return to table of content

25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite

hannasm
80 replies
13h9m

Free content removed by previously benevolent publisher.

It's too bad they weren't able to make their free content into a profit stream.

The sad part here is that they were / are a steward to something beloved by many but through copyright they take it as hostage to the grave.

If they no longer find value in distributing it shouldn't they be obligated to waive their ownership?

Maybe copyright itself needs some reform if it grants control over the archaelogical / historical record of our civilization

jpk
74 replies
13h6m

I'm reminded of how trademarks work: If you don't bother to defend them, then you lose them. Maybe copyright should be the same way: If you're not distributing copies any longer, you lose the copyright protection.

ncallaway
19 replies
12h48m

I'm pretty open to doing something like this broadly, but I think this is especially important for software.

Things like video games are much harder to archive than text. Keeping them running 70 years after the death of the author is already a herculean task. Doing that, when no copies are being distributed could make that entirely impossible.

The current copyright system is going to rob the public domain of many of the cultural treasures that we are entitled to.

mcmcmc
13 replies
11h36m

What makes you think you’re entitled to other people’s work?

wolfendin
2 replies
11h12m

It’s copyright. Not authorright.

The exclusive ability to copy is granted as a conceit.

The restriction only came about because publishers got mad.

pyuser583
0 replies
2h9m

It came about because archives wanted a de jure monopoly on top of their de facto monopoly.

US copyright law took a very different path though.

kube-system
0 replies
15m

The Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Sounds like Author's Rights to me.

rendaw
1 replies
10h35m

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I do think there's something like a "right to ideas". Like you can't tell someone to just forget about something, things people experience become a part of them and I think it's reasonable to expect they should be able to share that with others.

I mean, after life + 70 years you already are entitled to other people's work. And a purpose of patents was to get people to release ideas so culture as a whole can grow from them, rather than just keeping them as trade secrets or whatever.

I absolutely think people should be able to receive some money for it, maybe even for life + 70 years, and people can always not release things, but I think once it's released it's not just yours any more, as it lives in the public conscious.

bandrami
0 replies
9h48m

Remember that guy who had made a giant website with the word counts of a whole ton of books and authors lost their collective minds over it? I think a lot of writers sincerely believe he needed their "permission" to count the words in their books.

ncallaway
1 replies
10h19m

That’s the basic premise of copyright laws.

It’s a trade. The default state of affairs is no copyright protection.

Society has decided to trade a limited duration monopoly on the copyright of the work, in order to promote more works being created so that we have more works in the public domain.

The entire purpose of copyright is to generate works for the public domain.

So, when the current copyright system fails to do that, we should change that.

You can’t seriously tell me that if we had a law that said: if you don’t make a video game available commercially for 30 years, it enters the public domain, that would have a meaningful impact on the number of video games created.

michaelt
0 replies
8h30m

> The entire purpose of copyright is to generate works for the public domain.

Is it? Or do we just think on average, producing more copyrighted works adds to the greatness and happiness of our society?

The writing of Harry Potter has brought joy to hundreds of millions of people. The production of a renowned textbook like SICP helps educate an entire generation of professionals and raise the nation's productivity.

bandrami
1 replies
9h49m

Because they published it; they were free not to do so if they didn't want anybody to reproduce or distribute it (in fact that seems like the easiest way to do so).

In order to encourage more people to make these works, however, our government grants them a temporary, limited monopoly on the work's reproduction and distribution, but this is a means to an end that we agree to for utilitarian reasons, not some kind of actual inherent right on their part or responsibility on mine.

kube-system
0 replies
23m

Because they published it; they were free not to do so if they didn't want anybody to reproduce or distribute it

Copyright protects works at the moment they are created, not when they are reproduced or distributed. Most of the works under copyright protection have never been distributed.

vkou
0 replies
10h7m

The same thing that makes people entitled to society expending resources on the very real, physical legal protection of intangible ideas that they 'own'.

Creative works aren't made in a vacuum, all creators take from the public domain. They have an obligation to give back to it.

Copyright and patent terms were designed to facilitate that. The endless extensions of the former were a cynical, self-serving attack on a public good.

soco
0 replies
10h34m

I fail to see how anybody could profit from not having their work used at all.

rcMgD2BwE72F
0 replies
11h12m

What make you think the authors of these works (the workers, not the owners) would oppose this proposal?

Jare
0 replies
10h45m

Once it becomes a cultural artifact it becomes more than just "someone's work". The goal of legislation is / should be to figure out how to balance the different and competing needs into a system that works reasonably well.

theturtletalks
4 replies
12h42m

Why can't the videos be downloaded and uploaded to the Internet Archive? There's a lot of copyrighted videos there already.

beej71
3 replies
12h36m

While this is a great idea, it's generally illegal for IA to share that content. And it's looking increasingly unlikely IA will be in existence 90 years from now, so it's unclear there'd be a point in them simply archiving it. If copyright were 14 years, if give IA a lot more of a chance of still being around then.

And apparently the videos are no longer available to download, so it's not an option, anyway.

Barring some change of heart by the copyright holder, these episodes are gone forever.

theturtletalks
2 replies
12h23m

I think down below, they are saying the episodes aren't gone, just paywalled behind Paramount+ now.

rsanek
0 replies
10h11m

third paragraph of the linked article

Unfortunately for those in search of older episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, neither can be found on Paramount+.
dgoldstein0
0 replies
11h34m

Iiuc only some of them are now on Paramount Plus.

cornholio
19 replies
12h30m

It all boils down to excessive copyright durations. For something like software, even 10 years is excessive.

The copyright terms are set by lobbyist and corporations in a political process where the public interest has no representation.

reaperman
13 replies
12h14m

StarCraft 2 is still competitive 14 years later. I’m not sure I’d personally have an issue with it becoming public domain but the game is still well-stewarded today.

Even Brood War is still satisfactorily supported 26 years after its release. Though I think that’s definitely long enough to consider the option of public domain.

leni536
8 replies
12h9m

Is it the same StarCraft2 as 10 years ago, or regularly updated?

TeMPOraL
3 replies
11h35m

If we allow the copyright for the whole work to be extended indefinitely through subsequent updates, that kind of defeats the original idea.

leni536
2 replies
11h3m

Does it? For single player games you can just still use and distribute the original, unpatched version.

I agree that there is lock-in with online multiplayer games, but it's more on the game servers than the distributed content. So it's only marginally a copyright issue.

reaperman
1 replies
10h38m

I think the person above you meant “If the copyright clock for the original release keeps getting reset every time an update drops…” and you’re talking about “If each updated version gets its own copyright clock upon release”.

Copyright (and patent) law generally follows the latter in western nations, but there’s nuance because third-party derivative works can easily contain elements which the original IP owners might feel are “derivatives” of newer innovations from subsequent updates, even if the third-party feels they only based their work on the original release.

There’s often a lot of room for reasonable minds to disagree, and it can be difficult to create quality third-party derivatives which avoid any similarities to newer versions of the IP.

Think of creating a modern representation of Mickey Mouse. If you create a new version of Mickey Mouse based on the 1928 version in Steamboat Willy, it is difficult to make something that looks relatively contemporary without creating something that looks arguably derivative of the 1953 work “The Simple Things” or the 1940 work “Fantasia”. You could play it safe by using something that looks like a carbon copy of Steamboat Willy, but if your personal artistic vision involves a more contemporary art style, it is understandably difficult to make it unambiguously not a derivative of more recent depictions that are still under copyright.

For the Starcraft 2 example - in a thought experiment where the 14 year old “Wings of Liberty” version is now public domain but the 11-year old “Heart of the Swarm” expansion pack and current 9-year old “Legacy of the Void” version of StarCraft 2 are both still under copyright. You want to make a new single-player campaign which takes place after LotV and doesn’t retcon any canon events (many of which are still copyrighted). A careful creator would probably understand they couldn’t make any references to Amon being reborn and defeated by Artanis, because that plot is from the still-copyrighted Legacy of the Void. But would you be able to write a storyline that contains any acknowledgements that Zeratul died? (Zeratul died at the hand of his friend, Artanis, due to some of Amon’s mind-control machinations during that same LotV campaign)

I think a creator would have to be careful precisely how their storyline acknowledges Zeratuls death. If its just a few characters generically lamenting the loss of a great/controversial man…probably fine? What if the loss of their friend Zeratul was specified to have occurred “in battle” with no other specifics about the battle? I have no clue. If your storyline includes a tiny quip about Artanis dealing with unspecified guilt/shame over Zeratul’s unspecified death … then that might be technically infringing until LotV falls out of copyright, because some people may feel that it’s specific enough to be definitely derived from the LotV campaign.

Note that all three of these similar examples are where a creator does in fact intend to create a derivation of copyrighted materials to create a sequel campaign to the uncopyrighted work which is still “in-canon” with respect to still-copyrighted works. Its just exploring where is the line of “how much derivation can you morally and/or ethically and/or legally get away with before at least one reasonable person genuinely feels you have elements that are unambiguously derived from still-copyrighted content?”

For “legally” getting away with something you have to consider the costs of successfully defending yourself against lawsuits from notoriously overly-litigious corporations like Disney/Nintendo/Blizzard. Are you so safe that you could get a summary dismissal or is there any reason it could qualify for awards of punitive damages under Anti-SLAPP laws?

leni536
0 replies
8h22m

You make good arguments about derivative works on public domain works, where some other derivative works are still in copyright. That's probably difficult to maneuver legally.

However if the goal is to just distribute the original public domain work legally, then that's easy and convenient. That alone would be hugely beneficial for games.

dgoldstein0
1 replies
11h29m

I thought they stopped updating, but I see they are still shopping patches as recently as this March. Maybe they just stopped producing new content.

piltdownman
0 replies
7h30m

The patches are for the Ranked multiplayer - the balance patches are literally to nerf dominating pro-players who found meta-breaking strategies. They're not designed to serve their core userbase and end make the game less interesting and more frustrating for anyone other than the top 64 Worldwide bracket.

The recent resurge of interest and player activity based on a wildly unbalanced and broken but fun 'Broodwar Units in SC2' mod is testament to this [1].

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1cqw7hv/sc1_vs_s...

reaperman
0 replies
11h26m

It’s had 2 subsequent major changes with massive differences in units, game balance, and pacing … to the point of almost being three different games. The most recent and current era is called “Legacy of the Void” and is about 9 years old. Since then changes have been fairly conservative, mainly just unit stats changes. Though some “units” like infested terrans have been removed in the past nine years, which could be considered semi-major/semi-minor.

gwd
0 replies
10h33m

It gets regular balance updates. They've slowed quite a bit, but there was one in the last few months, and I believe the one before that was like 2 years or so. There's also the matchmaking, which is a service they provide.

The issue here isn't so much, "Are Blizzard allowed to charge for SC2?", but "What would happen if Blizzard pulled the plug on SC2 servers?" It would very much be a shame if a game like that were suddenly ripped out of the culture.

cornholio
2 replies
12h5m

The question is if that stewardship would be ruined by making it free to play the offline, single player version. More generally, would Starcraft2 and similar titles still would have been made if Blizzard knew it only had 10 years to recoup the costs?

The copyright lobby frames that question in a profoundly toxic way: are there any marginal profits that can still be milked for our IP portfolio? Of course there are, you can milk pennies even from "Steamboat Willie" and Chaplin movies, but that doesn't mean we should have perpetual copyright.

What matters is the first few years where 90% of the profits are made, that's what motivates the creator; motivating the creator enough to create and "promoting the useful arts" are the purpose of copyright, there is no "natural" right to one's ideas and creation. It's a social and political compromise for the good of all.

reaperman
0 replies
11h24m

FWIW starcraft 2 is free to play, just not “offline”. And only one single player campaign is free, the other 2.5 costs money. Continuing revenue is primarily generated via cosmetic sales.

piltdownman
0 replies
7h34m

Would Blizzard have made Starcraft 2 at all if they had predicted the paradigm-shift towards microtransactions and cosmetics, with the 'game' itself as a loss-leader? This basically forced their hand to make the game free-to-play 7 years into the initial release cycle.

Indeed, Blizzard developer Jason Hall previously revealed that a single cosmetic skin for your horse in WoW made more money than the entirety of sales from Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty.

The only reason that Starcraft2 is alive at all is the late-cycle introduction of a co-op mode, with microtransaction gated cosmetics, 'commanders', and commentator voicepacks. The online is all but dead, with almost no moderation and stewardship, and plagued by maphackers at all tiers. Even something as basic as the EU MMR brackets for tier ranking are completely broken for nearly a year.

piltdownman
0 replies
7h16m

Brood War is still supported for 2 Reasons

#1 - It was LAN first, offline, distributed as Shareware. The forgiving netcode and leniency of distribution ended up with it as a standard install on any Internet Cafe on the planet in the early 00s. It also hit Korean culture at exactly the right moment for it to go so popular as to become a cultural touchpoint. There's a Malcolm Gladwell book in there somewhere - it literally became South Korea's unofficial national sport [1]

[1]https://www.wsj.com/video/starcraft-south-korea-unofficial-n...

#2 - It was subject to a high-profile remaster as part of Blizzard's "Classic Games division", who also did rushed and careless remasters of Diablo 3 and Warcraft 3. The post-release monetization here is quite telling, as it was basically all aimed at the Korean market - popular South Korean StarCraft casters and Children's TV hosts providing the available announcer packs, with the main cosmetic being a chibi-'cartoonised' version of the standard asset pack.

adrianN
4 replies
11h52m

Most software you can buy is older than ten years. Do you want to lose copyright to every part of your product that has been stable? Imagine the useless churn as every company needs to make sure every library they use is substantially altered every couple of years to renew the copyright.

mkl
2 replies
11h22m

Public domain does not mean public. The source code could remain a trade secret.

More of an obstacle is competition from free past versions - a lot of people would be happy with a 10 year old version of Photoshop or MS Office. That's why I think it should be extendable to 20 years with a hefty fee (but not further, or only with a much heftier fee).

mindslight
1 replies
3h2m

If you do not publish source code, your binaries should be ineligible for copyright protection. There is very little creative work in the binaries themselves. Keeping your actual creative work hidden (especially from things like eventually being part of the public domain) but yet still expecting to receive the privilege of copyright is inequitable. Same thing with only publishing under digital restrictions management.

kube-system
0 replies
10m

Then those who wish profit without sharing will just offer SaaS instead of binaries. Exactly as they do with a significant amount of copyleft-licensed software today.

Pulling back copyright doesn't necessarily force people to share -- people can also keep secrets. A primary purpose of IP law is to encourage sharing.

kristopolous
0 replies
7h52m

Yes. People will use the official version for support and updates, like with everything else.

nutrie
16 replies
12h11m

Let’s say I make a painting and put it in the drawer, never to be seen again. Do I lose the copyright then and someone is permitted to come to my home and take it away? That’s just one example of possible implications. My point being, trademark is directly tied to the dynamics of the free market, while copyright only indirectly. And copyright is not forever.

arrosenberg
5 replies
12h5m

No, because thats theft. Its more like if someone took a picture of it and reproduced it for sale. In that case you would likely lose a copyright claim in practice, even if you may have a valid claim in theory.

themoonisachees
4 replies
11h59m

IIRC a part of copyright "activating" is publishing the content in the first place, so I don't think GP would have a good case to begin with, not that it matters.

gnicholas
3 replies
11h44m

Copyright does not require public publishing of the content — just "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". This would have been accomplished when the painting was created on paper.

nutrie
1 replies
11h7m

This is exactly what I meant. That’s why I said it just one of the implications, out of many.

gnicholas
0 replies
10h28m

Ah sorry, I didn't realize your comment was in response to some hypothetical new copyright system proposed upthread.

arrosenberg
0 replies
1h28m

This is essentially what I was referring to in the second sentence. Even under the current system you might theoretically have a claim, in practice you'd have a hell of a time proving it, so it wouldn't tangibly change the outcomes like OP is suggesting.

mlyle
3 replies
12h4m

Let’s say I make a painting and put it in the drawer, never to be seen again.

Then you own that physical painting.

Do I lose the copyright then

Yes

and someone is permitted to come to my home and take it away?

No, but if you gave your friend Bob a copy of the painting, he's allowed to copy that copy as much as he wants once you lose the copyright.

The original copyright system-- you could only get the full term by extending 14 years in. That's maybe a little early. But making you pay a fee to keep the exclusivity and/or show recent use in trade makes sense.

gnicholas
2 replies
11h46m

No, but if you gave your friend Bob a copy of the painting, he's allowed to copy that copy as much as he wants once you lose the copyright.

Wouldn't this require Bob to outlive the artist by many, many years? My understanding was that copyright extends well past the death of the original creator.

EDIT: I'm curious why this is downvoted. Am I incorrect about the length of copyright being decades past the death of the creator? A quick google shows that it extends to 70 years past the life of the creator, [1] which means that it would be quite unlikely that an adult who receives artwork from the creator would live to see the time when it's not under copyright. That is, even if the artist died the next day, it would be 70 years before the copyright expires.

1: https://www.copyright.gov/history/copyright-exhibit/lifecycl...

mlyle
1 replies
23m

I can't downvote you, but I presume that you're being downvoted because your comment seemed to not understand the context of the thread.

A. Someone proposed making copyright "use it or lose it"

B. Someone else said this could have unintended consequences, like people breaking into your house to take a copy of a work where copyright has lapsed.

C. I pointed out that's not how copyright works: it has nothing to do with control of physical artifacts.

D. You then presumed that the copyright runs for a long time, which contradicts the premise we're talking about in "A", and is completely out of left field. (In any case, it's irrelevant to the question in B-C; if I have the one of the only extant copies of something from a century ago, you still can't come take it to make a copy).

gnicholas
0 replies
5m

Gotcha, thanks. This appeared so deep down in the thread when I commented that I didn't realize it was attached to an alternate-universe hypo above.

sytelus
2 replies
11h50m

I used to make this argument until I came to know of law (at least in USA) that if you don't use your house and someone else starts using your house then they can claim the legal ownership of your entire house in as little as 10 years! It was very shocking and complete antithesis of property rights in US that are so dearly held. When you think about this, in long run, it might sometimes make sense that future generation can use what previous generation has built.

throwaway48476
0 replies
9h17m

In Europe it was common to have disputes between parties with competing several hundred year old claims. Adverse possession prevents this.

fifticon
0 replies
10h16m

many countries have variants of this, for many years/since olden times. In my country, it is called 'hævd'. Instinctively, it makes incredibly much sense to me, even more so than property law. The way I view it, it is precisely the foundation that ownership sort of rests on. (ie, i respect 'we have been using this for a long time' more than 'our ancestors whipped everyone in the village').

TeMPOraL
2 replies
12h2m

Let’s say I make a painting and put it in the drawer, never to be seen again. Do I lose the copyright then and someone is permitted to come to my home and take it away?

If you paint something, show to a few people, then decide to put it in the drawer, nobody cares. However, if you displayed that painting in galleries for the past 20 years, became semi-famous for it, and then decide to destroy your work, I'd say the public has a stake and a right to say "no", to at least make and preserve some copies. On top it being an asshole move to destroy well-known work, even if you have the right to do it.

And copyright is not forever.

It effectively is if you destroy the work before your copyright on it expires.

nutrie
1 replies
11h5m

Copyright laws don’t care that nobody cares. This is a misconception of the concept.

majewsky
0 replies
9h49m

This discussion is obviously about what the law should be rather than what it is.

ryandrake
8 replies
13h1m

The copyright cartel would fight that with their lives. They would rather destroy content forever than let it out for free, even if neither option costs them a cent.

“The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quicklime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.“

ninjin
6 replies
12h31m

For those of us not reading widely enough and/or not being raised in the American literary tradition, the quote is from John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" [1]. I have long been aware of the work, but reading this quote makes me regret not having read it yet.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath

Anotheroneagain
5 replies
12h18m

There was a (massive) excess of food during the depression, so that is likely made up.

isomorphic
3 replies
11h31m

That particular passage, perhaps; however one can certainly believe growers destroying an abundance to control prices. It certainly doesn't sound like the purported overabundance of food was evenly distributed:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/feb/02/johnsteinbeck....

Anotheroneagain
2 replies
11h17m

That piece was written literally by the same person.

Farmers were going bankrupt because there was so much food that they couldn't sell. It was the time when people developed the habit of eating meat daily, as people were buying out the food, and fed it to animals. There wasn't at any point a famine.

It's a tall tale.

ivanbakel
1 replies
10h42m

Farmers were going bankrupt because there was so much food that they couldn't sell.

And the originally-quoted passage is about farmers destroying crops as part of price controls due to overproduction.

Could you provide any kind of evidence that the supply of food was evenly shared? Steinbeck spent a lot of time with impoverished farm workers before writing the Grapes of Wrath, so I'm inclined to believe his description of them.

Anotheroneagain
0 replies
9h7m

So, farmers destroyed their crops and starved. Is that how you understand it?

I'm not obligated to find a proof against fiction, when all real accounts show food prices almost halving in a decade, in fact I would be willing to speculate that the dust storms that came were in fact caused by the abandonment and large areas being left unsown, with no cover to hold the soil together.

TeMPOraL
0 replies
11h26m

Interesting, given that I remember from history lessons that it was more-less exactly as quoted.

Curiously, this also happens today. Grocery stores dump a lot of perfectly good food and other goods, and some of them figure that it can't be that someone dumpster-dives instead of buying, therefore they instruct employees to make the trash unusable. Example I've seen first-hand was when throwing away a perfectly good box of laundry detergent, they would open it and spill it into a container of perfectly good fruits and veggies, to make both unusable.

I'm not a freegan, but I knew a few at some point, and the stories I heard even in my local area, makes the quote feel 100% believable.

Andrew_nenakhov
0 replies
11h23m

Oh boy, this book was very popular in the USSR, depicting a complete failure of a capitalist society.

The irony is that the soviet socialist society failed way, way harder and that average soviet family was far more impoverished than the evicted farmers from the book: those gringos had a car!

kube-system
2 replies
12h42m

But copyright isn't just for publicly distributed mass media made by corporations -- it is for all works made by anyone.

Copyright also protects work that people wish to keep private, or work that people want to share at some times, with some people, but not all people.

(Also depending on how that idea might be implemented, it could cause some strange situations for copyleft software)

morsch
1 replies
12h33m

So limit the changes to works the copyright owner intentionally distributed to more than $threshold people. Have it only apply to situations where the number is tracked already, e.g. due to commercial obligations. Or something. This does not seem like an insurmountable problem.

kube-system
0 replies
12h20m

Then you're bringing into the question why the rights that someone gets is different depending on how people exercise them. What's the right threshold? What does it mean to intentionally distribute? Are we going to have protracted court battles over what tracking numbers are accurate or valid? Could those who want to abuse this (big business) simply work around it by making it infeasible to directly measure?

And also, the copyleft complication too: If Bob writes a FOSS app with a GPL license, and it becomes popular, but then Bob retires and stops distributing it, does the copyright expire?

I don't think the problem being discussed here is insurmountable to solve, I just think the proposed solution opens a whole new can of worms. I think a good start at a solution is to first shorten the duration of copyright.

gnicholas
2 replies
10h42m

So if someone makes a painting, or a sculpture, she would have to create and distribute copies or risk losing protection?

I could see how this might make sense for things that can be perfectly copied, but not so much for anything that is even slightly 3D.

throwaway48476
0 replies
9h19m

Lookalike sculptures and paintings are not copyright able.

majewsky
0 replies
9h50m

So then make the rule just for cheaply copiable media. Copyright already has lots of specific rights that only appear to certain forms of media, e.g. the right to broadcast exists for movies, but not for statues.

modeless
1 replies
12h24m

A better fix would be to make copyright last 5 years from the date of publication. I'm betting that for the vast majority of copyrighted content the vast majority of the money is made in the first five years.

Copyright is a tax on society. It's not an inalienable right. We keep it for the noble purpose of encouraging authors to create. We don't want them to rest on their laurels. So why are we locking up all of our content for life plus 70? It sounds like a prison sentence.

throwaway48476
0 replies
9h22m

The model where copyright has a short automatic duration plus increasing costs to renew every n years is better.

prvc
1 replies
12h57m

Free content removed by previously benevolent publisher.

I don't know about that. Regarding "free", it was always under copyright and distributed restrictively (DRM, ads, and geo-blocking). And no comment necessary for "benevolent".

ncallaway
0 replies
12h54m

Free as in beer, not free as in speech

danielheath
0 replies
11h55m

The amount of shared cultural history which has been preserved thanks to piracy is frankly astonishing.

csdreamer7
0 replies
12h9m

Or we just reduce the length of copyright.

Back when Walt Disney started, copyright was 28 years. That was good enough for him to get started producing a media empire. The Berne Convention requires 50 years-why not just go back to that standard instead of the 95 years today?

95 years for works for hire; 70 years + life of the author if they make it themselves.

There are very few pieces of work that their authors are still getting benefit from, but could be lost to history. Documentaries have to be censored to remove elements now that require licensing of materials.

Walt Disney got his start remaking old works (public domain) into new ones. How many Walt Disney's are we preventing from letting them make better use of Mickey Mouse? We will find that out soon when the trademark Disney has been trying to impose gets challenged.

This has the nice benefit of encouraging companies to make good use of their works as much as possible in the limited time instead of holding out to get a better deal.

SI_Rob
0 replies
12h44m

perhaps they want to get their material out of the training set feed trough of all the Sora-style models consuming anything and everything not nailed down with an as-yet non-existant source watermarking scheme that can pass through the most tormented AI digestive tract.

sytelus
32 replies
12h7m

This is complete incompetence from their leadership who show no value to their own content. They could have easily auctioned off/sold very old content to someone else but that kind of thinking would be beyond their competency. It's no wonder they go in such huge losses despite of having loyal audience and monopoly over unparalleled content. To this day I cannot get over the fact that there are literally millions documentaries out there made with a lot of love and hard work but only available through DVD or mailing in a check to some dude. Similarly, lot of my favorite music albums are still on cassette tapes and never digitized online by their creators. Fortunately, audience did digitized them nicely and uploaded over to torrents and that's the only way to get them today. Same goes of out of print books and magazines. The producers of this content could have easily digitized it and uploaded over to some marketplace and made at least free coffee money for rest of their lives but surprisingly they just never get around doing it. IMO, it just expresses complete naivety and disregard to importance of their own content. They sure spent days and months of blood and sweat but can't get around to do a last mile of uploading files.

There is a huge startup opportunity here for folks who are willing to chase these content and do the last mile on their behalf.

onion2k
14 replies
11h25m

They could have easily auctioned off/sold very old content to someone else..

That assumes they own the exclusive rights to the content. A lot of media has many rights holders (writers, music, etc), and you need to get them all to agree a sale or waive their right in order to sell. That could be expensive because it's involve lots and lots of lawyers. For a bunch of old comedy clips it might not make any commercial sense.

Y_Y
8 replies
10h55m

If the copyright system were changed so that rightsholders were guaranteed to get paid, but didn't have veto over publication, how bad would that be? The reasons people usually justify copyright protection usually centre on rewarding the creators, and I think the right to stop people seeing your work is a harder sell.

There is of course a new question of how to set the price, but you could e.g. have an auction of some kind where the highest bid must be accepted.

(There are certainly notable cases like Mein Kampf where copyright has been conspicuously used to prevent further distribution.)

eru
7 replies
10h53m

If the copyright system were changed so that rightsholders were guaranteed to get paid, [...]

How much would they get paid? What if they wanted to hold out for more? Would every piece of copyrighted material be paid the same? Or would you normalise it per sentence or per letter? Or per frame in a movie?

Y_Y
3 replies
10h28m

I dunno man, did you see what I wrote a couple of lines down? There are ways of selling things that must be sold, I mentioned auctions, but also you can get independent assessments like in the case of compulsory purchase/eminent domain.

I'm sure you could object to some particular solution I propose, but people much smarter than me have studied this kind of game theory extensively and there are a lot of options.

The normalization can be the same as licensing is done now, "per work", negotiating specific usages needn't change, except that the seller has to allow that each covered work be subject to at least one must-sell auction per e.g. year. They can even win the auction themselves if all the bids are too low.

eru
2 replies
9h30m

They can even win the auction themselves if all the bids are too low.

Does the auction have any teeth at all in that case? Just always bit an infinite amount of money, if you don't want to sell.

Y_Y
1 replies
9h20m

Maybe I should have said so explicitly, but in that case the seller would have to pay someone else, e.g. a common fund for promotion of the arts, or general taxation, or to the other bidders in portion to their bids to compensate them for not having any way to access the work.

Are you arguing that the idea is impossible in principle? The details will depend on what sort of incentives you want to end up with, but I can't see yet that there isn't some reasonable solution.

eru
0 replies
9h10m

You can probably come up with some messy compromise. But I'm not sure it's really much better than the existing system which already comes with fair-use constraints.

Or you could eg charge people a certain tax as a proportion of their self-declared value of the copyrighted material. (With the provision that they need to sell the rights to that material at the self-declared value to any comer or something like that.)

amanaplanacanal
1 replies
8h37m

This has all been solved for music with compulsory licensing, so I assume we could solve it for video too.

Mindwipe
0 replies
1h9m

It really hasn't.

Try seeing how many Beatles songs you can include in another work that you distribute internationally and let me know how that goes.

nasmorn
0 replies
6h25m

There is some system like this for music in Austria. I may record a new version of your song but it entitles you to a writers credit and some guaranteed amount of all revenue.

bandrami
2 replies
9h54m

This sounds like regulatory failure creating a deadweight loss. IP rights were invented to further the creation and distribution of works in the arts and sciences; if they're making it prohibitively difficult we're doing it wrong.

throwaway48476
0 replies
9h30m

It absolutely is a regulatory failure. The point of copyright was to protect authors not eliminate the public domain.

robertlagrant
0 replies
8h24m

IP rights were invented to further the creation and distribution of works in the arts and sciences; if they're making it prohibitively difficult we're doing it wrong

They definitely further the creation, as we can't see the old stuff! I find music to be particularly bad here. People on Youtube can clip videos with fair use and talk over them, but any audio with music in needs to be muted, even if it's part of the fair use, because music is enforced so stringently.

pyuser583
0 replies
2h12m

Comedy is especially problematic. You have a standup show with lots of comedians and a band. Just imagine the IP interests.

djantje
0 replies
11h1m

But is this content available somewhere else then? Should it not have been archived then or given to those who hold those rights so they could publish?

dotancohen
7 replies
10h14m

  > lot of my favorite music albums are still on cassette tapes and never digitized online by their creators.
Or worse. Rust In Peace was completely rerecorded by studio musicians and that's what you get if you look for it on Spotify or even buy a new CD today! To actually hear the album as recorded originally, you need to find a thirty-year old disc and just deal with the scratches.

lapcat
6 replies
8h45m

Rust In Peace was completely rerecorded by studio musicians

Are you talking about the 1990 Megadeth album?

In 2004 it was remastered, as a lot of albums are, but it was not rerecorded by studio musicians.

neckro23
5 replies
4h55m

GP is not quite correct. It wasn't completely re-recorded, but Dave Mustaine re-recorded many of the guitar solos on the album, and the whole album was remixed.

At any rate, it's not the same (classic, imo) album that was released in 1990.

jeffwask
3 replies
3h31m

Same story with the original Star Wars films. Lucas remastered and changed the originals, and you can mostly only get the original versions on VHS.

dehrmann
2 replies
3h16m

Playing devil's advocate, it's the artists' content. Don't they have the right to go back and make it more in line with their original vision?

Chinjut
1 replies
2h5m

Let them make a new version if they want, sure, but removing access to the original is what rankles.

jeffwask
0 replies
1h28m

Exactly, I'm not going to argue that artists don't have the right to re-release their material. It's the destruction of the original that to me is unconscionable.

Imagine this in a historical context, what if the publisher of Poe or Hemingway just decided to burn all their manuscripts and stop publishing because it was a better tax write off than their accountants though they would make on the lifetime sales of the work.

Because this is exactly what we are doing to future generations, lighting art on fire.

dotancohen
0 replies
4h39m

Many of the vocals were rerecorded as well.

whoknowsidont
3 replies
11h5m

This is complete incompetence from their leadership who show no value to their own content

Have you not seen the U.S.? It doesn't matter. The system is orchestrated to existing money-people making money simply for having it in the first place.

Even "bankruptcy" doesn't mean anything anymore.

Your interest or legitimate use cases do. not matter. At all. Ever. For entertainment or technology.

bdavisx
1 replies
4h37m

Should that be the goal of the economy?

robertlagrant
0 replies
2h47m

I wasn't say it's the goal of the economy.

I was refuting this:

The system is orchestrated to existing money-people making money simply for having it in the first place.
vincnetas
2 replies
10h42m

They're not deleting that content. They just moving it to paramount+ subscription service.

rsanek
0 replies
10h16m

third paragraph of the article

Unfortunately for those in search of older episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, neither can be found on Paramount+.
bandrami
0 replies
9h53m

Unfortunately most of their properties aren't on Paramount+

prirun
0 replies
6h16m

They sure spent days and months of blood and sweat but can't get around to do a last mile of uploading files.

The people making these decisions didn't spend any time, blood, or sweat on producing this content. That's why it's so easy for them to discard it: they're only concerned with making (big) money, not figuring out how they can preserve content without incurring a loss. Which, IMO, should be the goal for older, historical content.

I'm pretty sure the money we're paying countries for wars would cover historical content preservation costs a gazillion times over.

bdjsiqoocwk
0 replies
8h4m

Torrents.

varunnrao
20 replies
12h23m

What I find really interesting is that all these studios who ran TV channels for so many years fumbled the bag when it came to streaming.. It's like all these people who basically were in content distribution didn't really wise up to the next, new thing in their business even as it happened in front of their eyes.

It's pretty wild that Paramount+/Disney+/Peacock or whatever really struggle to get going, especially given that they provide access to top shows that people really want to watch. It's like having Breaking Bad-esque product but really screwing up when it comes to wanting people to watch it.

Given the extent to which the tech behind streaming platforms -- storage, CDNs, tie-ups with telecoms -- have been standardized (and democratized, to some extent) by big players like YouTube and Netflix, you would think that a basic ad supported layer of any of these studio specific platforms would make many multiples of what they actually need to put in to setup a basic platform.

The tech's cheap and they already have the content. Most of the older content would be relatively low traffic -- hell, most of these old topical Comedy Central late night shows barely broke a million views when they were new and I don't think jokes about Saddam Hussein and GW's folksy demeanor would click now. How much would it really cost for any big studio to let people view these archives? Am I missing something big that causes somebody like Paramount to go $14B in debt trying to get people to use their streaming service? Is it a function of the business they're in or is it just a case of LA movie studio types not understanding tech?

Digit-Al
8 replies
9h42m

The worst part is that we already had a perfectly viable model: Netflix paid for the rights to everything and gave access to everybody for a reasonable monthly fee. Then the studios got greedy and thought "why should we let a middleman take a slice of our profits?" They took back the rights and started their own streaming services thinking that people would be happy to pay the same amount of money to access the tiny bit of content that they liked from that studio as they were previously paying to get everything. Inevitably, nobody could afford 10 subscriptions, and now their crappy services have reduced subscriber numbers and are either struggling to make a profit or going bankrupt.

michaelt
5 replies
8h46m

> Netflix paid for the rights to everything and gave access to everybody for a reasonable monthly fee. Then the studios got greedy and thought "why should we let a middleman take a slice of our profits?"

To be fair to the studios, sticking with Netflix would have been suicide.

Put yourself at the mercy of someone else's distribution monopoly and you end up a powerless, penniless sharecropper - like people who develop mobile apps.

another2another
4 replies
5h26m

A good strategy might have been to pool their resources and create a new global channel that they all part-owned and distribute their content there. Like a big new Global TV Channel.

vel0city
3 replies
4h52m

While not global, that was essentially what Hulu was originally for the US. A single streaming platform co-owned by many of the big networks. You could watch FOX, NBC, ABC, and other shows all on a single streaming platform.

Notably absent at the time though were many of the big cable networks and movie studios.

xen2xen1
2 replies
3h55m

Which got bought by Disney.

vel0city
1 replies
3h36m

After the other companies largely let Hulu languish to focus on their own individual streaming platforms, yes.

Disney was one of the original partners of Hulu through their ownership of ABC.

WorldMaker
0 replies
2m

Interestingly Disney was not an original partner of Hulu and was late to the game. ABC was added several years into Hulu's history. The original partners were GE (before they sold NBC Universal to Comcast), News Corporation (Fox), and a private equity firm. That Hulu did not just become Peacock (or really that Comcast didn't need to create Peacock because it might have already majority owned Hulu in that alternate timeline) and is now a Disney property is a fascinating story in GE's mistakes, Disney's ambitions, and Hulu's seeming lack of ambitions, with a soupçon of the usual private equity meddling.

WorldMaker
0 replies
7m

Would you really have preferred Netflix to be your monopolistic cable company raising rates all the time whenever they decided to and blaming it on a new contract with Disney or a union strike with the Writer's Guild? How much would you pay for Netflix a month before that got to be too irritating? $50? $150?

The cable companies got to do it for so long because of the natural monopolies of shared physical infrastructure. To be fair, Netflix has been a major internet infrastructure company and there are arguments to be made about their colocation and peering agreements and the natural monopolies there that gave them an early streaming edge, even if the internet in its early days decided those sort of infrastructure agreements shouldn't create or promote monopolies. But beyond that first mover advantage and with the internet's spirit that peering and colocation are regulated fairly and not monopolistically, who would have gave Netflix the right to become the internet's TV monopoly? Would you have voted for a President who made it a campaign promise to make sure that FCC Regulators declared Netflix a legal monopoly in charge of TV streaming?

Netflix only really ever had the first mover advantage, and it is probably a good thing in the eventual long term that Netflix didn't win everything. It goes that Netflix's early model while it felt "perfectly viable" from a consumer standpoint at the time was obviously not perfectly viable in the long term as a stable situation. The situation we are in now of too many streaming services and cutthroat competition between them maybe isn't sustainable in the long term and certainly doesn't feel "viable" to us as consumers. But it certainly seems more viable and preferable than the timeline where you need to send letters to your local Congress representatives in the hopes that they might legislate Netflix price increases and put FCC pressure on Netflix to serve the content they promised to serve.

Mindwipe
0 replies
1h3m

Literally no part of that was viable - Netflix didn't even buy 5% of US produced current TV content, less than 10% of film, maybe 1% if we generously round up of archive content, and most of what they bought was already paid for by Network airings or earlier windows.

And even then, Netflix was burning billions of dollars of cash every year to keep operating.

sytelus
6 replies
11h56m

These studios used to make ton of money because only a few are in town. Now, every teenager is his/her own studio and content pool is so vast that their revues must shrink. They have nowhere to run. I think their end state is to publish on YouTube/Netflix and continue living at fraction of revenue that they are used to. That's what they should prepare for and plan for. Their existence and importance was supported by scarcity imposed by cable network and they need to understand that. But instead they live in fantasy of becoming next Netflix and burn in billions of dollars in debt.

RobertRies
2 replies
11h0m

This is compelling and I think many elements of the spirit of this are true. The only thing I would add is that it will be interesting to see if professional, medium/high budget, polished, "produced" content will remain a stable and significant niche that is distinct from user-generated content. And does the high-production-value content directly compete with low-production value user-created content? And what percentage of a user's consumption it will represent in the future? And does the pool of available time for an individual consumer grow to accommodate both? To put it another way, on some level, all content competes for our time, so it's all in competition. On a different level, a Twitch livestream or TikTok feels like an entirely different category of media from a scripted, high-production-value TV series or movie, and I want both in the world.

While traditional publishers may be losing % of daily media consumption - especially in younger age brackets - it's unclear to me where this trend asymptotes. My intuition is that most people will spend some time on "reels" or livestreams (or whatever), some time on blockbuster movies, some on Broadway plays, and some time on scripted produced "TV style" content. Some will expand their denominator of total time to accommodate additional media sources, others will pick one over the other.

It seems there will be a degree of loss of market share as you allude to, but it's unclear how dramatic it will be and where it stabilizes.

One thing is absolutely 100% for sure though in my opinion: media preservation should be deeply prioritized, and this news seems like a blow to that.

soco
1 replies
10h37m

Yesterday was MTV News deleting their archive, right? But on your points: brace yourselves for AI-generated content, with increasing technical quality and probably also increasing entertainment quality. That will be The Flood and might wipe out the small human creators by their lack of discoverability, and replace the studios output because hey AI is cheaper than employing real humans. So what do we do then??? Also no archives because shareholder value (I think I use this term already too much)...

dehrmann
0 replies
3h9m

Yesterday was MTV News deleting their archive, right?

Guess who owns MTV and Comedy Central.

araes
1 replies
2h35m

I think their numbers are BS, just like Hollywood's numbers have always been BS. Remember when Lord of the Rings lost money for New Line somehow?

Paramount's supposedly got 71,000,000 subscribers. At ~$10/month, they're making something like $8,500,000,000 / yr in subscriber fees. You gotta be daft to lose money on that.

At like a $1,000,000 / episode (last numbers I heard, might be old) that's 8,500 episodes of television a year. Pretty sure they didn't make anywhere near that much content last year. Seems like mostly all they're doing is taking away content and then charging you for it again. Disney already plays this game pretty extensively.

lotsofpulp
0 replies
1h53m

No need to speculate, Paramount’s financials are public. And terrible.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PARA/paramount-glo...

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PARA/paramount-glo...

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PARA/paramount-glo...

-2.8% annual return since Jan 2006, 4.25% annual return since Jun 2009, and their 5 and 10 year annual returns are way worse (dqdyj total return calculator doesn’t even provide a percentage return).

Meanwhile, SP500 is returning 10%+ per year.

reddalo
0 replies
11h3m

I think you're right. People never had all the content we can access today. So the real competitors of those few big providers are now the millions of people creating new content every day on social media, YouTube, etc.

wiz21c
0 replies
12h3m

Maybe the old content distracts the consumers from the new content ? And therefore, they prefer to push the consumers towards the new content ?

dehrmann
0 replies
3h10m

It's more a failure of management. All the big, legacy players were co-owners of Hulu around 2010. The success of Netflix, and to a lesser extent HBO Max, give them envy, and they all went off on their own to build something. The problem was there were more streaming services than people wanted.

Terretta
0 replies
1h10m

It's pretty wild that Paramount+/Disney+/Peacock or whatever really struggle to get going, especially given that they provide access to top shows that people really want to watch. It's like having Breaking Bad-esque product but really screwing up when it comes to wanting people to watch it. ... The tech's cheap and they already have the content.

This might not be evident, but ViacomCBS/Paramount back catalog is by and large available on Pluto.TV.

In their app it's available played back from VOD as if linear television in highly targeted "channels" which is convenient if you want to have something "on in the background".

More conveniently, it is also available as an Apple TV "Channel" for PlutoTV that makes too many old shows to ever watch available as VOD.

This also seems to be a catalog behind various house branded linear+VOD TVs, e.g. Samsung, Vizio, Comcast... The tell you're looking at a Pluto white label seems to be the TV grid organization by genre.

Because of the rights, it has all the old Star Trek related series, the old Doctor Who, and countless shows of every variety that had been on CBS, Paramount, Viacom, etc. in the past. If you watched 8 hours a day with no repeats, you'd have over 35 years of TV ahead of you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto_TV

Eisenstein
0 replies
10h59m

Ask a media company head in 2005 for a half a billion dollars to roll out a subscriber service which 23% of the US adult population could even use, which needed a custom decoder box, and which they could charge $10 a month for, and which would eventually destroy the market they were currently making all their money in.

ThrowawayTestr
20 replies
14h10m

This is why you download the things you love. Hard drives are cheap.

acuozzo
9 replies
12h50m

A hard drive sitting on a shelf is a big question mark. Will it spin-up? Who knows?!

So you deal with this by having a backup. Now you have 2x the cost.

But, unfortunately, you could have two hard drives not spin up. You consider an additional backup, but at this point you're at 3x the cost, so you start to reconsider letting hard drives sit on shelves.

Now you're in RAID country. RAID is not a backup, but by shifting your focus to availability you now have an approach to dealing with the "will it spin-up?" issue by proactively dealing with the problem via monitoring and rebuilds when necessary. You keep several replacement HDDs on hand for this inevitability.

Now, since you know RAID is not a backup, you put a backup system in place. This is additional cost; even more if you go 3-2-1.

So now you've got hard drives, storage arrays, HBAs, backups, and the power all of this consumes. We're starting to get out of cheap territory.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is: If you have a lot of data, hard drives are only cheap if you don't care availability, integrity, and longevity.

ryandrake
3 replies
12h41m

Brings up an interesting topic: if I wanted to preserve a movie for 100,000 or even 1,000,000 years, how would I do it? What physical media would last that long, and could actually be played back correctly and accurately by some archaeologist in the year 1,002,025?

mordae
0 replies
12h8m

None. Found a monastery to make copies every thousand years or so.

bezier-curve
0 replies
12h10m

The best we have are M-Discs, a type of durable BD-R disc that are supposed to last up to 1000 years.

throwinway
2 replies
10h27m

I hate comments like this. This is Hacker News, we are highly tech educated and wealthy on average. I specced a 71 TB usable array that can survive losing 3 of 8 drives.

$2000. (shucked drives, but this includes the server and ECC)

If the data is invaluable, throw down a couple of these at homes of friends and family.

acuozzo
1 replies
4h8m

I have 10 x 20 TiB volumes, software RAID6, across multiple storage arrays. I wrote my comment from experience.

I still don't consider it "cheap" even though I make a good chunk of change like many on this website, but I think this is because I think in terms of what my friends & family could afford.

ThrowawayTestr
0 replies
2h16m

You can get a 12TB HDD for a couple hundred dollars. What do you consider cheap?

hoten
0 replies
11h42m

Good points, but the answer is simple. Torrent it.

SI_Rob
0 replies
12h40m

hard drives are only cheap if you don't care availability, integrity, and longevity.

or your free time - but what is not worth even ones free time can't be worth much to one at all so...

Bluecobra
5 replies
14h3m

Funnily enough I remember reading somewhere that this was some of The Daily Show’s secret sauce in where they would DVR/record all the other news programs.

ChrisNorstrom
4 replies
13h54m

They use "TV Eyes" a service that records all cable channels constantly and allows you to search through them and download clips of that segment.

krackers
3 replies
13h43m

How have they not been sued into oblivion?

gorbachev
0 replies
12h5m

Because the content is not being broadcasted.

Terr_
0 replies
13h17m

It seems there was a lawsuit that they won, then lost on appeal, and then the Supreme Court decided not to let it escalate further.

This case stems from a copyright infringement case filed by Fox News back in 2013 against TVEyes [...]

On December 3rd [2018], the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in TVEyes, Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC, declining the opportunity to decide what would have been the Court’s first case on fair use in a copyright context in 20 years. [1]

[1] https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/12/31/scotus-declines-2d-cir-mar...

RF_Savage
0 replies
13h12m

They are part of the industry with better lawyers likely helps.

anigbrowl
3 replies
14h4m

I can't help thinking that zapping sites with no warning is intended to defeat amateur archivists.

defrost
2 replies
13h35m

Stable, Horse, bolted ...

    Other content lost in the purge were clips and full episodes of other short-lived late-night entries like The Opposition with Jordan Klepper, The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore, the Chris Hardwick-hosted @midnight (predecessor to After Midnight), and Lights Out with David Spade.
To quote Life of Brian "I know where to get it if you want it" ... these shows were archived as they aired.

autoexec
1 replies
12h24m

I imagine that finding copies of much of that will be difficult. I know someone who took to the high seas for episodes of the Colbert Report, but how many people are still seeding full seasons of that, let alone shows like Lights Out which were nowhere near as popular.

defrost
0 replies
8h30m

There are still private trackers going on two decades old now with packrat members who have home NAS systems with everything they've ever watched saved away and shared on request with other members in good standing .. less high seas piracy, more community of collectors with digital VHS tapes.

tombert
16 replies
13h42m

How much could it possibly have been costing them to leave old clips up? I suspect the really old stuff was pretty low traffic, file storage is ridiculously cheap, how much money could this realistically save them?

I'm sure it's not "zero" but I think I'm missing something...is it copyright savings or something?

mattmaroon
13 replies
13h28m

You’re missing that they want you to subscribe to Paramount Plus, so they’re going to have all of their content there, where you pay them. They mention it in the press release.

Their company IS paramount plus now. It’s all going there.

lukan
5 replies
12h43m

"You’re missing that they want you to subscribe to Paramount Plus, so they’re going to have all of their content there"

Most of the comments here seem to have missed that, if true. I did not read the article, the headline implies otherwise, but that surely can be clickbait.

smcin
3 replies
10h33m

It's not true, the article itself said it wasn't true. I posted a partial list above of entire shows/seasons that cannot be viewed on Paramount Plus.

mattmaroon
2 replies
6h31m

Verb tenses are not hard. I said all their content is going to be there, not that it is already.

They are betting the company on people paying for paramount plus, it would make no sense for them to have free content anywhere else. They’re moving it all now.

smcin
1 replies
5h18m

Verb tenses are not hard.

Don't be obnoxious. Paramount Plus already culled content in 2023 per the link I gave, they have given no expectation they will make all their back catalog available. Likely they will make more of it available, but not all like you are predicting.

mattmaroon
0 replies
3h4m

I don’t know, streaming services seem to love putting up the back catalogue. I think they’ll put up most of it.

But what’s important is they’re all in on Paramount Plus. They won’t have content outside of that, and why should they?

Obnoxious is ignoring verb tenses and responding to something someone didn’t say multiple times.

croes
0 replies
12h15m

Partially

Unfortunately for those in search of older episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, neither can be found on Paramount+.
smcin
1 replies
12h11m

No, "all their content" is not available on Paramount Plus, much of it isn't [0], at least the good old stuff:

- for example, they only have two seasons of The Daily Show (S28, S29) https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/the-daily-show/ . Reportedly they don't have the Colbert Show at all(!)

- here's a list of 21 Paramount Plus shows that were disappeared 6/2023: https://www.tomsguide.com/news/21-paramount-plus-shows-just-...

- Quora: Why doesn’t Paramount Plus have all the seasons to all of their shows? https://www.quora.com/Why-doesn-t-Paramount-Plus-have-all-th...

[0]: "25+ Years of Daily Show Clips Gone as Paramount Axes Comedy Central Site" https://latenighter.com/news/paramount-axes-comedy-central-w...

mattmaroon
0 replies
6h33m

I used the future tense.

croes
1 replies
12h16m

And you're missing

Unfortunately for those in search of older episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, neither can be found on Paramount+.
mattmaroon
0 replies
6h26m

And you’re missing verb tenses.

TeMPOraL
1 replies
12h14m

Oh boy, that's suicide. Instead of cutting their losses, they're doubling down on failure. I can't see this ending well for the rest of their IP.

mattmaroon
0 replies
6h27m

I don’t know. It seems pretty clear the other methods of content delivery are going to be consumed entirely. If you’re a company that makes TV, I don’t see another choice.

At the end of the day they’ll all merge into a few streaming services but they cannot afford to sit it out.

autoexec
0 replies
12h38m

Not according to the article: "Unfortunately for those in search of older episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, neither can be found on Paramount+."

It's a real shame too because I might actually be tempted to at least burn a free trial of that service if they had The Colbert Report

portaouflop
0 replies
13h28m

The question is rather how much profit do they make b leaving it up. Most likely 0 or less. Capitalism says shut it down now.

e____g
0 replies
13h9m

Not much, but they'll benefit much more in the short term in reduced taxes by writing down those assets to zero.

Edit: this was downvoted, and I don't understand why. Am I wrong in thinking this action was made in pursuit of a write down? FWIW, this wasn't a thoughtless comment by a random Internet passerby; I hold 41,905 shares of PARA.

ajmurmann
12 replies
13h32m

Could they just have uploaded these to YouTube and monetized there through ads? Might not go with their brand, but better than deleting!

oefrha
6 replies
13h12m

You do realize YouTube is one of their main threats, and their main advantage over YouTube is higher quality? Giving treasure trove of quality content to YouTube in exchange for peanuts while shuttering their own, that would be a double whammy.

aniforprez
1 replies
13h5m

As opposed to making zero money, having your content be pirated and not having an official archive? Putting it on YouTube with ads would have without a doubt been the better option here

oefrha
0 replies
13h2m

Yeah, as history has shown, fire sale of assets to competitor eating your lunch has been without a doubt a sound business strategy. /s

In all seriousness, giving existing and potential customers more reasons to spend their time on YouTube is not good for their business.

TeMPOraL
1 replies
11h31m

Higher quality of what? Content? YouTube doesn't make any, it just hosts it. Of UX? None of the big streaming services have anything remotely comparable in quality to YouTube's player, and given it is what it is, that's saying something.

oefrha
0 replies
10h57m

Content? YouTube doesn't make any, it just hosts it.

That’s a meaningless distinction for consumers. YouTube has some content of good production value among a sea of crap. Giving it more professionally produced content only weakens the old guard.

akira2501
0 replies
13h1m

It used to be that we had production and distribution strictly separated. Several administrations have been particularly cozy with the media industry, for obvious reasons, and have basically given away the space to entrenched industry players and then removed most of the rules.

The idea that youtube should even be a threat to their content highlights one of the problems with this arrangement.

ajmurmann
0 replies
1h55m

Is it that different from Microsoft bringing their games to PlayStation and Sony bringing older games to PC. This would be the equivalent of making PS1 generation games available on PC.

paulddraper
2 replies
13h21m

And not subscribe to Paramount+?!?

TeMPOraL
1 replies
12h17m

Isn't Paramount+ the hole that's sinking the ship in the first place?

paulddraper
0 replies
11h8m

Better fill it

swarnie
1 replies
12h50m

Youtube Ad revenue isn't what it used to be.... Its why so many creators do "baked-in" ads, patron, merch and memberships.

A channel i follow getting <500k views a week calls ad revenue a rounding error in the grand scheme of things now.

seaal
0 replies
2h0m

One of my favorite food Youtuber Internet Shaquille just did an experiment where he released a short every day for a month and his AdSense revenue grew from $1500 to $7000 per month. Clearly Google is herding a lot of eyeballs and money over to Shorts to try and become a proper TikTok competitor.

Would recommend the video where he digs into the experiment, https://youtu.be/uvu3SDigoMA

HaZeust
11 replies
14h9m

MTV news then this?? Did some older and borderline archaic provider skyrocket their prices?

mcmcmc
9 replies
14h5m

From TFA:

The move would appear to be part of continued belt-tightening measures at Paramount, which is more than $14 billion in debt, led by losses at Paramount+ and its aging cable networks.
swagmoose
8 replies
13h36m

I knew it was bad, I didn't know it was $14 billion bad. Did they spend it all on their two terrible streaming apps?

blitzar
2 replies
11h38m

Rates were low, the cost of servicing $14 billion in debt was $0.

CEO's had the company take the debt on, paid themselves fat bonuses and hoped that the little people downstairs would invent something new that would save the company.

lotsofpulp
1 replies
1h5m

You think Shari Redstone, who has 77.4% of the voting power in Paramount, just let her employees get rich at her expense? She hired them, she offered the compensation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Amusements

blitzar
0 replies
44m

She paid the CEO $30 million a year to lose $30 billion in market cap (of which National Amusements share is $23 billion) in just 4 short years, so I would say that they got pretty rich at her expense.

zer00eyz
0 replies
13h18m

Tech people grift LA types...

No, never, not us...

drekipus
0 replies
13h29m

You betcha.

chefandy
0 replies
13h11m

Yeah. Episodic streaming content has been incredible for the past few years, but now TV studio execs realized that indiscriminately pumping money into everything, all the time, inexplicably, isn't a good business move! So they've just started firing the big staffs they've picked up and cancelling projects. Because, when you realize you've been making irrational moves, the answer isn't trying to make rational moves– it's making equally irrational moves in the opposite direction.

autoexec
0 replies
12h28m

I wonder if that's why they started forcing people to create accounts on PlutoTV. They must be looking to make money selling people's data.

akira2501
0 replies
12h43m

The CBS Viacom merger was a cynical plan from the very beginning. It even drew shareholder lawsuits which they ultimately had to settle. The writing was on the wall as early as 2015, though, when the company started restructuring several core businesses in moves that I saw at the time as "thinly veiled cash grabs."

During a time when they could have been making deeper investments in these business and capturing large parts of a growing media market they completely ceded the space and any expertise they had in it all to pad their own paper value. Immediately after the merger they lost a lot of licensing revenue because they drastically overestimated the value of the corporate assets they cherry picked for themselves.

anigbrowl
0 replies
13h49m

I'm guessing it's some sort of financial wizardry whereby the net present value of the archive is increased (on paper) by putting it behind a $50/clip paywall advertised only in trade journals.

whatever1
8 replies
13h33m

So wait if I have a copy of a deleted forever by Paramount episode am I a thief or savior?

My morals are confused

akira2501
2 replies
12h58m

In media one of the things we have to "deal with" is Sound Exchange. When we play a song, we have to keep track of that, and how many people heard it, then settle up at the end of every month with SX.

There should be an open royalty payments system for everything and available to citizens. So that I can credibly say, "look, I did pirate this entire TV series, but I want to pay the obligatory contract rate, and I want that money to go to the creators."

thinkingemote
1 replies
12h9m

this reminds me of one of the only interesting use cases for blockchainish stuff. Lets say a movie would have it's unique id and links to creators, publishers, writers, actors etc together with how much they should be settled with.

You buy a movie and the creators get their proportion automatically. You now have the official version of the movie. You take the movie and make a fan cut and sell that, you are added to the chain as a creator, you specify your cut and all the creators continue to get royalties.

It doesn't stop piracy but it makes the royalty system transparent and it gives the creation an independent life. It distributes copyright or ownership I guess. Derivatives can also be worked on and sold easily. You could have any third party "popcorn" app that had this micro payment within it.

(In reality studios put up huge sums of money to finance a movie, this use case couldn't address that side, just the selling and distribution of digital things)

majewsky
0 replies
9h34m

Which part of this benefits from blockchain?

Suppose an alternative implementation where a media file contains a signed certificate of creatorship that can include other certificates (so your can cut would have a certificate signed by you, including as a payload the original certificate signed by the original creator). I can immediately see several attacks on this system, but I don't see an attack that blockchain would solve.

For example, the fan cut could just not include the original creator's certificate. I don't see how a blockchain would help in uncovering this. Maybe if the blockchain contains the full video files? Then you could use regular plagiarism detection software or ContentID-type systems to find possible rights violations. But then the blockchain size would quickly balloon beyond the point of usefulness, and also it's not substantially different from just putting all the involved media on public web servers for people to mirror.

titzer
1 replies
12h57m

Oh, they didn't delete it, they just jammed it all through some machine learning model that "compressed" it and will hallucinate it back for you on demand. What could be better than a work of art that automatically updates itself to the current sensibilities of the time?

/s

BLKNSLVR
0 replies
12h34m

We are at war with Eastasia.

nyokodo
0 replies
13h25m

if I have a copy of a deleted forever by Paramount episode am I a thief or savior?

Intuitively if this media is truly otherwise gone forever, it appears more like salvage than theft.

autoexec
0 replies
12h36m

It makes you an archivist. If you seed the files you'll be a hero.

DaoVeles
0 replies
13h17m

Savior to the people, thief to the lawyers.

peddling-brink
4 replies
14h1m

Anything else owned by paramount that needs to be urgently archived?

portaouflop
3 replies
13h27m

Anything they own. They (and most other big Hollywood studios) are in deep shit and will probably shut down if there is no miracle.

nyokodo
2 replies
13h19m

will probably shut down if there is no miracle

Someone will buy their IP and back catalogue in a bankruptcy. Those will retain value and even highly speculative properties might be worth owning just in case if the price is right.

autoexec
0 replies
12h27m

They might buy up their shows, but there's no certainty that they'll release them or that they'll release them uncensored/unedited.

MrDrMcCoy
0 replies
13h10m

Probably Disney too if antitrust didn't get in the way. I'm pretty sure I don't want them meddling with Star Trek, but that may be the only way it stays in existence.

fatbird
3 replies
14h6m

Torrenting becomes a moral imperative.

herunan
1 replies
13h35m

In at least a decade, torrents will be down as saviours of digital content.

wiseowise
0 replies
12h24m

Already are.

mindslight
0 replies
14h1m

Always has been.

Sparkyte
3 replies
13h17m

Lost media is a real thing, more and more so when the internet loses data we've stored. We think it is a premanent place and sure it might out live us, but nothing is permanent.

sofixa
1 replies
12h47m

This isn't new. Lots of old (pre-Internet) media was lost forever because storage was expensive and it was considered not worth it. As an example, there are a bunch of Doctor Who episodes which are lost forever because the BBC back then didn't consider it worthwhile to keep them and overwrote the tapes.

wiseowise
0 replies
12h29m

Nice.

zwnow
0 replies
12h44m

It's also not a bad thing to be honest. There's so much content on the internet that would be best deleted.

SarahC_
2 replies
11h33m

It is clear now that paper archives are far superior to digital ones.

Digital archives don't degrade over time - but they are so easy to destroy. Unplug the disks, or hit "Erase", or take the site down - and history has been erased.

We'll know more about the 19th century than we ever will of the 21st century.

TeMPOraL
0 replies
8h24m

We'll know more about the 19th century than we ever will of the 21st century.

With digitization, we're losing a lot of documents from before 20th century as well, thanks to people who figure that digital scans are cheaper to keep than the paper originals, or worse, who also think someone else already digitized them (they didn't, because they also thought the same).

Akronymus
0 replies
9h25m

Digital archives don't degrade over time

They certainly do. File formats become obsolete, the drives can accumulate errors, when copying the files from an old drive to a new one, some files may get forgotten about, someone loses some metadata, etc.

https://www.getty.edu/news/preventing-digital-decay/

IanKerr
2 replies
3h41m

We're going to lose so much more cultural history to corporate greed in the next century. Preservation of music, media, games are all being attacked in the name of profits. Future generations will not be able to enjoy the vast wealth we're creating because folks would rather destroy it than make it available for distribution, even for a fee.

dehrmann
1 replies
3h2m

You're overestimating how much people will care. When was the last time you listened to Bing Crosby other than White Christmas?

IanKerr
0 replies
1h33m

To an extent that's the fundamental issue driving these changes. It becomes increasingly difficult to monetize old material for lack of demand. Should lack of attention from society be enough reason to throw old media into the trash permanently? I don't believe so. We owe it to future generations to preserve what we can.

1vuio0pswjnm7
2 replies
10h53m

This is what happens when software developers sell the idea of "streaming", i.e., downloading and throwing away, instead of downloading and keeping. Meanwhile the price of offline storage has dropped precipitously as the popularity of expensive "streaming" has risen.

Online storage is relatively expensive but software developers sell the idea of "cloud" storage instead of offline storage. Eventually people want to cut costs. Overpriced "cloud storage" is a likely target.

Why are these ideas pushed on computer users despite contravening common sense. Answer: Greed.

rezmason
0 replies
10h42m

The ability to purchase and download whole seasons of shows from iTunes was one of its major advantages. I bought all of West Wing ten years ago, and I know for a fact that it's all physically in this room, three feet away.

This is also the only way Ainsley Hayes can possibly manifest outside of Aaron Sorkin's imagination.

guappa
0 replies
10h33m

I think developers would prefer implementing the easier solution. But it doesn't give subscriptions so…

thenoblesunfish
1 replies
11h10m

This really highlights the need for something like a "right to culture". People deserve a way to personally preserve and enjoy the cultural artifacts that are important to them. I can mostly do that by buying digital music, but (as Jon Stewart would say) with TV and movies, ah-not-so-much.

reddalo
0 replies
11h2m

Piracy is the only realiable history preservation tool.

slim
1 replies
13h52m

don't worry people, you will still be able to ask chatgpt about most videos that were on that website /s

wiseowise
0 replies
12h10m

With the new twists every time you ask for it! Stay tuned!

mandeepj
1 replies
12h37m

CC has a YouTube channel and a FB page. Did they delete content from their as well?

smcin
0 replies
10h23m

YT: https://www.youtube.com/@ComedyCentral/

I don't know, I guess you'd have to search regularly to find out.

I do see 9-11-year-old episodes of The Daily Show and Colbert Report currently on CC's YT page, yet not available on Paramount Plus. Maybe Paramount Plus will use YT to gauge which of their back-catalog there is interest for.

edgarvaldes
1 replies
13h38m

I'm all for archiving all the things. I even hoard some things myself. On the other hand, uncoordinated efforts are so wasteful.

ta8645
0 replies
13h19m

Given the legal environment, uncoordinated efforts may actually be more resilient, than wasteful.

bottlepalm
1 replies
11h45m

Piracy should be legal if there are no other means of obtaining the content.

reddalo
0 replies
10h59m

In other words: piracy is illegal because it hurts the content producer (they don't get any money). But if there's no way to pay for that content, no damage is done, hence piracy and "copyright violation" should be 100% legal.

1970-01-01
1 replies
13h34m

I remember watching full episodes of South Park on their website. This was around 2000.

brailsafe
0 replies
13h6m

Thankfully these are still available on southparkstudios.com

yard2010
0 replies
10h58m

Everything is available on Usenet. So it's not such a big deal.

xtiansimon
0 replies
6h22m

Ha! Historical rhymes—film, magnetic tape, and now hard drives?

vincnetas
0 replies
10h45m

Business as usual. Someone decided to earn more money :

  "While episodes of most Comedy Central series are no longer available on this website, you can watch Comedy Central through your TV provider. You can also sign up for Paramount+ to watch many seasons of Comedy Central shows."

user3939382
0 replies
11h17m

When a work of art becomes known by the general public for some very short period, like 10 years, it should enter the public domain. That’s plenty of time for creators to profit. Art that has become part of our culture shouldn’t be owned by anyone.

tmtvl
0 replies
11h17m

By the time I finish this comment someone else will have pointed it out, but the S and B in 'website' are the wrong way around.

pentagrama
0 replies
6h7m

At least crate a YouTube channel as a archive and upload the videos there. Will mantain te brand presence, avoid some backlash, and maybe earn some money with ad revenue.

osobo
0 replies
11h44m

They got an estimate for the audit on expired copyrights and media use and though "fuck it". Probably going to monetize and re-release cleared highlights at a later date.

keeglin
0 replies
12h52m

The Daily Show, during all those classic Jon Stewart years.

And sure enough, it's gone.

My first try, the classic interview between Jon and Joe Biden in 2015, where Biden admits he unwittingly politically used a story about a family coal miner that didn't exist. Interviews with Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice. Their 2000 and 2004 coverage of the RNC and DNC conventions, all gone.

https://www.cc.com/video/j6f55l/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew... https://www.cc.com/video/kqe9tb/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew...

Yeah, I think I have a feeling about that, but I think really this is just a loss of some of our common story.

jeffwask
0 replies
4h46m

The enshitification continues.

hyperific
0 replies
12h53m

I guess I gotta be the one to point out the typo in the title.

*website

firefoxd
0 replies
12h6m

They could have saved money by hiring developers who are cheap. Not cheap developers.

My team requested access to a tool in the company, and the finance department said it was too expensive to get an additional license. We fought for 6 months to get that license.

The moment we got access, we saw that everyone was on the high end plan, and not even using it as it was intended. We even saw an account called Sample-test that was costing upwards of $15k a month.

Now we pay $1000 a year.

Paramount+ rushed to get in the game. They even borrowed the plus in their name. Now they need those frugal devs to make it work and help save money.

euroderf
0 replies
9h52m

This firms up a moral case for torrents as a distributed archival method.

donatj
0 replies
8h38m

Just burning goodwill like cordwood. I'm starting to believe they don't have a single person on staff who understands customer relations - or even that they have customers in need of pleasing. They seem like a faceless entity with impenetrable goals.

Honestly, I'm still reeling from the cancellation of Tosh.0. It makes zero sense from the outside looking in. It was their second most popular show after "South Park", cost peanuts to make, and had been renewed for another four seasons. They ended up breaking the contract, which presumably cost them nearly as much as just producing the show would have

ck2
0 replies
3h52m

someone alert r/DataHoarder this still works for the moment https://www.adultswim.com/videos/

oh wait that is cartoonetwork, nevermind, well actually you never know

brailsafe
0 replies
13h3m

I suppose stuff like this just reinforces why I download everything I can, even though in this specific case I never had much access to comedycentral anyway since it was typically region locked.

ang_cire
0 replies
13h13m

Yo ho ho...!

a-dub
0 replies
11h11m

wild to think that the web is old enough now that major media properties are shutting down websites.

RecycledEle
0 replies
1h0m

Is it possible many companies are killing off their video archives because those archives bring in little income, but may have great value in training AIs, and the companies do not want anyone scraping those video archives?