Copyright Office advocates eliminating compulsory license

[dfergie]

The U.S. Copyright Office, which advises Congress on copyright issues, is proposing that lawmakers phase out the cable and satellite statutory licenses in the Copyright Act, calling it "an artifact of an earlier era."

Source & More: latimes.com

 

[jayn_j]

And in case you didn't read the article, this is bad news for subscribers.

This change will eliminate standardized copyright fees paid to a central clearinghouse, and will now require individual negotiations for each program carried. Content providers naturally will want more money for each program, so rates will go up.

The "artifact of an earlier era" refers to a time when the government didn't allow business to rape and pillage at will

 

[dfergie]

Exactly ... not good for anyone.

 

[mike123abc]

Exactly ... not good for anyone.

Except copyright holders...

But, actually it will probably make little difference. Cable channels manage to get copyright clearance on everything to allow cable and DBS to distribute their content. It will just be up to the OTA networks to get the same conditions for the shows they buy/produce. They probably already have the clearances. cable and DBS are not new technology.

 

[fpembleton]

Some of you help me on the interpretation of this please. Would a potential positive if this were to be enacted that DBS providers would have the ability to provide distant network service to any customer who wanted to subscribe to such? In other words, would this throw out the window having to get waivers in order to recieve the service? It sounded to me as though if a pay tv provider could work out an agreement via negotiation with any station, any customer would be able to obtain a subscription? Am I on track with any of the aforementioned? Thanks.

 

[mike123abc]

DBS uses two compulsary copyrights right now: Locals and Distants.

Locals is one that would probably not be too hard to clear up, the networks should have the contracts updated by now to include retransmission by satellite of local channels.

Distants would probably go away. The networks have always been against distants and they would probably just assume not have them.

 

[Peter Parker]

I believe superstations are subject to copyright as well. Not sure how they will be affected but I expect people to begin predicting their demnise quickly.


Locals is a mix some stations demand must carry others negotiate carriage now. But it would be the station owners not the networks that would get involved there.

I am a bit confused by the reference to WGN. WGN America is not the same as the local station in Chicage. i don't sdee how they are affected but since the article ispublished by another arm of the Tribune Company maybe I am missing something.

 

[richyrich]

Statutes are on a per State codification; which in "Carrier" terms regards the sale of their channel. Each market is defined to be per each States, City, County; which is based today on population centers that a channel serves. So, if ABC broadcasts their channel locally; to say a Los Angeles area, this channels revenue and tax basis resides there, and is taxed there. If this market channel was say, KTLA, an independent channel, and part of a "Superstation pak"; those revenues derived outside of its locally broadcast market would be taxed upon receipt to each market it supplies itself to (revenue from/to another "city, county, state"). This gobblygoop of a tax base, depends on where "business" takes place; and what the channel wants is only to be taxed in the State it resides in; rather than to share such monies with other States. They want to keep their monies derived in sales of/within other States, like everybody else does by "internet" typed transactions. The States the channel is found in/broadcast to; then lose any "local" flavor of the transactions; like normal commerce is doing today.
However, ABC has many local broadcast's; and each market they serve and receive revenue from, is local; where as KTLA or any Superstation and others, uses "carriers" in the "states". One would believe it means the same thing, but advertising nationally without paying the other states is why they put this "copyright" in for Nationally progressed channels. The portion that comes out as tax, local or national, where and what basis a channel should be held as; is what the law is addressing. It looks to be a "taxing" situation no matter what the; channels want to go "national" like syndication, which allows a certain type of program to be broadcast by anybody, as long as they get their fee; the letter of the law against "Copyright" would say that anybody can broadcast anywhere anything, including locals on National; and a local station going National, butting heads up against many other laws "copyright" law was put in to place to protect; rights of channels to their own broadcast area; which a signal "is"...

in Law