January 18, 2005

• It seems like Economics 101 to me. If the cost of copyrighted archive material is too prohibitive, then demand should drop as documentary producers find other creative ways to tell their stories. This should put downward pressure on the prices as the rights holders strive for incresed sales. If, as the first link suggests, the prices have been increasing lately; that tells me that someone out there is still buying.
• rocket88, the problem is is that the documentaries have already been produced, and released on VHS a long time ago. Since then, copyright law has extended so far that the footage they used (whose copyright had already expired back then) is now copyrighted again. To put their twenty-year-old documentary onto DVD, they now have buy permission from someone. This someone is in a position where they can always extort the film-maker, because they know the film-maker has no choice. The film has already been made. It'd be kinda like if the government gave you a used book, then twenty years later they showed up saying they want you to pay a million dollars for reading it. You can't unread it, your stuck paying the million dollars. These people can't unrelease their documentary, so they get extorted. Oh, and Econ 101 says that prices go up when demand drops (to cover for the lack of demand). This should tell you that less people are buying.
• Oh, and Econ 101 says that prices go up when demand drops That Stryper CD I saw in the bargain bin must be worth thousands. Sweet!
• The film has already been made. It'd be kinda like if the government gave you a used book, then twenty years later they showed up saying they want you to pay a million dollars for reading it. You can't unread it, your stuck paying the million dollars. These people can't unrelease their documentary, so they get extorted. It's not like that at all. The documentary makers aren't being made to pay for existing copies of their films, only for new printings and public showings & broadcasts. Assumedly, they've already made money from the first go-round. Now it seems they want to make more without giving a cut to the rights holders. That would be unfair.
• It's not that they don't want to give a cut to the rights holders, it's that the cost of the rights has become so inflated that renewing the rights becomes prohibitive.
• There is also the issue that not all art or culture is profitable - in fact, a great deal is not profitable, but many of us believe it is nonetheless important for the non-monetary richness of our culture. Perhaps we should be rethinking the nature of copyright to differentiate between for profit and non-profit use, or to be a proportion of profit made (even a highish one). This would seem to protect the rights of copyright holders to get a part of any financial benefit while allowing it to be available for educational and non-profit use.
• Assumedly, they've already made money from the first go-round. Now it seems they want to make more without giving a cut to the rights holders. That would be unfair. The rights holders already made their money from their first go around. They made even more from the documentary. Now they want more than it has ever been worth. The filmmakers don't have a choice, because the films been made already. They aren't trying to sell to a new market. The schools' VHS copies are degrading. They need new copies to keep showing these to kids. If profit was made selling these to schools, it wasn't much. The Holders already got their fair share. They are just in a position where they can extort the filmmakers, so the do it.
• Anyone interested in this topic should read "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig.