JACK BENNY FAN CLUB GETS BAD NEWS FROM CBS

[Toledo Eleven]

It seems CBS would rather let old Jack Benny Show masters die instead of letting the Jack Benny Fan Club digitally restore them for free. 2 links: http://themoderatevoice.com/59065/killing-comedic-heritage-cbs-reportedly-seals-some-classic-jack-benny-show-comedy-masters/ and http://techdirt.com/articles/20100118/1050427800.shtml

[Ultimajock]

...William S. Paley, in life a passionate supporter of both the Museum of Broadcasting and the Museum of Modern Art (BOTH major preservers of film and video), is now spinning like a lathe in his grave...

[anotherguy]

This is a perfect example of why copyright laws need to be overhauled. The owners of copyrighted material such as TV shows, movies, and music, should be required by law to make the material available in some form, whether it's a release on DVD or CD, a presentation on TV, or an internet download, as a condition of having the copyright renewed. Otherwise they lose any right to sue over copies made by other individuals or companies.

[bpatrick]

...William S. Paley, in life a passionate supporter of both the Museum of Broadcasting and the Museum of Modern Art (BOTH major preservers of film and video), is now spinning like a lathe in his grave...

Not to mention the fact that Paley, despite sticking up for Jim Aubrey when he uttered those fatal words, "You're through," was possibly Benny's biggest fan; he lured him from NBC to CBS in 1948 (Benny began his CBS run January 2, 1949, although he had a short run there around 1933, before starting his Sunday-night show).

[Stanislav]

This is a perfect example of why copyright laws need to be overhauled. The owners of copyrighted material such as TV shows, movies, and music, should be required by law to make the material available in some form, whether it's a release on DVD or CD, a presentation on TV, or an internet download, as a condition of having the copyright renewed. Otherwise they lose any right to sue over copies made by other individuals or companies.

I've been bitching about this for years. A rights holder will hold footage "hostage," never release it commercially, never even have any intention of doing so, and yet sue the pants off of fans who want to see it and share it and circulate "bootleg" copies. If you ask why the material is not released, you usually get the "potential customer base is too small to be profitable" spiel. Well, boo hoo. So, if you can't figure a way to make money from it, why do you even care about fans sharing it or seeing it? If you're not cashing in on it yourself, you're not suffering any financial loss by the practice.

That hypocrisy is best described as a simple case of "sour grapes." To me, it's like that kid in your neighborhood (everybody knew one) who had all sorts of cool toys sitting in his closet that he never played or bothered with, but that he wouldn't let others play with because they're HIS. So there! Nyahhh!

And when it comes to certain shows and artists of merit, it's just wrong to keep the material in a vault. Jack Benny is one of the great comic geniuses of the 20th Century, and his shows are a touchstone of our cultural heritage. They should be available to view by the public for that reason alone. It's almost like we need to have some sort of legal protection to insure access for media similar to the "historical landmark" status for buildings.
 

[azumanga]

Jack Benny is one of the great comic geniuses of the 20th Century, and his shows are a touchstone of our cultural heritage. They should be available to view by the public for that reason alone. It's almost like we need to have some sort of legal protection to insure access for media similar to the "historical landmark" status for buildings.
 

The Library of Congress already has something similar to it for films -- a database that lists films that are culturally significant.

[Russell W.]

This is a perfect example of why copyright laws need to be overhauled. The owners of copyrighted material such as TV shows, movies, and music, should be required by law to make the material available in some form, whether it's a release on DVD or CD, a presentation on TV, or an internet download, as a condition of having the copyright renewed. Otherwise they lose any right to sue over copies made by other individuals or companies.

I've been bitching about this for years. A rights holder will hold footage "hostage," never release it commercially, never even have any intention of doing so, and yet sue the pants off of fans who want to see it and share it and circulate "bootleg" copies. 

Everything Stanislav said, and then some.   

[TexasTom]

This is a perfect example of why copyright laws need to be overhauled. The owners of copyrighted material such as TV shows, movies, and music, should be required by law to make the material available in some form, whether it's a release on DVD or CD, a presentation on TV, or an internet download, as a condition of having the copyright renewed. Otherwise they lose any right to sue over copies made by other individuals or companies.

I've been bitching about this for years. A rights holder will hold footage "hostage," never release it commercially, never even have any intention of doing so, and yet sue the pants off of fans who want to see it and share it and circulate "bootleg" copies.

And let me add my agreement, because I've been commenting on this for years, as well -- all of the so-called copyright reform has resulted in copyright terms that are far too lengthy, resulting in a lot of older material becoming caught in a sort of legal black hole.  The stuff isn't distributed by the copyright holder because it's not profitable for them to do so, but it can't be freely copied because it's not in the public domain. 

Shorter terms or some sort of "distribute or lose" clause is badly needed.

[Stanislav]

This is a perfect example of why copyright laws need to be overhauled. The owners of copyrighted material such as TV shows, movies, and music, should be required by law to make the material available in some form, whether it's a release on DVD or CD, a presentation on TV, or an internet download, as a condition of having the copyright renewed. Otherwise they lose any right to sue over copies made by other individuals or companies.

I've been bitching about this for years. A rights holder will hold footage "hostage," never release it commercially, never even have any intention of doing so, and yet sue the pants off of fans who want to see it and share it and circulate "bootleg" copies.

And let me add my agreement, because I've been commenting on this for years, as well -- all of the so-called copyright reform has resulted in copyright terms that are far too lengthy, resulting in a lot of older material becoming caught in a sort of legal black hole.  The stuff isn't distributed by the copyright holder because it's not profitable for them to do so, but it can't be freely copied because it's not in the public domain. 

Shorter terms or some sort of "distribute or lose" clause is badly needed.

Of course, the problem with such a "distribute or lose" clause is defining what constitutes a sufficient degree of distribution. Much as films will sometimes be early-released for one day in a single theater in order to qualify for that year's Oscars, I can see an easy loophole here that could be exploited. They could ship one box of 10 DVDs to some obscure store in Walla Walla, where they would be stocked without fanfare or publicity for a week or so, then recalled, and claim that they had, indeed, technically "distributed" the work in question, and are entitled to renewal of the copyright. You'd have to establish some sort of parameters to verify whether there had been a serious, good faith effort at marketing the work, else rights holders will skate by on technicalities.

BTW, one interesting aspect of the CBS/Benny situation is that the shows in question are actually in the public domain. The sticking point seems to be not that CBS owns the rights to them as far as content, but that they happen to own the (apparently) only existing physical copies of the shows. And allowing them to be digitized and remastered, even with safeguards, opens up the possibility of a copy or copies escaping "into the wild" and thereby being snatched up by anyone who wants to duplicate and sell them, which would be perfectly legal for a PD work. Essentially, CBS just doesn't want any material distributed that they cannot control and profit from, regardless of the copyright status, and as long as they own and control the only physical copies, they are safe. It makes my analogy above of the kid who won't share his toys even more appropriate -- CBS derives zero profit or benefit (except, perhaps, the goodwill involved to fans, which does not figure into corporate bottom lines) from "sharing their toys" even though they aren't playing with them.
    

[Stanislav]

Two more takes on the CBS/Benny situation. One from my favorite blogger, Mark Evanier:

http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2010_01_20.html#018399

...and this interesting viewpoint from someone on tvweek.com who seems to imply there's more to this than meets the (CBS) Eye:

http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2010/01/cbs-nixes-unearthed-jack-benny.php#comment-100036