This is complete incompetence from their leadership who show no value to their own content. They could have easily auctioned off/sold very old content to someone else but that kind of thinking would be beyond their competency. It's no wonder they go in such huge losses despite of having loyal audience and monopoly over unparalleled content. To this day I cannot get over the fact that there are literally millions docu…
25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
201–210 of 356 posts
Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
#202This is what happens when software developers sell the idea of "streaming", i.e., downloading and throwing away, instead of downloading and keeping. Meanwhile the price of offline storage has dropped precipitously as the popularity of expensive "streaming" has risen. Online storage is relatively expensive but software developers sell the idea of "cloud" storage instead of offline storage. Eventually people want to cu…
This is also the only way Ainsley Hayes can possibly manifest outside of Aaron Sorkin's imagination.
Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
That particular passage, perhaps; however one can certainly believe growers destroying an abundance to control prices. It certainly doesn't sound like the purported overabundance of food was evenly distributed: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/feb/02/johnsteinbeck....
That piece was written literally by the same person. Farmers were going bankrupt because there was so much food that they couldn't sell. It was the time when people developed the habit of eating meat daily, as people were buying out the food, and fed it to animals. There wasn't at any point a famine. It's a tall tale.
And the originally-quoted passage is about farmers destroying crops as part of price controls due to overproduction.
Could you provide any kind of evidence that the supply of food was evenly shared? Steinbeck spent a lot of time with impoverished farm workers before writing the Grapes of Wrath, so I'm inclined to believe his description of them.
Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
#204Free content removed by previously benevolent publisher. It's too bad they weren't able to make their free content into a profit stream. The sad part here is that they were / are a steward to something beloved by many but through copyright they take it as hostage to the grave. If they no longer find value in distributing it shouldn't they be obligated to waive their ownership? Maybe copyright itself needs some reform…
I'm reminded of how trademarks work: If you don't bother to defend them, then you lose them. Maybe copyright should be the same way: If you're not distributing copies any longer, you lose the copyright protection.
I could see how this might make sense for things that can be perfectly copied, but not so much for anything that is even slightly 3D.
Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same as Facebook/Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, etc. taking something down for "hate speech" or "community guidelines". OP reported my original comment the same way Paramount removed content. Bit of a double-standard. I advocate for torrent, to believe in a large corporation to up-hold content (like a comment on the internet, or a TV series) who is surprised it moved to a paid streaming service.
I don't think it's even possible for a user to down-vote a direct reply to their own comment. I can't see the post you're complaining about; but based on the tone of the rest of your messages, maybe you were just off topic or rude-atop-the-soapbox and others flagged you?
Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we allow the copyright for the whole work to be extended indefinitely through subsequent updates, that kind of defeats the original idea.
Does it? For single player games you can just still use and distribute the original, unpatched version. I agree that there is lock-in with online multiplayer games, but it's more on the game servers than the distributed content. So it's only marginally a copyright issue.
Copyright (and patent) law generally follows the latter in western nations, but there’s nuance because third-party derivative works can easily contain elements which the original IP owners might feel are “derivatives” of newer innovations from subsequent updates, even if the third-party feels they only based their work on the original release.
There’s often a lot of room for reasonable minds to disagree, and it can be difficult to create quality third-party derivatives which avoid any similarities to newer versions of the IP.
Think of creating a modern representation of Mickey Mouse. If you create a new version of Mickey Mouse based on the 1928 version in Steamboat Willy, it is difficult to make something that looks relatively contemporary without creating something that looks arguably derivative of the 1953 work “The Simple Things” or the 1940 work “Fantasia”. You could play it safe by using something that looks like a carbon copy of Steamboat Willy, but if your personal artistic vision involves a more contemporary art style, it is understandably difficult to make it unambiguously not a derivative of more recent depictions that are still under copyright.
For the Starcraft 2 example - in a thought experiment where the 14 year old “Wings of Liberty” version is now public domain but the 11-year old “Heart of the Swarm” expansion pack and current 9-year old “Legacy of the Void” version of StarCraft 2 are both still under copyright. You want to make a new single-player campaign which takes place after LotV and doesn’t retcon any canon events (many of which are still copyrighted). A careful creator would probably understand they couldn’t make any references to Amon being reborn and defeated by Artanis, because that plot is from the still-copyrighted Legacy of the Void. But would you be able to write a storyline that contains any acknowledgements that Zeratul died? (Zeratul died at the hand of his friend, Artanis, due to some of Amon’s mind-control machinations during that same LotV campaign)
I think a creator would have to be careful precisely how their storyline acknowledges Zeratuls death. If its just a few characters generically lamenting the loss of a great/controversial man…probably fine? What if the loss of their friend Zeratul was specified to have occurred “in battle” with no other specifics about the battle? I have no clue. If your storyline includes a tiny quip about Artanis dealing with unspecified guilt/shame over Zeratul’s unspecified death … then that might be technically infringing until LotV falls out of copyright, because some people may feel that it’s specific enough to be definitely derived from the LotV campaign.
Note that all three of these similar examples are where a creator does in fact intend to create a derivation of copyrighted materials to create a sequel campaign to the uncopyrighted work which is still “in-canon” with respect to still-copyrighted works. Its just exploring where is the line of “how much derivation can you morally and/or ethically and/or legally get away with before at least one reasonable person genuinely feels you have elements that are unambiguously derived from still-copyrighted content?”
For “legally” getting away with something you have to consider the costs of successfully defending yourself against lawsuits from notoriously overly-litigious corporations like Disney/Nintendo/Blizzard. Are you so safe that you could get a summary dismissal or is there any reason it could qualify for awards of punitive damages under Anti-SLAPP laws?
Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
These studios used to make ton of money because only a few are in town. Now, every teenager is his/her own studio and content pool is so vast that their revues must shrink. They have nowhere to run. I think their end state is to publish on YouTube/Netflix and continue living at fraction of revenue that they are used to. That's what they should prepare for and plan for. Their existence and importance was supported by…
This is compelling and I think many elements of the spirit of this are true. The only thing I would add is that it will be interesting to see if professional, medium/high budget, polished, "produced" content will remain a stable and significant niche that is distinct from user-generated content. And does the high-production-value content directly compete with low-production value user-created content? And what percen…
Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty open to doing something like this broadly, but I think this is especially important for software. Things like video games are much harder to archive than text. Keeping them running 70 years after the death of the author is already a herculean task. Doing that, when no copies are being distributed could make that entirely impossible. The current copyright system is going to rob the public domain of many of…
What makes you think you’re entitled to other people’s work?
I mean, after life + 70 years you already are entitled to other people's work. And a purpose of patents was to get people to release ideas so culture as a whole can grow from them, rather than just keeping them as trade secrets or whatever.
I absolutely think people should be able to receive some money for it, maybe even for life + 70 years, and people can always not release things, but I think once it's released it's not just yours any more, as it lives in the public conscious.
Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty open to doing something like this broadly, but I think this is especially important for software. Things like video games are much harder to archive than text. Keeping them running 70 years after the death of the author is already a herculean task. Doing that, when no copies are being distributed could make that entirely impossible. The current copyright system is going to rob the public domain of many of…
What makes you think you’re entitled to other people’s work?
Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re missing that they want you to subscribe to Paramount Plus, so they’re going to have all of their content there, where you pay them. They mention it in the press release. Their company IS paramount plus now. It’s all going there.
"You’re missing that they want you to subscribe to Paramount Plus, so they’re going to have all of their content there" Most of the comments here seem to have missed that, if true. I did not read the article, the headline implies otherwise, but that surely can be clickbait.