4 ms·

"Two episodes of the TV series Bewitched dated 1964 aired on ABC Network and almost sixty years later, archive copies of those transmissions were removed from Y

by ta1243 3y ago

"Two episodes of the TV series Bewitched dated 1964 aired on ABC Network and almost sixty years later, archive copies of those transmissions were removed from YouTube for violating Sony copyrights, with MCCTv receiving a strike" Well you can argue that copyright shouldn't last 60 years, and I'd agree, but it does. Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> Well you can argue that copyright shouldn't last 60 years, and I'd agree, but it does. Because we end these sentences here, we are where we are. > Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences. Doubling down on the awful ending helps insure we stay here. Instead, we could continue the thought into the broken systems that put us here. eg: Trading law for cash+favors.
Pannoniae 3y ago
"Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences." - Have you heard of jury nullification? This is not a bad-faith jab, I'm really curious. Laws are not absolute and there is no requirement to uphold it if either the judge or the jury thinks it's not reasonable. (Exceptions include minimum sentencing laws, AFAIK.)
- Zetice 3y ago
  Exceedingly rare and shouldn’t be relied upon in any case. Further, 12 random people shouldn’t be able to flout democracy, and in fact judges are given a lot of discretion about what to do if a jury ignores law so blatantly.
  - ghastmaster 3y ago
    Jury nullification is a legitimate practice in the United States, which is a democratic republic. There are stupid statutes, case law, and situations that nullification can protect the citizens from a potential overreach of government.
    - gameman144 3y ago
      I hear this view about jury nullification quite a bit, saying it's fair to ignore the law and acquit if the law is unfair. Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law and convict if someone committed some evil act but technically didn't break any law?
      - chongli 3y ago
        I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Could you give an example? Juries can’t pull people off the street and convict them. Are you saying this evil person is being charged with a crime they clearly did not commit? Judges have been known to set aside jury convictions when they believe the jury erred on the facts. They specifically give the jury instructions on the matter they’re supposed to decide. Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact only, not matters of law. If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. Of course sometimes people are wrongly convicted and punished of crimes, but that happens in every country and it’s always bad and must be fought against.
        hgsgm 3y ago
        "Matters of fact" vs "matters of law" is a blurry distinction.
        chongli 3y ago
        How so? Matters of fact: What happened on the night of March 17th? Matters of law: What does section 734.3 of the criminal code mean?
        vkou 3y ago
        > If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. By what mechanism? The jury, as ultimate arbiters of fact, have identified that the defendant did commit the act.
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    "Further, 12 random people shouldn’t be able to flout democracy." Correct, they absolutely should not—in a working democracy. The trouble is democracy isn't working when it comes to copyright, it never has. The 1886 Berne Convention was snuck in and locked in place before anyone realized what had happened. Big vested interests like Sony have had governments by the knackers ever since at everyone else's expense. The question is how does the citizenry now regain control over its governance. Put another way, rule by multinational corporate interests isn't democracy.
    - ta1243 3y ago
      It doesn't mean "Democracy isn't working" because democracy has decided a behaviour you don't like. See for example people who think it's fine to shoplift from stores because "they're big companies" or whatever. > rule by multinational corporate interests isn't democracy. The MPAA members, including Disney, Sony, AND netflix, have a combined value of $500b. Set aside netflix and that's $300b - 1/0th the size of a company like Google. Now you might be right that large companies that rely on copyright for control are a danger, but if Sony is a big danger, what does that make Google or Apple.
      - hilbert42 3y ago
        We are talking power imbalance here, copyright is only one issue, there are many others. Google, MS, Meta, Amazon and many others are exercising monopolistic power to the disadvantage of others. Put it this way, the small percentage of the population who are very wealthy shareholders and owners of these companies—powerful vested interests—have inflicted significant damage on our society by their control over government. When the rich binge on getting richer and all others get poorer as a consequence and government does nothing about it then history tells us where that usually ends. One doesn't have to be Einstein to see our society is in a damn mess and it's getting worse.
        ta1243 3y ago
        Disney is a large company, but it's tiny compared with Alphabet - Disney is the underdog here, suing to prevent Alphabet from making money from Disney's IP.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    > judges are given a lot of discretion about what to do if a jury ignores law so blatantly To be clear, only in civil cases. In criminal cases, there is no way to overturn JN.
  - vkou 3y ago
    Jury nullification is a bug of the jury system (Which is that the jury can decide to convict or acquit anyone for any reason, be it principled, good, biased, or otherwise), but it's not one that can be patched over without other incredibly negative consequences. Everyone is all for jury nullification until you get a few closet Klansmen on a jury 'nullifying' a dead-to-rights-guilty lynching trial. Also, if I'm putting my life in the hands of 12 randos, I must be really, really, really 'down bad' (as the kids these days say).
- wongarsu 3y ago
  Even with minimum sentences, if the President and Governor instruct police to ignore all violations of a law, you can treat it as if it didn't exist. Or police officers can decide that the punishment is so low that enforcing a law isn't worth their time (see e.g. California's shoplifting misdemeanor). But all of these are examples of other people disliking a law. If the right other people dislike a law, you can ignore it. But whether you like it doesn't really play into it.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    The executive's opportunity to squash a law is his veto power. Once the law is on the books, the executive branch is duty-bound to enforce it, as it represents the will of the people via their elected representatives. If executives can just decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore then we're partway down the road to dictatorship. Judges have the power to find that a law is unconstitutional, but not Presidents or Governors.
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      Yet, states making marihuana legal while it's illegal at the federal level is a thing. If the federal executive branch did what they are "duty-bound" do to, then this wouldn't be possible at all. The methods the President chooses or doesn't choose to employ how to enforce the Controlled Substances Act seems to be more or less at their discretion in practice, and "we have limited resources and bigger fish to fry" seems to be a valid excuse, despite this being a judgement call at the whims of the executive branch.
      - SoftTalker 3y ago
        But they will still pull it out of their back pocket when it suits their needs. Like a dictator would.
      - Auracle 3y ago
        There’s also the massive example of illegal immigration. DACA basically says “we’re not going to prosecute this specific group for this specific law.”
- eesmith 3y ago
  Copyright is part of civil law, not criminal law. The double jeopardy clause which enables jury nullification does not extend to civil law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification which cites https://ia902506.us.archive.org/9/items/verdicts-of-conscience-nullification-and-the-modern-jury-trial/Verdicts%20of%20Conscience%20-%20Nullification%20and%20the%20Modern%20Jury%20Trial.pdf https://ia902506.us.archive.org/9/items/verdicts-of-conscien... > In a civil trial, where the jury renders a verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can hand down judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) or order a new trial. Jury nullification is possible in a criminal context because once the defendant has been acquitted, and regardless of why he was acquitted, he cannot be tried again for the same offense. A consideration of the constitutionality of civil jury nullification is beyond the scope of this Note. See generally Lars Noah, Civil Jury Nullification, 86 Iowa L. Rev. 1601, 1601, 1626-57 (2001) (discussing legitimacy of jury nullification in civil cases and concluding that "the case in favor of civil jury nullification is much weaker than it is in the criminal arena.) The primary reference is at https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ilr86&div=43&id=&page= https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/... . Even if jury nullification did apply, and you were lucky enough to get jurors who exercised that option, one clear consequence is going through the civil trial. You have no right to a public defender, so either you will need to pay for a (likely expensive) attorney, or deal with it on your own.
  - throwaway17_17 3y ago
    Excellent points, I wish you had answered the what is nullification question from a comment above, it would have been better written and may have included sources.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    It's that very same point which makes it acceptable (to some) to break civil law. Unless the plaintiff can actually prove that damages are due, then the preparations for the case (which are admittedly expensive for many) are the only costs that the defendant bears. In the grandparent's example, the TV series is still available, and so the copyright holder could make a strong case for damages. If it's an otherwise unavailable news report about a specialist topic, it would be much harder to claim that any damages (such as loss of profits) was actually incurred. The fact that YouTube can simply restrict access whenever they feel like it is of course tangential to the legality of distribution in general.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  "jury nullification": I never heard of this before. Can you name any examples that anyone except lawyers / judges would know?
  - throwaway17_17 3y ago
    Jury nullification is where a jury ‘nullifies’ a legally correct verdict in a trial by voting against it for other reasons. In my line of work, the most frequently cited instances of jury nullification was the 10 juror requirement for a verdict in the State of Louisiana. The reduced requirement (from most jurisdictions 12 unanimous jurors) was instituted explicitly to allow for ‘white’ criminal defendants to be acquitted of crimes against African-American. Following reconstruction, the jury needed to appear like it could have racially diverse individuals serve on it, so they lowered the requirement for the number of agreeing jurors required so if two African-Americans actually made it on the jury their votes would not count. The typical historical ‘example’ would be the jury finding a ‘white’ defendant not guilty of a clearly proven crime (murder, rape, battery, etc.) A more modern example would be a jury finding a defendant not guilty of possession of marijuana even though the defendant obviously had MJ in their possession.
    - hedora 3y ago
      Other modern examples include Musk’s stock manipulation trial, and jurors refusing to convict in cases where police use excessive force.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    There's some on the Wikipedia page e.g. > In 2021, six activists associated with the environmental protest organisation Extinction Rebellion were tried for causing criminal damage to the British headquarters of the multinational oil company Royal Dutch Shell. The judge told the jury that there was 'no defence in law' for the protestors' actions, which according to the prosecutor had caused 'significant damage' to the building, but the activists were acquitted
- jschveibinz 3y ago
  Jury nullification (Cornell Law): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification
- dahart 3y ago
  > Laws are not absolute This also doesn’t mean people will escape consequences, right? Broadly and statistically speaking, it’s extremely unlikely that breaking a law you don’t like will result in a trial that strikes the law down in your favor. I’d guess this might be especially true with copyright, since there is so much precedent - lots and lots of people have broken copyright and tried to fight it and lost. Why is this case any different?
jccalhoun 3y ago
While they should be in the public domain they aren't so I don't know how they thought it would be ok to post entire episodes of tv shows that are for sale on dvd and streaming services.
- ta1243 3y ago
  There is a strong view amongst many people that copyright doesn't apply to them because it's annoying. Back in the days when you literally couldn't get the programs for love nor money (they were shown on US TV but weren't available globally for years), I'd often DCC them. I'd never claim that it was right. I seem the same attitude from people who copy an article verbatim from a closed website that you have to subscribe to.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences. However, laws aren't necessarily ethical and it's arguable that good citizens should refuse to obey unethical laws (e.g. it used to be illegal to harbour an escaped slave, or the Nazi Germany laws against Jews). Personally, I think that media companies are harming the public by enforcing unnecessary old copyrights that they have no intention of re-distributing. We're going to end up with missing decades of TV/films that aren't popular enough to interest the copyright holder and that no-one had copies of.
- ta1243 3y ago
  I can buy Bewitched on amazon, streaming or dvds, but that would involve me spending a tiny amount on it (less than £1/hour) I'm not sure that comparing having to pay a nominal amount for something that's trivially available with harbouring escaped slaves is the slam dunk you think it is, or why another company should profit from your reluctance to pay the creators.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    The point about escaped slaves is to point out that legality and morality are only loosely correlated. I was making a general point about media companies and older media that seems to have escaped you and not specifically talking about Bewitched, but your mention of "pay the creators" raises the question of who exactly receives money from the sale of DVDs. Sol Saks is arguably the creator of Bewitched and he died back in 2011, so I have my doubts about whether copyright law is working as intended to incentivise him to make more shows. Edit: Just had a look on wikipedia and everyone listed there in relation to Bewitched is now dead.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  The comparison of sharing movies to hiding Jews from nazis is one of the most blatantly historical false equivalencies I’ve ever seen.
  - fortyseven 3y ago
crazygringo 3y ago
Yeah, and Bewitched seems like a terrible example. You can currently buy the complete season on DVD, or watch it streaming. It's continuing to make money and in no danger of being lost. Of course it's going to be taken off YouTube, the same as if Squid Game were uploaded. Now if we're talking TV shows that were last place in viewership in the 1960's so nobody's bothered to sell/stream and haven't been syndicated in decades, then it's a totally different story...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by ta1243 3y ago

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> Well you can argue that copyright shouldn't last 60 years, and I'd agree, but it does. Because we end these sentences here, we are where we are. > Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences. Doubling down on the awful ending helps insure we stay here. Instead, we could continue the thought into the broken systems that put us here. eg: Trading law for cash+favors.

Pannoniae 3y ago

"Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences." - Have you heard of jury nullification? This is not a bad-faith jab, I'm really curious. Laws are not absolute and there is no requirement to uphold it if either the judge or the jury thinks it's not reasonable. (Exceptions include minimum sentencing laws, AFAIK.)

Zetice 3y ago
Exceedingly rare and shouldn’t be relied upon in any case. Further, 12 random people shouldn’t be able to flout democracy, and in fact judges are given a lot of discretion about what to do if a jury ignores law so blatantly.
- ghastmaster 3y ago
  Jury nullification is a legitimate practice in the United States, which is a democratic republic. There are stupid statutes, case law, and situations that nullification can protect the citizens from a potential overreach of government.
  - gameman144 3y ago
    I hear this view about jury nullification quite a bit, saying it's fair to ignore the law and acquit if the law is unfair. Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law and convict if someone committed some evil act but technically didn't break any law?
    - chongli 3y ago
      I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Could you give an example? Juries can’t pull people off the street and convict them. Are you saying this evil person is being charged with a crime they clearly did not commit? Judges have been known to set aside jury convictions when they believe the jury erred on the facts. They specifically give the jury instructions on the matter they’re supposed to decide. Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact only, not matters of law. If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. Of course sometimes people are wrongly convicted and punished of crimes, but that happens in every country and it’s always bad and must be fought against.
      - hgsgm 3y ago
        "Matters of fact" vs "matters of law" is a blurry distinction.
        chongli 3y ago
        How so? Matters of fact: What happened on the night of March 17th? Matters of law: What does section 734.3 of the criminal code mean?
      - vkou 3y ago
        > If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. By what mechanism? The jury, as ultimate arbiters of fact, have identified that the defendant did commit the act.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  "Further, 12 random people shouldn’t be able to flout democracy." Correct, they absolutely should not—in a working democracy. The trouble is democracy isn't working when it comes to copyright, it never has. The 1886 Berne Convention was snuck in and locked in place before anyone realized what had happened. Big vested interests like Sony have had governments by the knackers ever since at everyone else's expense. The question is how does the citizenry now regain control over its governance. Put another way, rule by multinational corporate interests isn't democracy.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    It doesn't mean "Democracy isn't working" because democracy has decided a behaviour you don't like. See for example people who think it's fine to shoplift from stores because "they're big companies" or whatever. > rule by multinational corporate interests isn't democracy. The MPAA members, including Disney, Sony, AND netflix, have a combined value of $500b. Set aside netflix and that's $300b - 1/0th the size of a company like Google. Now you might be right that large companies that rely on copyright for control are a danger, but if Sony is a big danger, what does that make Google or Apple.
    - hilbert42 3y ago
      We are talking power imbalance here, copyright is only one issue, there are many others. Google, MS, Meta, Amazon and many others are exercising monopolistic power to the disadvantage of others. Put it this way, the small percentage of the population who are very wealthy shareholders and owners of these companies—powerful vested interests—have inflicted significant damage on our society by their control over government. When the rich binge on getting richer and all others get poorer as a consequence and government does nothing about it then history tells us where that usually ends. One doesn't have to be Einstein to see our society is in a damn mess and it's getting worse.
      - ta1243 3y ago
        Disney is a large company, but it's tiny compared with Alphabet - Disney is the underdog here, suing to prevent Alphabet from making money from Disney's IP.
- justrealist 3y ago
  > judges are given a lot of discretion about what to do if a jury ignores law so blatantly To be clear, only in civil cases. In criminal cases, there is no way to overturn JN.
- vkou 3y ago
  Jury nullification is a bug of the jury system (Which is that the jury can decide to convict or acquit anyone for any reason, be it principled, good, biased, or otherwise), but it's not one that can be patched over without other incredibly negative consequences. Everyone is all for jury nullification until you get a few closet Klansmen on a jury 'nullifying' a dead-to-rights-guilty lynching trial. Also, if I'm putting my life in the hands of 12 randos, I must be really, really, really 'down bad' (as the kids these days say).
wongarsu 3y ago
Even with minimum sentences, if the President and Governor instruct police to ignore all violations of a law, you can treat it as if it didn't exist. Or police officers can decide that the punishment is so low that enforcing a law isn't worth their time (see e.g. California's shoplifting misdemeanor). But all of these are examples of other people disliking a law. If the right other people dislike a law, you can ignore it. But whether you like it doesn't really play into it.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  The executive's opportunity to squash a law is his veto power. Once the law is on the books, the executive branch is duty-bound to enforce it, as it represents the will of the people via their elected representatives. If executives can just decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore then we're partway down the road to dictatorship. Judges have the power to find that a law is unconstitutional, but not Presidents or Governors.
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    Yet, states making marihuana legal while it's illegal at the federal level is a thing. If the federal executive branch did what they are "duty-bound" do to, then this wouldn't be possible at all. The methods the President chooses or doesn't choose to employ how to enforce the Controlled Substances Act seems to be more or less at their discretion in practice, and "we have limited resources and bigger fish to fry" seems to be a valid excuse, despite this being a judgement call at the whims of the executive branch.
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      But they will still pull it out of their back pocket when it suits their needs. Like a dictator would.
    - Auracle 3y ago
      There’s also the massive example of illegal immigration. DACA basically says “we’re not going to prosecute this specific group for this specific law.”
eesmith 3y ago
Copyright is part of civil law, not criminal law. The double jeopardy clause which enables jury nullification does not extend to civil law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification which cites https://ia902506.us.archive.org/9/items/verdicts-of-conscience-nullification-and-the-modern-jury-trial/Verdicts%20of%20Conscience%20-%20Nullification%20and%20the%20Modern%20Jury%20Trial.pdf https://ia902506.us.archive.org/9/items/verdicts-of-conscien... > In a civil trial, where the jury renders a verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can hand down judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) or order a new trial. Jury nullification is possible in a criminal context because once the defendant has been acquitted, and regardless of why he was acquitted, he cannot be tried again for the same offense. A consideration of the constitutionality of civil jury nullification is beyond the scope of this Note. See generally Lars Noah, Civil Jury Nullification, 86 Iowa L. Rev. 1601, 1601, 1626-57 (2001) (discussing legitimacy of jury nullification in civil cases and concluding that "the case in favor of civil jury nullification is much weaker than it is in the criminal arena.) The primary reference is at https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ilr86&div=43&id=&page= https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/... . Even if jury nullification did apply, and you were lucky enough to get jurors who exercised that option, one clear consequence is going through the civil trial. You have no right to a public defender, so either you will need to pay for a (likely expensive) attorney, or deal with it on your own.
- throwaway17_17 3y ago
  Excellent points, I wish you had answered the what is nullification question from a comment above, it would have been better written and may have included sources.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  It's that very same point which makes it acceptable (to some) to break civil law. Unless the plaintiff can actually prove that damages are due, then the preparations for the case (which are admittedly expensive for many) are the only costs that the defendant bears. In the grandparent's example, the TV series is still available, and so the copyright holder could make a strong case for damages. If it's an otherwise unavailable news report about a specialist topic, it would be much harder to claim that any damages (such as loss of profits) was actually incurred. The fact that YouTube can simply restrict access whenever they feel like it is of course tangential to the legality of distribution in general.
throwaway2037 3y ago
"jury nullification": I never heard of this before. Can you name any examples that anyone except lawyers / judges would know?
- throwaway17_17 3y ago
  Jury nullification is where a jury ‘nullifies’ a legally correct verdict in a trial by voting against it for other reasons. In my line of work, the most frequently cited instances of jury nullification was the 10 juror requirement for a verdict in the State of Louisiana. The reduced requirement (from most jurisdictions 12 unanimous jurors) was instituted explicitly to allow for ‘white’ criminal defendants to be acquitted of crimes against African-American. Following reconstruction, the jury needed to appear like it could have racially diverse individuals serve on it, so they lowered the requirement for the number of agreeing jurors required so if two African-Americans actually made it on the jury their votes would not count. The typical historical ‘example’ would be the jury finding a ‘white’ defendant not guilty of a clearly proven crime (murder, rape, battery, etc.) A more modern example would be a jury finding a defendant not guilty of possession of marijuana even though the defendant obviously had MJ in their possession.
  - hedora 3y ago
    Other modern examples include Musk’s stock manipulation trial, and jurors refusing to convict in cases where police use excessive force.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  There's some on the Wikipedia page e.g. > In 2021, six activists associated with the environmental protest organisation Extinction Rebellion were tried for causing criminal damage to the British headquarters of the multinational oil company Royal Dutch Shell. The judge told the jury that there was 'no defence in law' for the protestors' actions, which according to the prosecutor had caused 'significant damage' to the building, but the activists were acquitted
jschveibinz 3y ago
Jury nullification (Cornell Law): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification
dahart 3y ago
> Laws are not absolute This also doesn’t mean people will escape consequences, right? Broadly and statistically speaking, it’s extremely unlikely that breaking a law you don’t like will result in a trial that strikes the law down in your favor. I’d guess this might be especially true with copyright, since there is so much precedent - lots and lots of people have broken copyright and tried to fight it and lost. Why is this case any different?

jccalhoun 3y ago

While they should be in the public domain they aren't so I don't know how they thought it would be ok to post entire episodes of tv shows that are for sale on dvd and streaming services.

ta1243 3y ago
There is a strong view amongst many people that copyright doesn't apply to them because it's annoying. Back in the days when you literally couldn't get the programs for love nor money (they were shown on US TV but weren't available globally for years), I'd often DCC them. I'd never claim that it was right. I seem the same attitude from people who copy an article verbatim from a closed website that you have to subscribe to.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

> Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences. However, laws aren't necessarily ethical and it's arguable that good citizens should refuse to obey unethical laws (e.g. it used to be illegal to harbour an escaped slave, or the Nazi Germany laws against Jews). Personally, I think that media companies are harming the public by enforcing unnecessary old copyrights that they have no intention of re-distributing. We're going to end up with missing decades of TV/films that aren't popular enough to interest the copyright holder and that no-one had copies of.

ta1243 3y ago
I can buy Bewitched on amazon, streaming or dvds, but that would involve me spending a tiny amount on it (less than £1/hour) I'm not sure that comparing having to pay a nominal amount for something that's trivially available with harbouring escaped slaves is the slam dunk you think it is, or why another company should profit from your reluctance to pay the creators.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  The point about escaped slaves is to point out that legality and morality are only loosely correlated. I was making a general point about media companies and older media that seems to have escaped you and not specifically talking about Bewitched, but your mention of "pay the creators" raises the question of who exactly receives money from the sale of DVDs. Sol Saks is arguably the creator of Bewitched and he died back in 2011, so I have my doubts about whether copyright law is working as intended to incentivise him to make more shows. Edit: Just had a look on wikipedia and everyone listed there in relation to Bewitched is now dead.
edgyquant 3y ago
The comparison of sharing movies to hiding Jews from nazis is one of the most blatantly historical false equivalencies I’ve ever seen.
- fortyseven 3y ago

crazygringo 3y ago

Yeah, and Bewitched seems like a terrible example. You can currently buy the complete season on DVD, or watch it streaming. It's continuing to make money and in no danger of being lost. Of course it's going to be taken off YouTube, the same as if Squid Game were uploaded. Now if we're talking TV shows that were last place in viewership in the 1960's so nobody's bothered to sell/stream and haven't been syndicated in decades, then it's a totally different story...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]