MurphyZero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The two terms are not mutually exclusive, in fact there's a huge overlap.

      --
      Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
  7. Perfect Example by EzInKy · · 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.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:Perfect Example by selven · · Score: 4, 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.

  8. Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong by Jiro · · 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.

    1. Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong by stinerman · · Score: 4, 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".

    2. Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong by EzInKy · · 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?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  9. Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing by ari_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So kdawson posted a bunch of ill-informed sensationalism and invective on the Slashdot front page? I'm shocked.

  10. Re:We are te public ... by stinerman · · 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.

  11. Not so fast by S-100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because a performance is in the public domain doesn't mean that the physical master tapes cannot be privately owned and controlled. I suspect that part of CBS's reluctance to release the programs is the less-than-politically-correct portrayal of Rochester, just as Disney has buried some if its work in its vaults (e.g. Song of the South). Before you condemn them all as a bunch of idiots, releasing the masters is a zero-gain proposition for the owners, and there is a potential downside that it's their duty to consider.

  12. National Archives eminient domain? by davidwr · · 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.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  13. Just Donate Them by Hutz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Museum of Television and Radio is now known as The Paley Center for Media - named for William S. Paley, the founder of CBS. This isn't that hard to figure out.

  14. Unpublished works = private property by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, 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)?

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  15. Supreme Court by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait, it's the Supreme Court's fault that Congress passed crap laws?

    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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.