6 ms·

> As such, it seems like there should be some kind of legal obligation to keep it public. The challenge here is royalties. You have to pay people royalties for

> As such, it seems like there should be some kind of legal obligation to keep it public. The challenge here is royalties. You have to pay people royalties for broadcasting their work. You could take the position that publicly funded media should be in the public domain, but then it's going to cost considerably more because you'll have to compensate people for the royalties they won't receive. > I might be wrong in this particular case though — maybe the public funding was always indirect, through the broadcasters? Yes, Sesame Street wasn't commissioned by PBS, it was originated by the Children's Television Workshop which was funded via grants (some from the state, but mainly by non-profits like the Carnegie Corporation). And originally it aired on the precursor to PBS (National Educational Television), which was funded by the Ford Foundation.

pirate787 4y ago
Nonprofit funding is, in significant measure, a form of public funding as the organization's income is not taxed and its donors receive a tax deduction.
- dwighttk 4y ago
  If the public wants that credit, tax ‘em and pay for the programs. Otherwise I’ll give you the government didn’t discourage the effort.
- enriquec 4y ago
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Then why does society allow someone to reduce their tax liability for “charity”? Of course, it would be better if there were no deductions in the first place, and the government just paid for content if it wanted to pay for content which was then automatically in the public domain.
    - qubex 4y ago
      Because lobbyists receive a healthy sum to achieve and defend their benefactors’ ability to influence societal development by indulging in subsidised philanthropy they can focus on issues and aspects they desire (rather than going through the State and governmental assignment of funds).
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Do you really want government as the primary arbiter of what goes on PBS? At that point, it might as well be a government news channel. Though for better or worse, broadcast channels--including PBS--are less and less relevant. The federal government in the US is perfectly within its rights to commission and host content on .gov--which in general would be public domain.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      The idea is that when you donate to charity, the money is never “yours” - you never benefit from it. Analogously, if part of your compensation was a donation to charity, you wouldn’t be taxed on it. > it would be better if there were no donations in the first place, and the government just A lot of Democrats in red states and Republicans in blue states disagree. If America removed the charitable tax deduction, the big losers would include churches, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, etc
      - ghaff 4y ago
        >Analogously, if part of your compensation was a donation to charity, you wouldn’t be taxed on it. Which is basically how corporate gift matching works.
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        > The idea is that when you donate to charity, the money is never “yours” - you never benefit from it. Of course you do. If you didn't benefit from the donation, you wouldn't have made it.
        endominus 4y ago
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > What twisted logic hahaha Try to remain respectful, this isn't Twitter or Reddit.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  By that logic, a pack of cigarettes taxed at 500% is "publicly funded" because it could have been taxed at 1000%.
  - nwah1 4y ago
    There is no functional difference between a tax break and a subsidy. And everything is private property only if a sovereign authority says it is. Much of it is not even remotely justifiable even by the most generous Lockean assumptions. But it remains private property because an entity with the power to do so has deemed it so.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      > everything is private property only if a sovereign authority says it is This is simply untrue. Private property proceeds the existence of the modern state. Many parts of the world have extremely weak states, yet a distinction between private and public property remains. Arguably, the states role is to ensure private property protections are available to the weak and the powerful, not just the powerful. “The commons” - in the European and British sense were/are public property long before a meaningful state became involved. Both s public and private property proceed modern states, and can have their origin in customary law as much as legal statutes.
      - nwah1 4y ago
        Sovereign authorities also precede the existence of states.
      - specialist 4y ago
        Claims of ownership are only as legitimate as the potential to do violence to assert such claims.
        pyuser583 4y ago
        Authority isn’t always rooted in force or threat of force. “The commons” is/was publicly owned, but without any real threat of force behind it.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  By that logic, your posting uses public funds. The government could have taxed your comments, but they didn't.
- imgabe 4y ago
  This presumes that all income belongs to the government by default, and not being taxed is some special favor. That’s backwards, all income belongs to the people who earn it by default. We agree to use a portion for the common good to fund the government. Since a nonprofit is presumably already working for the common good, there is no reason to take any of their income to fund the government.
umeshunni 4y ago
> You have to pay people royalties for broadcasting their work. Might be a dumb question - but is this a contractual thing? Why do people still need to get royalties for broadcasts of something made 40 years ago vs just paying them for it back then?
- fncypants 4y ago
  Yes, it's contractual because of copyright. If someone (and many parties in the process) created it back then, there is a web of copyrights that require royalties to the creators. Contracts would control who this obligation is owed to (if anyone) years later.
  - shalmanese 4y ago
    What? It has nothing to do with copyright. It's a provision negotiated by unions for the benefit of members which means you can't employ anyone in certain unions without a minimum royalty schedule. Notably, live action productions covered under SAG-AFTRA and WGA get residuals while animated works under IATSE did not until very recently.
  - anotherman554 4y ago
    Copyright law does not require royalties to anyone. People can negotiate for royalties or not negotiate for royalties.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >is this a contractual thing Yes. In general the content owners (less often so actors, screenwriters, etc.) work on a combination of upfront fees and royalties. This is true of book authors as well who typically get an advance against royalties. Purchasers generally won't pay a fee commensurate with "if this is a big hit" so the content owners are willing to accept a smaller fee in exchange for a cut of the big hit proceeds--even if those often don't come about.
- smelendez 4y ago
  It’s similar to startups paying in stock and options. It allows for more speculative projects since the upfront cost is lower.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pirate787 4y ago

Nonprofit funding is, in significant measure, a form of public funding as the organization's income is not taxed and its donors receive a tax deduction.

dwighttk 4y ago
If the public wants that credit, tax ‘em and pay for the programs. Otherwise I’ll give you the government didn’t discourage the effort.
enriquec 4y ago
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Then why does society allow someone to reduce their tax liability for “charity”? Of course, it would be better if there were no deductions in the first place, and the government just paid for content if it wanted to pay for content which was then automatically in the public domain.
  - qubex 4y ago
    Because lobbyists receive a healthy sum to achieve and defend their benefactors’ ability to influence societal development by indulging in subsidised philanthropy they can focus on issues and aspects they desire (rather than going through the State and governmental assignment of funds).
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Do you really want government as the primary arbiter of what goes on PBS? At that point, it might as well be a government news channel. Though for better or worse, broadcast channels--including PBS--are less and less relevant. The federal government in the US is perfectly within its rights to commission and host content on .gov--which in general would be public domain.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    The idea is that when you donate to charity, the money is never “yours” - you never benefit from it. Analogously, if part of your compensation was a donation to charity, you wouldn’t be taxed on it. > it would be better if there were no donations in the first place, and the government just A lot of Democrats in red states and Republicans in blue states disagree. If America removed the charitable tax deduction, the big losers would include churches, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, etc
    - ghaff 4y ago
      >Analogously, if part of your compensation was a donation to charity, you wouldn’t be taxed on it. Which is basically how corporate gift matching works.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > The idea is that when you donate to charity, the money is never “yours” - you never benefit from it. Of course you do. If you didn't benefit from the donation, you wouldn't have made it.
      - endominus 4y ago
- brigandish 4y ago
  > What twisted logic hahaha Try to remain respectful, this isn't Twitter or Reddit.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MichaelCollins 4y ago
By that logic, a pack of cigarettes taxed at 500% is "publicly funded" because it could have been taxed at 1000%.
- nwah1 4y ago
  There is no functional difference between a tax break and a subsidy. And everything is private property only if a sovereign authority says it is. Much of it is not even remotely justifiable even by the most generous Lockean assumptions. But it remains private property because an entity with the power to do so has deemed it so.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    > everything is private property only if a sovereign authority says it is This is simply untrue. Private property proceeds the existence of the modern state. Many parts of the world have extremely weak states, yet a distinction between private and public property remains. Arguably, the states role is to ensure private property protections are available to the weak and the powerful, not just the powerful. “The commons” - in the European and British sense were/are public property long before a meaningful state became involved. Both s public and private property proceed modern states, and can have their origin in customary law as much as legal statutes.
    - nwah1 4y ago
      Sovereign authorities also precede the existence of states.
    - specialist 4y ago
      Claims of ownership are only as legitimate as the potential to do violence to assert such claims.
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        Authority isn’t always rooted in force or threat of force. “The commons” is/was publicly owned, but without any real threat of force behind it.
IncRnd 4y ago
By that logic, your posting uses public funds. The government could have taxed your comments, but they didn't.
imgabe 4y ago
This presumes that all income belongs to the government by default, and not being taxed is some special favor. That’s backwards, all income belongs to the people who earn it by default. We agree to use a portion for the common good to fund the government. Since a nonprofit is presumably already working for the common good, there is no reason to take any of their income to fund the government.

umeshunni 4y ago

> You have to pay people royalties for broadcasting their work. Might be a dumb question - but is this a contractual thing? Why do people still need to get royalties for broadcasts of something made 40 years ago vs just paying them for it back then?

fncypants 4y ago
Yes, it's contractual because of copyright. If someone (and many parties in the process) created it back then, there is a web of copyrights that require royalties to the creators. Contracts would control who this obligation is owed to (if anyone) years later.
- shalmanese 4y ago
  What? It has nothing to do with copyright. It's a provision negotiated by unions for the benefit of members which means you can't employ anyone in certain unions without a minimum royalty schedule. Notably, live action productions covered under SAG-AFTRA and WGA get residuals while animated works under IATSE did not until very recently.
- anotherman554 4y ago
  Copyright law does not require royalties to anyone. People can negotiate for royalties or not negotiate for royalties.
ghaff 4y ago
>is this a contractual thing Yes. In general the content owners (less often so actors, screenwriters, etc.) work on a combination of upfront fees and royalties. This is true of book authors as well who typically get an advance against royalties. Purchasers generally won't pay a fee commensurate with "if this is a big hit" so the content owners are willing to accept a smaller fee in exchange for a cut of the big hit proceeds--even if those often don't come about.
smelendez 4y ago
It’s similar to startups paying in stock and options. It allows for more speculative projects since the upfront cost is lower.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]