4 ms·

I'm a little baffled by the sampling problem. Is a few second small clip of something really representing some sea of lost income damage for the original? Or is

I'm a little baffled by the sampling problem. Is a few second small clip of something really representing some sea of lost income damage for the original? Or is it more like femto-dollars per viewing and they want it accounted for?

kmeisthax 3y ago
Neither. It's "the two corporations who own each half of the work want to dictate the conduct of the other half". Same reason why Nintendo and Microsoft couldn't agree on who gets Goldeneye back in the Wii/360 era.
mcphage 3y ago
It's more like "we could show this on TV because we had a verbal agreement with the rights owner, but our lawyers won't let us put it on streaming because we probably don't have the actual rights to display that content, and so it's a legal liability we don't need". Do the rights holders actually care? Is it clear who the rights holders actually are? Maybe not, but nobody wants to find out.
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
One of my favorite videos games Blur is unavailable because it came with a licensed sound-track, but the license was only for like ~10 years. Movies wouldn't be what they'd be without good music. It sets a vibe. So I understand that even short bits of music deserve some compensation. I do wish there was some kind of Fair Reasonable and Non-discrimindatory option available, that set standard rates & would prevent these kind of availability hangups, and expand access. I do kind of get that artists don't want their work associated with certain things though; certain notable politicians/parties for example seem to have gotten half-a-dizen artists telling them to stop using their music, saying they don't want anything to do with the politician. One could make some kind of horrible terrible slanted movie, and under (F)RAND the artist seemingly wouldn't have recourse from involuntarily becoming the title track. It's complicated. :/ What we have now is awful though. Maybe we just create some hoops to jump through for rights holders. Make it so content-owners have to renew their part of the deal or otherwise the license automatically extends. That way at least some media, rather than being lost, is released. This is vaguely like copyright pre-1976, where folks got 28 years & then could renew for another 28 years.
porkbeer 3y ago
Usually music. They get a 5 year broadcast contract and then its gone after that. MTVs sketch comedy show The State comes to mind, now only available as vhs rips.

kmeisthax 3y ago

Neither. It's "the two corporations who own each half of the work want to dictate the conduct of the other half". Same reason why Nintendo and Microsoft couldn't agree on who gets Goldeneye back in the Wii/360 era.

mcphage 3y ago

It's more like "we could show this on TV because we had a verbal agreement with the rights owner, but our lawyers won't let us put it on streaming because we probably don't have the actual rights to display that content, and so it's a legal liability we don't need". Do the rights holders actually care? Is it clear who the rights holders actually are? Maybe not, but nobody wants to find out.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

One of my favorite videos games Blur is unavailable because it came with a licensed sound-track, but the license was only for like ~10 years. Movies wouldn't be what they'd be without good music. It sets a vibe. So I understand that even short bits of music deserve some compensation. I do wish there was some kind of Fair Reasonable and Non-discrimindatory option available, that set standard rates & would prevent these kind of availability hangups, and expand access. I do kind of get that artists don't want their work associated with certain things though; certain notable politicians/parties for example seem to have gotten half-a-dizen artists telling them to stop using their music, saying they don't want anything to do with the politician. One could make some kind of horrible terrible slanted movie, and under (F)RAND the artist seemingly wouldn't have recourse from involuntarily becoming the title track. It's complicated. :/ What we have now is awful though. Maybe we just create some hoops to jump through for rights holders. Make it so content-owners have to renew their part of the deal or otherwise the license automatically extends. That way at least some media, rather than being lost, is released. This is vaguely like copyright pre-1976, where folks got 28 years & then could renew for another 28 years.

porkbeer 3y ago

Usually music. They get a 5 year broadcast contract and then its gone after that. MTVs sketch comedy show The State comes to mind, now only available as vhs rips.