The consensus opinion on Slashdot seems to be that Big Media does not like to 'give the customer what they want', (or, in other words, allow mass download of cancelled shows) because they are big jerks.
That is not the case.
This is unlikely to happen because television and movie rights are absurdly complicated, doubly so for defunct programs. I think a little education is in order. Let's use as an example a fictional show, "Blar Trak".
Now, let's say the show originally ran on NBC from 1966-1969. The rights are now held by Paramount, a division of Viacom. IANAEL (I am not an entertainment lawyer, but...)
Let's see how this would work:
- User wants to download the 1-hour episode "Sark's Brain".
Who owns it? Viacom, through Paramount. Just pay them, right? Nope. First, check to see if Paramount has DISTRIBUTION rights. These are distinct from ownership and/or PRODUCTION rights. Production rights let you make more episodes or spinoff movies. Distribution lets you put it on TV, in theatres, or on DVD. Different methods of distribution are often covered by separate contracts. In the film world, movies can be distributed by a studio that didn't produce the movie. "Master and Commander" had THREE studios working on it. "Titanic" on DVD is Paramount in the US, Fox in the rest of the world.
Production companies do the actual physical production of the show, they ALSO have contracts that may limit distribution rights or assign partial or whole ownership. These rights are transferable to heirs, if the show makes grandpa look bad, no show for you, sayeth the grandkids.
Paramount may also have a limited option or distribution deal for that particular episode, or a group of episodes, or the whole series. Ever wonder why DVDs go out of print? Now you know- the distributor has a LIMITED TIME contract.
That's not all. All of the actors and workers from that show need to get paid residuals. Yes, even 40 years after production. Many of them will have contracts that state they get paid FOREVER. The ones who don't may sue to stop distribution, they don't want Viacom to get richer off their work. VIacom may screw all the actors by claiming the contracts are nullified in this case because they do not specifically refer to the internet as a distribution vehicle.
Whoops. The ongoing litigation may take years. No episode for you. It won't be $1.00, that's for sure.
That dollar has to cover:
Production Contract Distribution Contract Actor residuals Writer/Producer residuals Legal costs Pipeline/Delivery costs
Don't even get me started on what happens when Viacom wants to deliver content on Time Warner pipe, suffice it to say they have to pay Time Warner and devise yet another contract, too.
Oh, and if the show contains POP MUSIC, give up now. You need to clear EACH SONG with the music industry equivalent on the other end, or replace the music.
The short answer is: If there is money involved, it is very complicated. If no one wants to make money, distribtion is easy-peasy, rightsholders just sign off on it.
Problem: EVERYONE wants to make residual income, it requires no effort and is very lucrative.
That's a good point. However, the only problem is that Enterprise had several YEARS to build an audience to the point where UPN would be unlikely to move it around. Networks do this to shows where they have a contractual obligation to air it, but they know no one is watching. I recall that the Enterprise launch was accompanied by a lot of advertising- most revolving around "this is an all-new kind of Trek for new and casual fans". People tuned in, saw it was the same old shite about guys with plastic on their head and reversing the polarity, and gave up on the show.
Note that Sci-Fi Channel is deathly silent regarding picking up Enterprise as a continuing series. What does it tell you when the SCI-FI CHANNEL thinks its audience is not interested in watching the show? They think that they can make a lot more money with a Battlestar Galactica remake.
Spike TV is basically a Star Trek channel during the day (they run 3 or 4 hours of TNG a day, every day). They don't want it either. They don't want it because it has no crossover appeal- as far as I can tell there is basically no such thing as a casual Star Trek fan anymore. You either speak Klingon or don't watch Trek at all- even if you watch other Sci-Fi shows. A lot of people used to watch Next Generation or TOS occasionally. Did ANYONE watch Voyager who wasn't already a hardcore Trek fan? Shows that don't grow, die. LOTS of people watch Desperate Housewives that don't usually watch Soap Operas (myself included).
What about Farscape? Surely this proves "good" shows are cancelled even when they draw an audience. No. Farscape was cancelled because it was hideously expensive for the number of viewers it drew. If it was cheaper to produce, it would still be on the air. Like Stargate SG-1.
Unlike Firefly, which had a lot of trouble converting Buffy (successful) and Angel (moderately successful) fans to another show by their favorite T.V. creator, and no success at all getting people who watched Enterprise to watch it.
In the example of TOS, the primary problem was that the ratings system was undeveloped- NBC did not know that Trek was bringing in demographically attractive viewers. It only knew the raw number of viewers was very, very low. Later, NBC executives admitted that if they knew that it's audience was largely composed of 18-35 year old males, they would have kept it on the air
Now, how much are they going to pay me to watch it?
I watch Stargate-SG1 for free. So do a lot of other people. Some of them buy DVD sets. So many people watch Stargate-SG1 relative to its cost that they have a spinoff show, Stargate Atlantis. The fine folks at Stargate-SG1 are also going into Season Nine (a feat no Star Trek has ever achieved), with no cancellation in sight, despite having switched networks and being on a cable channel rather than broadcast (which AUTOMATICALLY means a smaller potential audience).
Enterprise does not need deep-pocketed donors to be a success. It needed more viewers. UPN/Paramount will not run a "subsidized" show not only because of the myriad rights issues, but because they can put something that could be more successful in the timeslot. They ALREADY KNOW Enterprise cannot draw an audience. It's worth the risk if they can get the next 'American Idol' or 'Desperate Housewives' in the slot instead.
The now-revived Family Guy had extremely robust DVD sales and a good syndication deal with TBS and Cartoon Network. Let's see how many people buy the Enterprise DVDs. If it's only the usual gang of sad anoraks(which it likely will be due to pricing alone*), Star Trek will be dead for a long long time.
For those of you arguing that Enterprise was 'screwed' by the network, I would ask why is it that a show with the #1 genre franchise name (Star Trek), starring a good actor with a fan following (Scott Bakula), on broadcast TV with a wide audience, failed? The short answer is: crap show.
Battlestar Galactica is based on a laughable cheesefest from 1978, is on cable, is a 'downer' show (mostly sad endings), and lacks a strong franchise fan following. Yet, is is very successful. Why? It's a good show with interesting scripts and good acting. No one EVER reverses polarities, engages in Temporal Cold War (whatever the fsck that is), or deals with spacial or temporal anomalies. Star Trek is giving its hardcore fans exactly what they want. Too bad everyone else is bored with it.
* If you want to buy the Original Series, Next Generation, or DS9 on DVD it's US$100 per season. Compare with Buffy/Angel at US$50 per season, and The Simpsons at US$40 per season.
FYI, the United States Constitution specifically prohibits U.S. Citizens from accepting titles of nobility or similar honors, as well as prohibiting the creation of American titles of nobility.
The relevant portion is:
[Article One, Section Nine]
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
IANACS (I am not a consitutional scholar), but even though Gates does not hold public office, accepting entrance into the British Peerage would create a citizenship question- if he was, for example, Baron Redmond, he would have to swear allegiance to the Soverign, Queen Elizabeth. U.S. Citizens swear allegiance to the Constitution of the U.S. (the exact words are "preserve, protect, and defend"; in Military entrance ceremonies, Naturalization events, etc. Yes, the President of the US says the exact same thing in his inaugural ceremony) and SPECIFICALLY state that they will not obey a foreign royal. It's an implied condition of natural-born citizens.
However, there are no problems at all in accepting a medal or honorary title. General Eisenhower had medals a'plenty from monarchies after WWII.
If he were a British SUBJECT, once he swears allegiance to Liz the Deuce he would fit naturally into the British system and get his full Knighthood.
Netflix has an important advantage over Blockbuster: mindshare.
First-to-market producers have can have a MARKETING advantage. iPod is a perfect example. Apple has such a large share of the portable music player market that competitors (some of whom were there first) have to now describe their products as "like an iPod, but it does X and Y too". Most consumers do not watch the business news wire to find out what a new product is or what it does. They find out from advertising and word of mouth. Which is often presented in simplest terms. What's a PSP? Like a Game Boy, but with cooler games and it plays movies. What's a Prius? Like a regular car, but it has a special engine that uses less gas.
Blockbuster is known already as a PHYSICAL place you go to rent movies. All of their advertising over two decades has reinforced this fact. When they offer DVD-by-mail, how do you think it is described by most consumers to their friends and family? That's right: "It's like Netflix, but cheaper". However, many people signed up for Netflix because they DIDN'T LIKE BLOCKBUSTER IN THE FIRST PLACE. If Blockbuster already poisoned the well with these people, they are not going to switch back. Plus, the concept of Blockbuster-by-mail is dissonant. And, it's cannibalizing Blockbuster's core business. They are still advertising their new "No Late Fees" plan for the physical stores. Which is it: are they the place that's physical with no late fees OR are they by-mail? It's confusing to casual consumers. Netflix ads are simple: no store, no fees, fixed price. They capitalize on your hatred for the physical store experience...which you probably already associate with Blockbuster. It's as if Burger King could promise that if you buy their burgers, there will be no screaming kids since they eliminated special Kid's Meals and playgrounds (which you would associate with McDonalds, since McD spent 30 years convincing you McD was a great place for kids).
Tivo is a bad example because they are competing on an unfair playing field. The cable company ALREADY puts a box in your home. It's trivial to add features to it. You already accept the idea that they charge you for a box. It's harder to convince you to buy an EXTRA box and pay for an EXTRA service without a killer app.
A better example is DirectTV versus Cable. "All your favorite channels, plus more channels, for less money, just put this thing on your roof" is easy to understand.
That's an interesting interpretation. At the very least, contract law would govern duplication/dsitribution of, say, a movie. The Screen Actors Guild would be VERY interested to hear that someone is showing films that their members are owed royalties on without paying said actors. Or, distributing copies of aforementioned work without the pennies dripping down the royalty chain.
"Copyright is the right to copy a work -- it has nothing to do with use."
Not for all types of work. Is it OK to perform a play publicly without compensating the author as long as you don't photocopy the script?
"Of course, copy can (is) twisted to also mean "perform". But, a copy is allowed if necessary to use the material. (and, the "legal" state of the original doesn't come into it)."
Sure it does. Remember the Pamela Anderson Sex Tape? When it was stolen from her house (denial of owner to freely distribute) and put on the net- Lawsuit Time! The damages a court would award would INCLUDE the value of the tons of copies floating around. But, once Tommy and Pam settled for royalties and a cash payment, no trouble with distribution.
"Once you HAVE the work, you can do whatever you want with it;"
Oh, goodness no. Legally, you can't show a DVD to 50 of your closest friends and charge them admission- that's unlicensed public exhibition. Almost never enforced, but still not OK.
You can parody it, but you can't sample it without clearance.
You can't alter or edit it and then resell or redistribute it, like homemade edits of films.
All of these activities are perfectly OK assuming you have proper permission (no money needs to change hands). For example, Lucasfilm says that it's OK to use official Star Wars material in parody/tribute films, as long as you are not making money off it (thay have to defend their trademarks, it's part of trademark law). They even run a contest. Contrast that with the NFL, which has been running a EULA on televised games for years (You know, "You may not rebroadcast this game without the permission of the National Football League")
"Interesting that this includes SELLING the work (as long as you didn't copy it)."
The doctrine of first sale so far has applied to the MEDIA. When you sell your used copy of "The Matrix" you are not transferring the copyright, because you don't own it. Warner Brothers does. They aren't going to know if you backed it up to your hard drive. They care a LOT if you make 1,000 copies. So does Keanu Reeve's lawyer, because he gets PAID for copies sold.
Now, as far as your hypothetical, IANAL, but it seems clear that BOTH A and B have violated copyright. If you ever read EULAs or similar documents, they all state that you are permitted to keep ZERO copies of the material.
This ruling will be reversed just as soon as someone explains to the people involved that when you type in "airplane" you will get only "Boeing" as a result and never "Airbus". Or, say, "Sony" and never "Philips". "Coca-Cola", never "Danone".
Since this topic has been done to death, I thought I might summarize the logic behind some of these laws for easy reference.
Note: NOT AN ENDORSEMENT of these laws, merely an explanation
1. Shoplifting: Assumption is ONE copy being boosted. If you steal a truckload, penalties are higher. Value of theft is lost revenue to final vendor- remember that the distributor/rights holder ALREADY got paid when the store bought its wholesale copy.
2. P2P/Torrent: Assumption is that there are LIMITLESS & PERFECT copies available. Thus, super huge penalties because you can make millions of copies in a matter of minutes.
3. Why can't I Torrent my show if I can VCR it: Distributing studio is legal holder of rights (in the USA, your laws may differ). Broadcast networks have legal arrangements regarding how and when they can show programs. You can use a VCR to time-shift sue to court decisions, no court has firmly addressed Torrent Timeshifting yet. Furthermore, you technically need the permission of the rights holder to distribute shows in another medium, since all production/acting contracts determing how and when the show will be distributed and how the people involved will get paid.
4. I'm not stealing anything tangible, therefore it is not theft: Two issues here. First, under current USA law (your law may vary), intellectual property is real and subject to restrictions by the rights holder. Second, rights holders expect to be paid for usage/ownership of a true copy. No one is stopping you from enjoying public domain movies/music/books. There is not a "right" in the USA (your laws may vary) to enjoy copyrighted works without consulting the legal rights of the copyright holder. Which ususally means paying them.
5. Do I own a physical copy of the work or just a license: Compelling argument soon both sides, never fully tested in court, though it may be soon.
I propose letting people farm all they want. In fact, I don't think there is enough. Let's have Everquest and the like just be straight-up one dollar-one vote. Then watch as bread-and-butter players abandon them in droves and the user base becomes five millionaires with +25 magic dragon slayer swords.
Maybe then someone will design a fun MMO game that isn't a ripoff of the 30 year old Dungeons-and-Dragons model of accumulating crap to buy more crap, paying $50 plus $15 a month to pretend to be a blacksmith, rat exterminator, or droid mechanic, and leveling up (rewarding boring repetition) rather than allowing the player to grow their character based on SKILL. People would pay their subscription fees to see what kind of new and fun content came next, rather than so they can become addicted to "getting" fake stuff.
The 'Mugu Problem' will go away just as soon as people stop being so greedy (I can make $40MM through fraud with no effort!), stupid (complete strangers surely want to give me millions of dollars for no reason, I better volunteer all my banking information!) and racist (it'll be easy to rip off a bunch of dumb Africans, there's no risk to me!).
A better use of people's computing time is educating your friends and family about the nature of 419 scams. The best way to defeat con men is to know the nature of the con ahead of time so you can recognize it.
This message brought to you by a grant from the the David Mamet Foundation.
7:00 AM Wake Up 7:30 AM Shower, Brush Teeth 8:00 AM Breakfast 9:00 AM Begin playing videogame Noon Stop playing, Lunch 1:00 PM Resume playing videogame 5:00 PM Stop playing, Dinner 6:00PM-11:00PM Everything else in his life (Work, hobbies, marital relations, food shopping, car repair, P2P theft of music) 11:30 or so Bedtime
I don't know if he's an addict. I do know he works a full-time job for no pay and no benefits. "Hobby" was about 4 hours a day less time online ago. Gotta admire a strong work ethic in this day and age.
Slashdot Mirror
The consensus opinion on Slashdot seems to be that Big Media does not like to 'give the customer what they want', (or, in other words, allow mass download of cancelled shows) because they are big jerks.
That is not the case.
This is unlikely to happen because television and movie rights are absurdly complicated, doubly so for defunct programs. I think a little education is in order. Let's use as an example a fictional show, "Blar Trak".
Now, let's say the show originally ran on NBC from 1966-1969. The rights are now held by Paramount, a division of Viacom. IANAEL (I am not an entertainment lawyer, but...)
Let's see how this would work:
- User wants to download the 1-hour episode "Sark's Brain".
Who owns it? Viacom, through Paramount. Just pay them, right? Nope. First, check to see if Paramount has DISTRIBUTION rights. These are distinct from ownership and/or PRODUCTION rights. Production rights let you make more episodes or spinoff movies. Distribution lets you put it on TV, in theatres, or on DVD. Different methods of distribution are often covered by separate contracts. In the film world, movies can be distributed by a studio that didn't produce the movie. "Master and Commander" had THREE studios working on it. "Titanic" on DVD is Paramount in the US, Fox in the rest of the world.
Production companies do the actual physical production of the show, they ALSO have contracts that may limit distribution rights or assign partial or whole ownership. These rights are transferable to heirs, if the show makes grandpa look bad, no show for you, sayeth the grandkids.
Paramount may also have a limited option or distribution deal for that particular episode, or a group of episodes, or the whole series. Ever wonder why DVDs go out of print? Now you know- the distributor has a LIMITED TIME contract.
That's not all. All of the actors and workers from that show need to get paid residuals. Yes, even 40 years after production. Many of them will have contracts that state they get paid FOREVER. The ones who don't may sue to stop distribution, they don't want Viacom to get richer off their work. VIacom may screw all the actors by claiming the contracts are nullified in this case because they do not specifically refer to the internet as a distribution vehicle.
Whoops. The ongoing litigation may take years. No episode for you. It won't be $1.00, that's for sure.
That dollar has to cover:
Production Contract
Distribution Contract
Actor residuals
Writer/Producer residuals
Legal costs
Pipeline/Delivery costs
Don't even get me started on what happens when Viacom wants to deliver content on Time Warner pipe, suffice it to say they have to pay Time Warner and devise yet another contract, too.
Oh, and if the show contains POP MUSIC, give up now. You need to clear EACH SONG with the music industry equivalent on the other end, or replace the music.
The short answer is: If there is money involved, it is very complicated. If no one wants to make money, distribtion is easy-peasy, rightsholders just sign off on it.
Problem: EVERYONE wants to make residual income, it requires no effort and is very lucrative.
That's a good point. However, the only problem is that Enterprise had several YEARS to build an audience to the point where UPN would be unlikely to move it around. Networks do this to shows where they have a contractual obligation to air it, but they know no one is watching. I recall that the Enterprise launch was accompanied by a lot of advertising- most revolving around "this is an all-new kind of Trek for new and casual fans". People tuned in, saw it was the same old shite about guys with plastic on their head and reversing the polarity, and gave up on the show.
Note that Sci-Fi Channel is deathly silent regarding picking up Enterprise as a continuing series. What does it tell you when the SCI-FI CHANNEL thinks its audience is not interested in watching the show? They think that they can make a lot more money with a Battlestar Galactica remake.
Spike TV is basically a Star Trek channel during the day (they run 3 or 4 hours of TNG a day, every day). They don't want it either. They don't want it because it has no crossover appeal- as far as I can tell there is basically no such thing as a casual Star Trek fan anymore. You either speak Klingon or don't watch Trek at all- even if you watch other Sci-Fi shows. A lot of people used to watch Next Generation or TOS occasionally. Did ANYONE watch Voyager who wasn't already a hardcore Trek fan? Shows that don't grow, die. LOTS of people watch Desperate Housewives that don't usually watch Soap Operas (myself included).
What about Farscape? Surely this proves "good" shows are cancelled even when they draw an audience. No. Farscape was cancelled because it was hideously expensive for the number of viewers it drew. If it was cheaper to produce, it would still be on the air. Like Stargate SG-1.
Unlike Firefly, which had a lot of trouble converting Buffy (successful) and Angel (moderately successful) fans to another show by their favorite T.V. creator, and no success at all getting people who watched Enterprise to watch it.
In the example of TOS, the primary problem was that the ratings system was undeveloped- NBC did not know that Trek was bringing in demographically attractive viewers. It only knew the raw number of viewers was very, very low. Later, NBC executives admitted that if they knew that it's audience was largely composed of 18-35 year old males, they would have kept it on the air
Now, how much are they going to pay me to watch it?
I watch Stargate-SG1 for free. So do a lot of other people. Some of them buy DVD sets. So many people watch Stargate-SG1 relative to its cost that they have a spinoff show, Stargate Atlantis. The fine folks at Stargate-SG1 are also going into Season Nine (a feat no Star Trek has ever achieved), with no cancellation in sight, despite having switched networks and being on a cable channel rather than broadcast (which AUTOMATICALLY means a smaller potential audience).
Enterprise does not need deep-pocketed donors to be a success. It needed more viewers. UPN/Paramount will not run a "subsidized" show not only because of the myriad rights issues, but because they can put something that could be more successful in the timeslot. They ALREADY KNOW Enterprise cannot draw an audience. It's worth the risk if they can get the next 'American Idol' or 'Desperate Housewives' in the slot instead.
The now-revived Family Guy had extremely robust DVD sales and a good syndication deal with TBS and Cartoon Network. Let's see how many people buy the Enterprise DVDs. If it's only the usual gang of sad anoraks(which it likely will be due to pricing alone*), Star Trek will be dead for a long long time.
For those of you arguing that Enterprise was 'screwed' by the network, I would ask why is it that a show with the #1 genre franchise name (Star Trek), starring a good actor with a fan following (Scott Bakula), on broadcast TV with a wide audience, failed? The short answer is: crap show.
Battlestar Galactica is based on a laughable cheesefest from 1978, is on cable, is a 'downer' show (mostly sad endings), and lacks a strong franchise fan following. Yet, is is very successful. Why? It's a good show with interesting scripts and good acting. No one EVER reverses polarities, engages in Temporal Cold War (whatever the fsck that is), or deals with spacial or temporal anomalies. Star Trek is giving its hardcore fans exactly what they want. Too bad everyone else is bored with it.
* If you want to buy the Original Series, Next Generation, or DS9 on DVD it's US$100 per season. Compare with Buffy/Angel at US$50 per season, and The Simpsons at US$40 per season.
FYI, the United States Constitution specifically prohibits U.S. Citizens from accepting titles of nobility or similar honors, as well as prohibiting the creation of American titles of nobility.
The relevant portion is:
[Article One, Section Nine]
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
IANACS (I am not a consitutional scholar), but even though Gates does not hold public office, accepting entrance into the British Peerage would create a citizenship question- if he was, for example, Baron Redmond, he would have to swear allegiance to the Soverign, Queen Elizabeth. U.S. Citizens swear allegiance to the Constitution of the U.S. (the exact words are "preserve, protect, and defend"; in Military entrance ceremonies, Naturalization events, etc. Yes, the President of the US says the exact same thing in his inaugural ceremony) and SPECIFICALLY state that they will not obey a foreign royal. It's an implied condition of natural-born citizens.
However, there are no problems at all in accepting a medal or honorary title. General Eisenhower had medals a'plenty from monarchies after WWII.
If he were a British SUBJECT, once he swears allegiance to Liz the Deuce he would fit naturally into the British system and get his full Knighthood.
First-to-market producers have can have a MARKETING advantage. iPod is a perfect example. Apple has such a large share of the portable music player market that competitors (some of whom were there first) have to now describe their products as "like an iPod, but it does X and Y too". Most consumers do not watch the business news wire to find out what a new product is or what it does. They find out from advertising and word of mouth. Which is often presented in simplest terms. What's a PSP? Like a Game Boy, but with cooler games and it plays movies. What's a Prius? Like a regular car, but it has a special engine that uses less gas.
Blockbuster is known already as a PHYSICAL place you go to rent movies. All of their advertising over two decades has reinforced this fact. When they offer DVD-by-mail, how do you think it is described by most consumers to their friends and family? That's right: "It's like Netflix, but cheaper". However, many people signed up for Netflix because they DIDN'T LIKE BLOCKBUSTER IN THE FIRST PLACE. If Blockbuster already poisoned the well with these people, they are not going to switch back. Plus, the concept of Blockbuster-by-mail is dissonant. And, it's cannibalizing Blockbuster's core business. They are still advertising their new "No Late Fees" plan for the physical stores. Which is it: are they the place that's physical with no late fees OR are they by-mail? It's confusing to casual consumers. Netflix ads are simple: no store, no fees, fixed price. They capitalize on your hatred for the physical store experience...which you probably already associate with Blockbuster. It's as if Burger King could promise that if you buy their burgers, there will be no screaming kids since they eliminated special Kid's Meals and playgrounds (which you would associate with McDonalds, since McD spent 30 years convincing you McD was a great place for kids).
Tivo is a bad example because they are competing on an unfair playing field. The cable company ALREADY puts a box in your home. It's trivial to add features to it. You already accept the idea that they charge you for a box. It's harder to convince you to buy an EXTRA box and pay for an EXTRA service without a killer app.
A better example is DirectTV versus Cable. "All your favorite channels, plus more channels, for less money, just put this thing on your roof" is easy to understand.
As we all know, Privately owned things can always deliver better service.
As evidence, I offer the fact that the Privately owned Cincinnati Bengals ALWAYS defeat the Community owned Green Bay Packers.
That's an interesting interpretation. At the very least, contract law would govern duplication/dsitribution of, say, a movie. The Screen Actors Guild would be VERY interested to hear that someone is showing films that their members are owed royalties on without paying said actors. Or, distributing copies of aforementioned work without the pennies dripping down the royalty chain.
"Copyright is the right to copy a work -- it has nothing to do with use."
Not for all types of work. Is it OK to perform a play publicly without compensating the author as long as you don't photocopy the script?
"Of course, copy can (is) twisted to also mean "perform". But, a copy is allowed if necessary to use the material. (and, the "legal" state of the original doesn't come into it)."
Sure it does. Remember the Pamela Anderson Sex Tape? When it was stolen from her house (denial of owner to freely distribute) and put on the net- Lawsuit Time! The damages a court would award would INCLUDE the value of the tons of copies floating around. But, once Tommy and Pam settled for royalties and a cash payment, no trouble with distribution.
"Once you HAVE the work, you can do whatever you want with it;"
Oh, goodness no. Legally, you can't show a DVD to 50 of your closest friends and charge them admission- that's unlicensed public exhibition. Almost never enforced, but still not OK.
You can parody it, but you can't sample it without clearance.
You can't alter or edit it and then resell or redistribute it, like homemade edits of films.
All of these activities are perfectly OK assuming you have proper permission (no money needs to change hands). For example, Lucasfilm says that it's OK to use official Star Wars material in parody/tribute films, as long as you are not making money off it (thay have to defend their trademarks, it's part of trademark law). They even run a contest. Contrast that with the NFL, which has been running a EULA on televised games for years (You know, "You may not rebroadcast this game without the permission of the National Football League")
"Interesting that this includes SELLING the work (as long as you didn't copy it)."
The doctrine of first sale so far has applied to the MEDIA. When you sell your used copy of "The Matrix" you are not transferring the copyright, because you don't own it. Warner Brothers does. They aren't going to know if you backed it up to your hard drive. They care a LOT if you make 1,000 copies. So does Keanu Reeve's lawyer, because he gets PAID for copies sold.
Now, as far as your hypothetical, IANAL, but it seems clear that BOTH A and B have violated copyright. If you ever read EULAs or similar documents, they all state that you are permitted to keep ZERO copies of the material.
This policy will not have a long life in the E.U.
1. Shoplifting: Assumption is ONE copy being boosted. If you steal a truckload, penalties are higher. Value of theft is lost revenue to final vendor- remember that the distributor/rights holder ALREADY got paid when the store bought its wholesale copy. 2. P2P/Torrent: Assumption is that there are LIMITLESS & PERFECT copies available. Thus, super huge penalties because you can make millions of copies in a matter of minutes. 3. Why can't I Torrent my show if I can VCR it: Distributing studio is legal holder of rights (in the USA, your laws may differ). Broadcast networks have legal arrangements regarding how and when they can show programs. You can use a VCR to time-shift sue to court decisions, no court has firmly addressed Torrent Timeshifting yet. Furthermore, you technically need the permission of the rights holder to distribute shows in another medium, since all production/acting contracts determing how and when the show will be distributed and how the people involved will get paid. 4. I'm not stealing anything tangible, therefore it is not theft: Two issues here. First, under current USA law (your law may vary), intellectual property is real and subject to restrictions by the rights holder. Second, rights holders expect to be paid for usage/ownership of a true copy. No one is stopping you from enjoying public domain movies/music/books. There is not a "right" in the USA (your laws may vary) to enjoy copyrighted works without consulting the legal rights of the copyright holder. Which ususally means paying them. 5. Do I own a physical copy of the work or just a license: Compelling argument soon both sides, never fully tested in court, though it may be soon.
Did I leave anything out?
Maybe then someone will design a fun MMO game that isn't a ripoff of the 30 year old Dungeons-and-Dragons model of accumulating crap to buy more crap, paying $50 plus $15 a month to pretend to be a blacksmith, rat exterminator, or droid mechanic, and leveling up (rewarding boring repetition) rather than allowing the player to grow their character based on SKILL. People would pay their subscription fees to see what kind of new and fun content came next, rather than so they can become addicted to "getting" fake stuff.
Crazy talk, I know.
This message brought to you by a grant from the the David Mamet Foundation.
All I know is when I do the math, I get this:
7 hours a day, huh?
So typical day must look like this:
7:00 AM Wake Up
7:30 AM Shower, Brush Teeth
8:00 AM Breakfast
9:00 AM Begin playing videogame
Noon Stop playing, Lunch
1:00 PM Resume playing videogame
5:00 PM Stop playing, Dinner
6:00PM-11:00PM Everything else in his life (Work, hobbies, marital relations, food shopping, car repair, P2P theft of music)
11:30 or so Bedtime
I don't know if he's an addict. I do know he works a full-time job for no pay and no benefits. "Hobby" was about 4 hours a day less time online ago. Gotta admire a strong work ethic in this day and age.