From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Sun Jul 16 2000 - 11:04:47 MDT
Jason Joel Thompson wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
>
> > Thats not what he's saying. The viewers pay nothing to receive the tv
> > transmissions, and are also free to record any tv shows on their vcr,
> without
> > license. Its advertisers who pay the cost of production and transmission,
> just
> > as can be done on CDs, with ads between each song (as has already been
> done
> > before, see Seig Seig Sputnik, dating back to 1987).
>
> Read again. He says:
>
> a) "The naked, unsupported assertion that music sales will not support
> artists absent copyright won't become true no matter how many times you
> repeat it."
>
> To summarize, he believes: The statement "music sales will not support
> artists absent copyright" is false.
>
> Mr. Crocker goes on to say:
>
> b) "If this [the above statement] were *true* [emphasis mine] broadcast
> television and radio would not exist at all, and yet they are billion dollar
> industries.
>
> To summarize, he believes: If the statement "music sales will not support
> artists absent copyright" were true, then TV and radio would not exist
> today.
>
> Thus, we are to gather that he believes that TV and radio are capable of
> supporting their makers without the need for copyright.
>
> Which is pure garbage-- it doesn't matter that they make their money from
> advertisers-- advertisers only pay people with audiences. If you don't own
> your content, then I can broadcast it too and I can get all the advertising
> revenue. Again, there would be no good reason to spend money 'making'
> content-- I should just concentrate on being the best broadcaster possible.
The premium value of advertising during the broadcasting the superbowl
live is around $2 million a minute, while normal ad rates run about
$50,000.00 per minute. Therefore, the value of advertising solely due to
the event being an original broadcast, with that audience size, is $1.95
milllion per minute. Any later rebroadcast of the superbowl would not be
able to command such a premium above the standard broadcast rates, so
your protest is itself *garbage*.
>
> --
>
> In addition, a viewer's 'right' to record the transmissions is a lot more
> limited and dicey than you might believe. Believe it or not, broadcasters
> do guard the right of recording and re-transmittal.
But they do not guard against private recording and replaying, nor do
they charge their audience for the original transmission. Broadcasters
actually do NOT own the actual shows for later broadcast, they only have
original broadcast rights. The producers retain syndication rights
(reruns) under their production agreements with the original
broadcasters, and when the show has run for several years, the producers
then put rerun rights up for bid, which may or may not be won by the
original broadcaster.
The original broadcaster commands a premium value on advertising time
during original broadcasts over and above that charged for ad time
during rerun broadcasts, so there is obviously a real value to the mere
fact of being the original broadcaster.
In the event that copyright on tv broadcasts were eliminated, they would
easily overcome any potential losses by adding clauses to agreements
with cable companies and their subscribers about re-use, so there really
is no need for copyright on tv broadcasts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:58 MST