Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

latenighter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 356 posts

Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

#331

Post by eru »

Mindwipe wrote: post #302
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has all been solved for music with compulsory licensing, so I assume we could solve it for video too.

It really hasn't. Try seeing how many Beatles songs you can include in another work that you distribute internationally and let me know how that goes.

Also to a first approximation we can treat all music as roughly interchangeable and we can measure the 'amount' of music eg by runtime or by song, so compulsory licensing can set some arbitrary fees.

You can perhaps do something similar for video, but it's hard to do that for all copyrighted material. Eg for a video game a single sprite has a very different value than some modules in the game's engine.

Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

#333

Post by bandrami »

kube-system wrote: post #308
bandrami wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they published it; they were free not to do so if they didn't want anybody to reproduce or distribute it (in fact that seems like the easiest way to do so). In order to encourage more people to make these works, however, our government grants them a temporary, limited monopoly on the work's reproduction and distribution, but this is a means to an end that we agree to for utilitarian reasons, not some kind of…

> Because they published it; they were free not to do so if they didn't want anybody to reproduce or distribute it Copyright protects works at the moment they are created, not when they are reproduced or distributed. Most of the works under copyright protection have never been distributed.

True, but not publishing also lets you keep them as trade secrets.

Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

#334

Post by croes »

mattmaroon wrote: post #262
croes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're missing >Unfortunately for those in search of older episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, neither can be found on Paramount+.

And you’re missing verb tenses.

What makes you believe they will put all seasons on Paramount+?

>You can also sign up for Paramount+ to watch many seasons of Comedy Central shows.

In only states you can watch many seasons and no mention it would be all in the future.

Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

#335

Post by cornholio »

mindslight wrote: post #326
cornholio wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's impossible for a great number of reasons, at the very least the fact that the distinction between the source and the binary is irrelevant for copyright and impossible to define in the general case. The GPL defines the source as the preferable working format to make changes and updates to the program, but you can see how that definition blows up in your face when there is no published source to begin with. "You…

The distinction is that the binary is a derivative work with no added creativity. I'm not saying this is how things are today, but rather I'm saying this is how things should be. In order to qualify for copyright protection, one should have to put the created work in escrow so it can actually enter the public domain when the copyright expires. If one wishes to control access to their work with other mechanisms that p…

Again, how do you prove my binary that I put in your copyright escrow facility is a derivative work and not a handcrafted assembly program? Sorry, but you are just uttering nonsense.

Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

#336

Post by TMWNN »

jpk wrote: post #55
hannasm wrote: post #53

Free 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.

Reposting my proposals regarding copyright:

Any content, once published/distributed/broadcast in the US, that is not made readily available to the public going forward loses copyright protection. This includes revisions.

* A film, TV show, sound recording, book, or any other copyrighted content must, once made available for public purchase, always remain available. If the only streaming service willing to pay to stream your movie has the smallest market share, too bad; the market has spoken on the value of your content. An ebook can fulfill this purpose for a print book; streaming can fulfill this purpose for a theatrical or physical-media film. But it must be available to maintain copyright.

* Compulsory licensing should apply; if Netflix wants to pay the same amount of money as the above-mentioned small market-share streaming service for the film, Netflix must be allowed to do so. The film's rights owner can demand more, raising the price for all, but if every outlet refuses, the film immediately goes into public domain. This process is reversible, but it would set a ceiling to prevent the owner from setting a ridiculously high price to prevent its availability.

* If a Blu-ray of a film or TV show has excised or modified scenes for whatever reason, and the original isn't also made available (whether on a different "theatrical cut" release, or as a different cut on the same disc), the entire original version immediately goes into public domain.

* If NBC posts Saturday Night Live skits on YouTube that have removed "problematic" scenes[1] without explaining the differences—a diff file, basically—the entire original skit loses copyright protection.

Separate issue, but also very worthwhile:

* Streaming services must make all data regarding their content available in some standardized format. Consumers should be able to use one application to access all content they have access to. The creator of SmartTube (a very nice YouTube-compatible player) should be able to add the appropriate API support to search for and play Netflix/Prime Video/Disney+/Paramount+ content.

The above applies to software, too. Legalize abandonware!

[1] Something I understand already happens

Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

#337

Post by robertlagrant »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #324
robertlagrant wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't say it's the goal of the economy. I was refuting this: > The system is orchestrated to existing money-people making money simply for having it in the first place.

It's not even a refutation though.

Care to explain?

Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

#338

Post by ivanbakel »

Anotheroneagain wrote: post #240
ivanbakel wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Farmers were going bankrupt because there was so much food that they couldn't sell. 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 descript…

So, farmers destroyed their crops and starved. Is that how you understand it? I'm not obligated to find a proof against fiction, when all real accounts show food prices almost halving in a decade, in fact I would be willing to speculate that the dust storms that came were in fact caused by the abandonment and large areas being left unsown, with no cover to hold the soil together.

>So, farmers destroyed their crops and starved. Is that how you understand it?

Wealthy farmers destroyed crops that weren't worth the money to sell, yes, and poor farmers went under. That's not a surprising idea, given that it continues to happen in our modern farming system all the time during periods of overproduction.

>I'm not obligated to find a proof against fiction

But you might be compelled to give some counterproof to Steinbeck's non-fiction reporting, which was also linked above.

Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

#339

Post by nine_k »

beej71 wrote: post #90
theturtletalks wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't the videos be downloaded and uploaded to the Internet Archive? There's a lot of copyrighted videos there already.

While this is a great idea, it's generally illegal for IA to share that content. And it's looking increasingly unlikely IA will be in existence 90 years from now, so it's unclear there'd be a point in them simply archiving it. If copyright were 14 years, if give IA a lot more of a chance of still being around then. And apparently the videos are no longer available to download, so it's not an option, anyway. Barring s…

Aren't there some "data hoarder" fans who have them downloaded just in case, and could upload to IA or even torrent?

Re: 25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

#340

Post by nine_k »

michaelt wrote: post #246
ncallaway wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the basic premise of copyright laws. It’s a trade. The default state of affairs is no copyright protection . Society has decided to trade a limited duration monopoly on the copyright of the work, in order to promote more works being created so that we have more works in the public domain . The entire purpose of copyright is to generate works for the public domain. So, when the current copyright system fails to…

> The entire purpose of copyright is to generate works for the public domain. Is it? Or do we just think on average, producing more copyrighted works adds to the greatness and happiness of our society? The writing of Harry Potter has brought joy to hundreds of millions of people. The production of a renowned textbook like SICP helps educate an entire generation of professionals and raise the nation's productivity.

In general, copyright is intended to help more good texts become available, either under a limited monopoly, or later in public domain.

(Same thing with patents, that were intended to help more inventions be published, and not be lost as trade secrets, while also helping to build businesses around them..)

Post reply on HN