hmmphs. My company is responsible for most of the boxes that SkyOne has installed for digital reception.

It should be playing in beautiful high definition!

CBC partly paid for it and Doc Who

and we NEVER see the show..

watch in YouTube instead

Weird.

Which carrier?

Er, channel?

CBC, non digital transmission, I'm assuming?

law abiding

also an artist that creates works for peoples consumption, and likes being paid for the hard work

oh totally..but our stupid channel just never wants to show the thing

I didn't say stealing ... I am very staunch on the concept of copyright infringement.. and here's why.

I get paid a certain amount for each performance of a work, and each -legal- copy that is made.

So, when a television station transmits a show, I get paid , and so does the television station because of the ads that are played

The less people that watch a given show, the less people see the ads, the less it gets played ... and the less I get payed

modernevil : I'm glad you think I have a choice in the matter.

I -tried- the online distribution model, working with people on a show where we controlled how we got paid.

And you know what? We didn't have the reach.

When you don't have access to the wideband distribution networks, you starve, and that's a fact.

Amanda Tapping also tried something similar, recently ("Sanctuary")

online, pay-for-play online

and guess what? It was a success and is moving to scifi channel .. where the entire model changes back to the same one everyone else uses.

modernevil : Fine, until that time comes, those people whose livelyhoods depend on the existing model -are- harmed by free distribution.

Even in the advertiser sponsored model, because the advertisers are likewise not being compensed

Absolutely harmed!

Take "MythBusters" for example

The authorized syndication channels are - Discovery channel, Science Channel, BBC, CBC (various shows)

The authorized online syndication is through iTunes

There -is- an internet distribution model.

When someone records and distributes a copy from TV on the net, people will download -that- rather than the iTunes version (there are two

other services, but I don't remember the sites .. i think one is hulu.com)

So, when someone distributes a copy for free, to someone else and does an end-run around it .. two things happen

On-the-air viewership drops

(and the ad-sponsor model breaks)

And when someone won't pay the $1.99 for the commercial free iTunes version (or whatever it is) .. then the internet distribution model is

likewise broken

An actual sale, actual revenue, is lost.

Which means less money comes back to the production company

And can result in cutbacks for a show.

That said .. I have NO PROBLEM with someone recording a show for their own viewing pleasure and use off-the-air.

In the days of the VHS tape, a copy like that was limited (just a few copies, and there was generational loss)

So, secondary distribution was both negligible and only a side issue

(aside from, as you say, bootleg actual $$$ sale and duplication, but that's not the case here)

In the digital realm, a copy is pristine and perfect, and rather inexpensive to make

So the copy, once uploaded to the usenet, or served on piratebay, is duplicated across the net hundreds of thousands of times at no benefit

modernevil : With digital content distribution, the -precise- number of viewership is generally known now

On DishTV, digital cable, and such the percentage of viewers is actually very carefully watched.

60% of viewership is digital distribution now .. outside of broadcast digital (Feb 09) which has no backchannel feedback

iTunes H.264 for iPod is low

iTunes high res is, while compressed, still pretty damned close to broadcast.

And now, of course, HD content is coming. (2-4Gb per show)

The central argument holds though. People who watch off-the-air, and PVR it for themselves (TiVO) fine.

People who PVR then distribute, are not stealing .. they are, however, commiting an act of copyright infringement.

A person who creates a work of art, by copyright, has the right to control the distribution of that art.

We -aren't- giving it away for free.

The end user is asked to watch a series of commercials.

Your belief is not backed by the law ( ---even-- pre DMCA)

I hate the DMCA, for muddying the waters and extending copyright to ridiculous lengths

When you write a program, compose lyrics, write a song, produce a show .. frankly -any- form of creative art

No, I believe that a person should and -must- be able to read the entire agreement before using something.

An EULA is not copyright. It is a contract, and falls under contract law.

You should be able to decline the EULA, but in doing so you must return and not use the software.

Again, that's your belief, but it is not held by the majority of content creators.

And not agreeing does not confer to you the right to violate the contracts, laws, and agreements that exist.

You want to frame this under US law? -smile-

Ahem, did you read my earlier statement re: DMCA?

I think it's a travesty of a law .. but the copyright law as enacted prior to the DMCA was still just about the same.

Remove the stupid copyright extension act, and the encryption clause (restoring fair use)

However, simply extending copyright to include "all forms of distribution" would have been sufficient to update for the internet/digital

It is like a patent .. it protects your idea from being unfairly copied or stolen by those with more resources than you for a time.

Originally, it was meant to protect it for a portion of your lifetime.

Once corporations were equated s people in the united states (and later other countries) this concept got skewed badly.

I -soldily- hold onto the idea that a person's good idea has value, that should be protected for a time.

Heh, we're connected now

It is about value!

And in some cases, that is money.

Some people value what they create, and do not want it spread.

Copyright protects those who have little power against those who have too much

My friend Rebeccah may be a good example.

She has a condition that has given her a very pointed face, and small ears, blue eyes.

Some people find that exotic, elf-like.

She indulged her husband, by allowing him to take a partially nude photo of her in elf-like garb.

He took that photo to be developed, and made into a framed piece of art to take with him while he worked in Tokyo

Someone scanned that photo in between the time he got it developed and got the frame back

Then the photo got out on the net (usenet)

Four months later, it found it's way onto a poster

Without copyright, she would have NO RIGHTS to the image whatsoever.

As it was, she was able to stop the corporation that was making the posters (about contraception)

and off of commercial and non-commercial websites.

So, copyrights aren't just about money.

It's about having control over the content you create, and a legal way of addressing things when someone takes unfair advantage of you.

Like any of the other rights afforded under the constitution.

And it comes back to the concept of Liberty, and the understanding that your rights STOP where someone elses starts.

IT does indeed.

Well, that -you- don't believe that, I certainly believe.

However, the framers of the constitution understood it well.

There is -nothing- about commercial anything in the constitution.

I quote "The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

The Congress shall have Power by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and

Discoveries.

That's it,.

nothing about money.

or commerce.

It just states that a person has the right to control how what they create is used, for a short time.

Well, a 'limited' time, not short.

And it promotes science and art, by recognizing that there is value in what someone creates.

Exactly that, no more, no less.

They recognize the value intrinsic in creation of ideas. Whether just to be credited with the creation of something, or the barter and

exchange of ideas .. all the way out to commerce.

The only thing A1C1S8 recognizes -is- that there is value and that a person should be able to control what they have created for a time.

Frankly, it wasn't until 1976 when the whole thing spun out of control...

In 1909, the basics were in place.

28 year, 28 year extension (if author was still alive) with automatic copyright assigned to any creative act.

It also recognized the difference betwen "published" and "unpublished" works

(leaving unpublished works in the hands of state, not federal laws)

Look how far this discussion has GONE! .. from CBC's terrible broadcast quality and scheduling of Torchwood ... to a full blown discussion

of Copyright!

In the strictly 1909 context, these words are published, with a copyright notice afficed (see below)

However, the 1909 framework was and is poorly suited to deal with the concept of the internet.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co...

Woefully inadequate article .. I'll need to clean it up and add to it.

Plurk.com is the publisher, and they have deferred to you some rights in the copyright notice.

You did read it, right?

I do, indeed think it is rational,and expected in a civilization.

You asked -me- if I believe it, and I do.

That you don't, is obvious.

There is, of course, no right or wrong here.. we do, in the end, defer to the collective agreement of the civilization we choose to live in.

The consequences thereby of disagreeing, depending on what form you choose to take, are therefore entirely in your own hands.

Well, as long as you have an idea, and you keep it in your mind without expressing it. Then -you- have controlled it.

Once you express an idea, into the collective society around you, how that idea is passed along is entirely up to the way that civilization

organized.

I control all my ideas. If I choose to express it via Interpretive Dance, song, as a program, or as grafitti on a wall.

Ooof .. just lost my sentence in a plurk update

If I choose to express myself in interpretive dance, as a song, or via grafitti, or a program, that is up to me.

How a society deals with it afterwards depends on how it is organized.

At 181 responses, this form is getting slower We're finding the limits of a response stream.

Poor CrunchyCarpets .. we've hijacked her plurk

Lets move this discussion to the new plurk I just posted. 190 is taking forever to load.

Switch to plurk -> www.plurk.com/p/8nya

Oh, fine

It won't take that many to ge tthere.

Probably .. and since we're so close, I think I will relent and let you have the last words on the thread. Make them count!