Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks
I don’t even understand most of this portion as your grammar is very poor.
The last part addressing reducing the cost of transport is a bit funny though. VCRs did nothing to reduce the cost of delivery, rather they increased the cost. If a distributor wanted to get their product to the end user, broadcast is inevitably cheaper, but obviously less secure, especially when you want to be compensated for the use of your content. Time shifting (which you overextend on every occasion) is intended to be used privately, in home. The minute you take your copy of that content and share it, you have become a distributor or broadcaster, which you have no right to.
|
the VCR was only the very tail end of the taped content distribution
when you are talking about Taped content distribution you have to include VTR (Video Tape Recorder) the big commercial grade recording devices which never cost less than 10,000 and were originally selling for more than 50,000 each.
before they were invented TV shows were sold to single sponsor and broadcast live. NBC and (then) CBS were the only two distribution network you could get your show carried on. And as a producer you of a content you had to pay them for the right to broadcast on their channel, which in turn paid local affiliates to carry the single the last mile. NBC owned may local affilates outright allowing them to dictate price. The total revenue was very small and your piece was even smaller. TV stations broadcast somthing like 4 hours a day of content with a max of 6-10 on the weekend. And a portion of that was local news that had to be broadcast to comply wth FTC liciencing requirements. TV shows were filmed not recorded and had the massive cost associated with producing them in the first place.
Obviously i can't expect you to read a book on the subject so i suggest you rent the movie hollywoodland about george revees to get a better picture of that market.
VTR changed that, it add the ability to sell commerical interuptions, affiliates were give VTR with national commerical spots included with empty spots to fill with local advertisers. TV stations no longer paid for the access right of local affilates but provided them tv shows and allowed them to sell the extra ad spots. Regions of the country that did not have the financial capacity to put up a satalite reciever got VTR delivered by truck from the closest metropolitan center. Satalite signals were broadcast a week/sometimes two weeks in advance, recorded and cut up for insertion of local tv ads. More hours were added, additional stations like ABC came on the marketplace. More tv time was added and therefore more available money for content producers. Advertisers paid more for the reach of television. Production budget went up massively. at it peak (during the time the BETAMAX case was running thru the courts) VTR sold for 10,000. TV networks/TV producers/local affiates were raking in the money. 16 + hours of content was being distributed for a fraction of the cost of distributing 4 in the day. Ad revenues were thru the roof.
Add to that filming disappeared and recording took it place and the cost of physical production dropped significantly (again i can't trust you to read so i suggest you watch boogie nights to see that part)
Everyone was making ungodly money compared to the early days of tv.
the personal sale of recording technology did put a damper on this revenue slightly, but they solved that problem by increaseing the quantity of ad spots between shows. And then when these devices hit critical mass, a new revenue stream came about (sale of tapes, movies).
Digital distribution has gone thru a similar ebb and flow, starting with the digital compression of analog signal to fit more data on the satilite signal, to current day.
sure there will be dinasours who will fight the technology just like the companies that tried to sue Sony in the BETAMAX case, but they will ultimately lose.
Quote:
Wow, difficult to read again. You may not have made it through 4th grade, I will have to rethink that insult against you.
I claim my right to control my product and it is not insane. It is the same rights claimed by every other producer. You, the lecherous end user, are claiming that our work is for your entertainment and for your good and use and that you have rights that supercede ours. You are wrong.
Make all the claims you like. Quote the portions of the law that you like. Abandon all levels of common sense where you assume that you as the end user somehow have rights that allow you to control my content more than I can. It makes no difference to me. We can keep going back and forth all you like. It’s entertaining. Stupid, but entertaining.
|
Well it better than making completely unfounded claims like some of your exclusive rights exist for fair use.
You have yet to produce a single quote from the law that justifies that position.
Quote:
|
Moreover, the definition of exclusive rights in 106 of the present Act is prefaced by the words "subject to sections 107 through 118." Those sections describe a variety of uses of copyrighted material that "are not infringements of copyright" "notwithstanding the provisions of section 106." The most pertinent in this case is 107, the legislative endorsement of the doctrine of "fair use." 29 [464 U.S. 417, 448]
|
In simple terms even if i violate every single one of your exclusive rights, as long as i do it for a fair use reason it is "not infringements of copyright"
You keep trying to claim some/most of your exclusive rights hold even under fair use.
IF that were true then you would be able to produce one court case where a judge made such a statement explicitly.
You could quote me a paragraph from a court case when a judge said something like "even though the act was fair use,
this exclusive right superceds ....and it is therefore still an infringement"
You can't because in every case in which fair use has been brought up one of two things has happened
- the courts have recognized the fair use and eliminated the liablity
- the courts have determined that the action was not fair use
all of your attempts to justify your position have been trying to jury rig these non existing rights into fair use by making claims that have already been established to be legal (ie it illegal to get a tape of a show from a friend when you lose power at your house and your vcr fails to tape)