Un/Popular TV Opinions

[cwf1701]

All TV is educational, especially when children are watching. But the lessons it usually teaches are bad.

And on some shows today, it seems they show kids acting like they are 18-19 instead of being kids. Back in the 1970s, kid shows often had kids being kids. Being a kid in the 1970s, there was some things i saw kids my age do on tv that i wanted to do (or happen to me). After all, what kid wanted to be the kid who blow bubble gum out of the ears, or get pulled by his bowling ball when he get to throw the ball for example?

[7/8]

The Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, USA, Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc. are NOT TV stations but rather cable\satellite channels. ONLY channels that can be picked up over the air with a TV antenna (Those carrying ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox, The CW, My Network TV & diginets like MeTV, Antenna TV, Cozi TV, etc.) ARE TV stations. I've seen people, on social media, erroneously refering to cable & satellite channels as TV stations. I also remember talking to somebody, years ago, about local TV stations & they thought that Nickelodeon was a local Kansas City area "TV station". Part of that could be that they, and others who think that all channels on cable\satellite TV are TV stations, probably grew up with only cable\satellite TV.

Yes, I don't think I've seen a TV antenna in real life, so cable/satellite are TV to me. I mean, how would I know which ones are "TV" vs cable when they look the same on my cable guide? I even have no problem with someone referring to streaming as TV. I think of a TV show as a format (generally 0.5-1 hour long, multiple episodes).

[NWI_Irish96]

The Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, USA, Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc. are NOT TV stations but rather cable\satellite channels. ONLY channels that can be picked up over the air with a TV antenna (Those carrying ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox, The CW, My Network TV & diginets like MeTV, Antenna TV, Cozi TV, etc.) ARE TV stations. I've seen people, on social media, erroneously refering to cable & satellite channels as TV stations. I also remember talking to somebody, years ago, about local TV stations & they thought that Nickelodeon was a local Kansas City area "TV station". Part of that could be that they, and others who think that all channels on cable\satellite TV are TV stations, probably grew up with only cable\satellite TV.

Yes, I don't think I've seen a TV antenna in real life, so cable/satellite are TV to me. I mean, how would I know which ones are "TV" vs cable when they look the same on my cable guide? I even have no problem with someone referring to streaming as TV. I think of a TV show as a format (generally 0.5-1 hour long, multiple episodes).

If we're going to be 100% precise, channels that can be picked up with an antenna are 'Broadcast television channels' and channels that require cable/satellite/streaming to watch are 'Cable television channels' but both are subcategories of the larger category of 'Television channels'.

Services only available via streaming and not available via cable/satellite would not qualify as television channels.

[mgk920]

Also, copyright protection terms are sooooo absurdly long that it is easy to 'memory hole' various works because they have become 'unPC' (ie, Disney's Song of the South' or numerous GREAT Warner Brothers Buggs Bunny, et al, cartoon shorts) or, IMHO, an even greater threat - that a great and popular work that at one time was a part of very essence of the popular culture simply be forgotten by the public before it lapses into pubic domain.

Thank God that the studio that made 'It's A Wonderful Life' made the clerical booboo of forgetting to renew its copyright (under the old law) when it was approaching copyright expiration and it thus passed into the public domain.

IMHO, if there is a work that nobody who was alive and aware when it was first published is reasonably still alive and aware today, it should not be under copyright protection.

Mike

[Scott5114]

I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.

[hbelkins]

I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.

So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?



Back to the thread topic...

The original Star Trek was the best. All the other iterations (TNG, DS9, etc.) pale in comparison in all ways.

[formulanone]

I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.

So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?

Or they can get their own jobs?

Or create their own things?

Using the carefully-bequeathed fortunes for the massive headstart they'll have on everyone else, instead of stopping others from creating the most minor of derivative works?

Just a few crazy ideas.

I'm not a big fan of charging for copyright renewal, though. Pretty much puts things out of the reach of anyone but the wealthy, and I suppose it would create a side industry of bidders for many expiring works (like patent trolls).

[Scott5114]

I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.

So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?

Heirs of the creator of something aren't entitled to shit. They didn't create it.

Hell, 25 years ago was, what, 1997? If you're still coasting on something you did in 1997 as the major source of your income you're a talentless hack. Put something new out and quit resting on your laurels.

[hbelkins]

I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.

So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?

Heirs of the creator of something aren't entitled to shit. They didn't create it.

Hell, 25 years ago was, what, 1997? If you're still coasting on something you did in 1997 as the major source of your income you're a talentless hack. Put something new out and quit resting on your laurels.

But why should anyone else be entitled to it? Shouldn't the owner/creator be entitled to designate who gets control of it after he or she dies? Just like any other property, like a house or a car?

What's the point in doing something/working for something/building something if you don't have control of it?

If I will my house to my brother, should he only get it for 25 years? Or should he have use and control of it until such time that he decides to part with it?

Photoshop is well over 25 years old. Why isn't it in the public domain and freely available to everyone?

[mgk920]

I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.

So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?

Heirs of the creator of something aren't entitled to shit. They didn't create it.

Hell, 25 years ago was, what, 1997? If you're still coasting on something you did in 1997 as the major source of your income you're a talentless hack. Put something new out and quit resting on your laurels.

But why should anyone else be entitled to it? Shouldn't the owner/creator be entitled to designate who gets control of it after he or she dies? Just like any other property, like a house or a car?

What's the point in doing something/working for something/building something if you don't have control of it?

If I will my house to my brother, should he only get it for 25 years? Or should he have use and control of it until such time that he decides to part with it?

Photoshop is well over 25 years old. Why isn't it in the public domain and freely available to everyone?

The patents on its algorithms expired long ago are in the public domain.  However, trademarks last for as long as they are maintained.

I also vary much like the idea of a 'use it or lose it' provision being added to copyright law to prevent such things as 'memory holing' currently 'unPC' works or to declare that 'abandoned' works are pubic domain after a certain short amount of time (like when a local photo studio goes out of business and is not taken over or a work is no longer conveniently available in 'first release').

Yes, I am aware of the 'abandonware' thing with computer software - it a software package is no longer sold or supported by its manufacturer, you can hack it in any way needed to get it to run.

Mike

[abefroman329]

it is easy to 'memory hole' various works because they have become 'unPC' (ie, Disney's Song of the South' or numerous GREAT Warner Brothers Buggs Bunny, et al, cartoon shorts)

Song of the South isn't merely "un-PC," it's entirely predicated on the notion that black people loved nothing more than being slaves and serving white children.

I don't know of any GREAT Warner Brothers cartoons that have been "memory-holed" other than the jaw-droppingly racist ones.

And yes, I think it's important for people to learn that these things exist, but I also think it's important to present them in the context of "this was acceptable then and it's not now."

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The original Star Trek was the best. All the other iterations (TNG, DS9, etc.) pale in comparison in all ways.

I think TNG seasons 3-6 were peak Star Trek. The "human redemption tour" angle stopped and they started telling good stories. Gene Roddenberry died partway through season 5 of TNG and people trying to put their own stamp on the franchise didn't always do it so well.

[Scott5114]

I sort of like the idea of having to make a positive action to renew copyright. Perhaps you get 25 years for free. After the first renewal, they would have to be done in ten-year renewal cycles after that. First renewal has a $100 fee, second is $1000, third is $10,000... It would quickly become pretty unprofitable to keep renewing it. Plus, it would mean that if a company goes defunct or whatever, their stuff would become public domain while there's still a reasonable chance someone might be able to salvage it.

So the government makes money while the heirs of the creator (or their assigns) lose their source of income?

Heirs of the creator of something aren't entitled to shit. They didn't create it.

Hell, 25 years ago was, what, 1997? If you're still coasting on something you did in 1997 as the major source of your income you're a talentless hack. Put something new out and quit resting on your laurels.

But why should anyone else be entitled to it? Shouldn't the owner/creator be entitled to designate who gets control of it after he or she dies? Just like any other property, like a house or a car?

Nobody is entitled to anything. After you die, you're dead. What you want ceases to matter anymore.

What's the point in doing something/working for something/building something if you don't have control of it?

You would. For 25 years.

If I will my house to my brother, should he only get it for 25 years? Or should he have use and control of it until such time that he decides to part with it?

He should work hard and get a job and stop asking for a handout.

Photoshop is well over 25 years old. Why isn't it in the public domain and freely available to everyone?

Corporate greed. Is there any reason Adobe should be allowed to say nobody can have Photoshop 4.0, which was released in 1996, without going through them? Do they really lack such confidence in the current version of Photoshop that they think it isn't good enough to get people to choose it over a version that was designed for Windows 95?

[J N Winkler]

In regard to copyright, I favor it persisting for some time after the creator's death, because the desire to leave a legacy is one motivation for the act of creation itself.  The legacy isn't necessarily solely unearned income for the heirs--it can also be an endowment for a charitable purpose.  However, I think the key is that copyright must not persist indefinitely, either through the original term or chaining of renewals.  I think it is unconscionable that Disney has been able to keep Mickey Mouse under copyright for 93 years and counting (he is supposed to enter the public domain in 2024, but I can easily see that deadline being extended).

[Scott5114]

See, I feel like the desire to leave a legacy is more easily fulfilled without copyright being attached. A dead author's work is more likely to circulate and stay well-known if there is no restriction on doing so. If copyright is in place, circulation of the work is only possible so long as there's still a profit motive on the part of whoever owns the rights; if a work is judged to be past its ability to produce a positive return on investment, it's in the copyright holder's financial interests to quietly bury the work and stop producing copies of it. That remains true even if it maintains a niche following, albeit one small enough that it couldn't justify the up-front cost of cranking out another print run (or DVD pressing, or the cost of server load, or whatever).

The Great Gatsby going public domain did little to diminish F. Scott Fitzgerald's legacy. In fact, I think it was bolstered by it; I heard more people talking about the book when it just went PD than I ever had while it was copyrighted. There were a lot of people taking advantage of the lack of copyright to make silly derivative works for fun, which drew even more attention to the source material.

[vdeane]

It's important to remember that the point of intellectual property protections was to foster innovation, by incentivizing people to create works that could then be used by society.  The long length of modern copyright actively hinders that purpose by locking the work in whatever estate or corporation holds the rights, and consequently, we now live in an era in which corporate rights holders are milking their existing properties rather than create something new.

[hbelkins]

Part of the reason for working hard is not only to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts, but to provide for your descendants or other heirs. When the alternative is to let the government have the revenues from something over letting someone designated by the person who developed the revenue-producing thing (be it a physical product or an intellectual creation), you know I'm not going to be for it.

It's one reason why I'm opposed to inheritance and estate taxes. Why should the government be entitled to a chunk of your property or savings just because you have the misfortune of dying?

I've told this story often. I was the executor of the estate of my mother's first cousin when he died 22 years ago. He never married, had no children, was an only child, and had no heirs that Kentucky classifies as Class A (no tax) or Class B (some tax). All of his heirs were considered Class C. He lived modestly, saved well, and had a decent bank account when he died. He named four heirs in his will, three distant cousins and one person who was not a blood relative (my dad) who got only some physical possessions of his such as a power lift chair. Before I could distribute one cent of the inheritance to the heirs, I had to write a check to the Commonwealth of Kentucky for around $45,000. That sticks in my craw to this day. The state did absolutely nothing to deserve to get that money and had no moral right to claim it over the individuals my cousin wanted to have his estate.

[Henry]

The pre-2002 Columbia/Tri-Star TV closing theme was the best. I hate how Sony plasters all the old logos with its own logo and that godawful theme.

The 2003 Warner Bros. TV closing theme (AKA As Time Goes By) is the best one ever from that company, and it's a hell of a lot better than the 2021 remake.

[NWI_Irish96]

Part of the reason for working hard is not only to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts, but to provide for your descendants or other heirs. When the alternative is to let the government have the revenues from something over letting someone designated by the person who developed the revenue-producing thing (be it a physical product or an intellectual creation), you know I'm not going to be for it.

It's one reason why I'm opposed to inheritance and estate taxes. Why should the government be entitled to a chunk of your property or savings just because you have the misfortune of dying?

Our federal government spends substantially less per person than nearly every other highly developed country, so substantially lowering the overall tax burden isn't really an option if you want to continue to have the services that highly developed countries provide.

So what it boils down to is what kind of taxes do we want to pay. Because income taxes get deducted from your paycheck every week/2 weeks/month, that particular type of tax gets most of the complaints from voters, and as a result that particular type of tax is the first one that politicians want to cut. The net result is that inheritance taxes and consumption taxes, which are much more regressive (disproportionately affect lower income people) get raised to compensate. Another factor is that wealthy people donate the most to political campaigns and other types of more progressive taxes like capital gains and corporate taxes are kept low at the expense of more regressive taxes.

If the lowest 80% of income earners would educate themselves on everything about taxes and vote in their own best interests, we would have much, much higher income taxes and much lower taxes of other kinds.

[mgk920]

it is easy to 'memory hole' various works because they have become 'unPC' (ie, Disney's Song of the South' or numerous GREAT Warner Brothers Buggs Bunny, et al, cartoon shorts)

Song of the South isn't merely "un-PC," it's entirely predicated on the notion that black people loved nothing more than being slaves and serving white children.

I don't know of any GREAT Warner Brothers cartoons that have been "memory-holed" other than the jaw-droppingly racist ones.

And yes, I think it's important for people to learn that these things exist, but I also think it's important to present them in the context of "this was acceptable then and it's not now."

Have you recently seen or heard anything from Foghorn Leghorn?  The hens in his barnyard?  Speedy Gonzalez (a modern-day national folk hero among Mexicans, BTW)?  Granny using that big revolver to protect Tweety from Sylvester?  Yosemite Sam (ooooh was he VIOLENT when he got mad!)? Even the original Buggs Bunny short of Buggs v. the freeway contractor's construction worker?  Also 'Hillbilly Hare' (a riotously funny look into the southern Appalachian lifestyle)?  Etc?

It you don't like something, there is a switch or icon on your own system that you can change to turn it off.  You don't have to use the power of the copyright 'memory hole' to suppress it for the rest of us.

Mike

[mgk920]

Part of the reason for working hard is not only to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts, but to provide for your descendants or other heirs. When the alternative is to let the government have the revenues from something over letting someone designated by the person who developed the revenue-producing thing (be it a physical product or an intellectual creation), you know I'm not going to be for it.

It's one reason why I'm opposed to inheritance and estate taxes. Why should the government be entitled to a chunk of your property or savings just because you have the misfortune of dying?

Our federal government spends substantially less per person than nearly every other highly developed country, so substantially lowering the overall tax burden isn't really an option if you want to continue to have the services that highly developed countries provide.

So what it boils down to is what kind of taxes do we want to pay. Because income taxes get deducted from your paycheck every week/2 weeks/moth, that particular type of tax gets most of the complaints from voters, and as a result that particular type of tax is the first one that politicians want to cut. The net result is that inheritance taxes and consumption taxes, which are much more regressive (disproportionately affect lower income people) get raised to compensate. Another factor is that wealthy people donate the most to political campaigns and other types of more progressive taxes like capital gains and corporate taxes are kept low at the expense of more regressive taxes.

If the lowest 80% of income earners would educate themselves on everything about taxes and vote in their own best interests, we would have much, much higher income taxes and much lower taxes of other kinds.

My sense is that the long term trend is in the direction of repealing the 16th Amendment.  Recently one state (Mississippi) repealed theirs and there has been chatter from a couple of high-ranking Wisconsin legislators of doing the same here.  IMHO, it is just too complex to even be enforced (I'm waiting for a federal judge to rule that) and there is waay too much impulsiveness and incentive to commit political hanky panky with it.

Mike

[abefroman329]

Have you recently seen or heard anything from Foghorn Leghorn?  The hens in his barnyard?  Speedy Gonzalez (a modern-day national folk hero among Mexicans, BTW)?  Granny using that big revolver to protect Tweety from Sylvester?  Yosemite Sam (ooooh was he VIOLENT when he got mad!)? Even the original Buggs Bunny short of Buggs v. the freeway contractor's construction worker?  Also 'Hillbilly Hare' (a riotously funny look into the southern Appalachian lifestyle)?  Etc?

I don't watch OTA/cable/satellite TV, so I have no idea which of the WB cartoons are being shown regularly.  15 seconds of Googling led me to this, which I'm told is the most complete collection of WB cartoons.  Feel free to look through there and tell me which cartoons are missing, though.

https://play.hbomax.com/page/urn:hbo:page:GXozhGwOz77DCYwEAABBA:type:series

It you don't like something, there is a switch or icon on your own system that you can change to turn it off.

Correct, and if enough people opt to turn it off, then they're not going to continue broadcasting it/hosting it.  The honest-to-God truth about the entertainment many of us grew up with is this: Kids aren't really into it.  The list of movies and TV shows I liked as a kid that I've tried to get my kid into, and he doesn't like, is long, and he has exponentially more entertainment options than I did at his age (the three major TV networks, PBS, and a handful of independent VHF/UHF stations. 

You don't have to use the power of the copyright 'memory hole' to suppress it for the rest of us

So companies should be forced to offer every single movie and TV show they own, even if they're going to lose money doing so bc there's no demand for it?  Why do you hate capitalism?

[hbelkins]

At the rate he's going, Keith Richards may not have to worry about any revenues from his song catalog being diverted from him, his heirs or assigns, for many more years.

[mgk920]

You don't have to use the power of the copyright 'memory hole' to suppress it for the rest of us

So companies should be forced to offer every single movie and TV show they own, even if they're going to lose money doing so bc there's no demand for it?  Why do you hate capitalism?

It's called 'copyright term expiration' and 'lapsing into public domain' (if the protection terms were of reasonable length).   (Belatedly), A bunch of those reaaaalllly racy black and white Betty Boop cartoons from the early 20th century are already in the public domain.

Mike