In article <sk1agg$r0$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 09/10/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Actually, it would mean competing versions could be released, on DVD
> > or by other means, as people preferred. And if the original
> > rights-holders released a version people could buy then that could let
> > them avoid the 'early' loss of copyright. We'd need the law to specify
> > some requiements to avoid one copy being issued and hidded or asking
> > insane prices. Matter of arranging details - as is usual for copyright
> > now.

> So you want to effectively nationalise recorded TV programmes?

No more than current laws on IPR and Copyright ate "nationalisation".

> I can see an argument to nationalise essential service but I hardly
> think an episode of some old soap opera is an essential service. Though
> it is probably the nerds who watch old Science Fiction who will want
> old episodes.

Erm, you've forgotten many science/history/etc documentary programmes. Some
of these have useful material. e.g. the old 'Station X' series which
interviewed many involved who then gave info not made public before then.

> Who is going to pay, there are likely to be very few wanting many of
> these old programmes so unlikely to cover the costs but if it is going
> to be a legal requirement to make them available they will have to see
> at very high costs and will want payment in advance,

Erm, you're looking though the wrong end of your fuzzy telescope. The only
'legal requirement' would be that if the initial rights holder refuses to
continue to publish after a given time-lag, someone else can *choose* to do
so instead. But if no-one wishes to, no-one need do so. The "someone" can,
of course be someone involved in actually creating the original or
providing some of its content, and can then ensure it remains available
*if* they so wish. That can aid authors, artists, etc, who can avoid their
work ceasing to be available. By republishing they might make some added
income, but could also aid their reputation.

e.g. A lot of Sir John Barbirolli's recordings were kept for decades in
EMI's vaults and not re-issued. This only really ended relatively recently,
and as they re-appeared they proved very popular. The reason that were kept
unavailable was twofold.

1) Some at the top of EMI resented him going to Pye for a period.

2) They didn't want his versions of many works to 'compete' with those they
issued that were conducted by Boult or Beecham. More profitable per item
to have less choice as they only needed to keep stock of those versions.

The result was that many fine performers lost income and also reputation as
their work was largely forgotten due to people not knowing it had been
recorded, or had ever heard it.

Many musicians and authors could give similar accounts of other works in
various areas.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <eac35022-6b38-a24c-1873-2a36b0d200e9@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> I'd be interested to know how you would envisage the law to give effect
> to all this dealing with the rights of others - e.g. actors - to
> royalties and other secondary fees.

Performing Rights Societies, Authors Societies, etc. i.e. much as now but
adapted to the new arrangements.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sk1il8$56v$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 13:50, Robin wrote:
> > I'd be interested to know how you would envisage the law to give
> > effect to all this dealing with the rights of others - e.g. actors -
> > to royalties and other secondary fees.

> I get the feeling they are hoping they can do this and somehow get out
> of rights payments.

> From what you read, a major problem of using old material is tracking
> down all the people who have a right to be paid. The people wanting
> access are going to have pay for that as well as any other payments
> because I can't see why the rest of us should pay.

That's a matter for those involved, case by case. However AIUI in many
cases the original performers or actors get a one-off payment rather than a
percentage of take. Given this, a standard set of per-item fees could be
negotiated via involvement of the relevant artists/writers/etc societies.

For items like documentary video/film/radio I'd expect that in general
those interviewed would not have been paid a fee, and the camera/sound
people would have been paid a one-off fee.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <f9833b6e-52fc-681c-741a-2d3d13ed757f@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> Indeed. And those rights are protected by the ECHR (Article 1 of the
> 1st Protocol) so not so simple as just a bit of statutory confiscation.
> Hence my interest in the proposed solution.

Is it 'confiscation' for a publisher to fail to make copies of a work
available - thus denying those involved in a work any income or reputation
that might accrue from continued publication?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 12/10/2021 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Erm, you've forgotten many science/history/etc documentary programmes. Some
> of these have useful material. e.g. the old 'Station X' series which
> interviewed many involved who then gave info not made public before then.

But that is not where the demand will come from and not where there is
lots of money to make.

On 12/10/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Is it 'confiscation' for a publisher to fail to make copies of a work
> available - thus denying those involved in a work any income or reputation
> that might accrue from continued publication?

I don't think there is any right to have a work published once the
rights have been sold though plenty of lawyers who will be happy to
charge for taking it to court.

On 12/10/2021 10:27, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <eac35022-6b38-a24c-1873-2a36b0d200e9@outlook.com>, Robin
> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd be interested to know how you would envisage the law to give effect
>> to all this dealing with the rights of others - e.g. actors - to
>> royalties and other secondary fees.
>
> Performing Rights Societies, Authors Societies, etc. i.e. much as now but
> adapted to the new arrangements.
>

Sorry, those are arrangements where owners of rights have signed up to
allow their works to be used. You are proposing to deal with works
where they have not done so and may not want to.

Let's take a specific example. For a long time "The Professionals"
could not be broadcast on TV. Would your legislation have allowed
repeats without the permission of Martin Shaw?
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 12/10/2021 10:31, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <sk1il8$56v$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 13:50, Robin wrote:
>>> I'd be interested to know how you would envisage the law to give
>>> effect to all this dealing with the rights of others - e.g. actors -
>>> to royalties and other secondary fees.
>
>> I get the feeling they are hoping they can do this and somehow get out
>> of rights payments.
>
>> From what you read, a major problem of using old material is tracking
>> down all the people who have a right to be paid. The people wanting
>> access are going to have pay for that as well as any other payments
>> because I can't see why the rest of us should pay.
>
> That's a matter for those involved, case by case. However AIUI in many
> cases the original performers or actors get a one-off payment rather than a
> percentage of take. Given this, a standard set of per-item fees could be
> negotiated via involvement of the relevant artists/writers/etc societies.

Do you have evidence for that?

You have a tendency to refer to "the initial rights holder" [singular]
who "refuses to continue to publish". I know that was a common position
for feature films*. For TV and other media there's lots of people here
who know a lot more than me about, but even I know that in TV it's often
no so simple. A single TV programme can involve distinct rights for a
plethora of different people in respect of script, actors, music
(composition & performance), directors, etc etc. Are you proposing to
sweep away their rights even when they are known and could be traced?
That is totally unlike "orphan works" and Parliament (and I suspect the
Strasbourg court idc) would need convincing there was a good public
interest case for the overriding their rights.

*with feature films rights were traditionally transferred to a producer
or other person which made it easy to do due diligence on rights

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 26/09/2021 21:15, MB wrote:
> On 26/09/2021 20:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> I was pointed to a TV adaptation of Asimov's Foundation series on
>> Apple TV
>> and it started me thinking about how to watch a broader range of TV
>> without paying the BBC tax or Sky tax.
>>
>> Is there a Usenet group or Forum of some sort dedicated to how to do this
>> legally? I'm after avoidance not evasion to use HMRC terminology!
>
>
>
> Just look on any extreme Right wing forum / website, they seem to spend
> most of their time moaning about the BBC and the TV Licence.

you all know proportional representation is coming, and the sooner the
better

On 13/10/2021 16:12, critcher wrote:
> you all know proportional representation is coming, and the sooner the
> better

Not in England, there seems littl danger of the Liberals or even
Greenies getting any sort of power. No one else wants it.

On 13/10/2021 16:12, critcher wrote:

>
> you all know proportional representation is coming, and the sooner the
> better

Never, because no party in power would countenance it.

Bill

Subject amended, [OT] tag added.

williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

> On 13/10/2021 16:12, critcher wrote:
>
> >
> > you all know proportional representation is coming,
> > and the sooner the better
>
> Never, because no party in power would countenance it.
>
> Bill

Just look at what happened the last time the Liberals held the
balance of power here in the UK. Also, take a look at the power
vacuums that exist in several European nations where they
cannot cobble together a consensus coalition government for
more than five minutes, e.g. Belgium; Italy; and latterly Germany.

Can weak governnments such as these stand against kleptocratic
states such as Russia or expansionist totalitarian regimes such as
Communist China? If it comes to that, what influence do they have
over the relatively benign USA?

Perhaps they should just abdicate all responsibility and hand over
power wholesale to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats such as
those who rule in Brussels. I'm sure they'd make a better job of it...

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 13/10/2021 17:27, Sn!pe wrote:
> Can weak governnments such as these stand against kleptocratic
> states such as Russia or expansionist totalitarian regimes such as
> Communist China? If it comes to that, what influence do they have
> over the relatively benign USA?

Or Scotland where the Greenies have managed to get some power because of
PR even though they are a bigger bunch of loonies than the Liberals.

On 13/10/2021 18:15, MB wrote:
>
> On 13/10/2021 17:27, Sn!pe wrote:
>>
>> Can weak governnments such as these stand against kleptocratic
>> states such as Russia or expansionist totalitarian regimes such as
>> Communist China?  If it comes to that, what influence do they have
>> over the relatively benign USA?

Or perhaps the the biggest danger is the extremist wings of the two
biggest UK parties, and the consequent polarisation of UK politics.
Notice how Brexshit has moved the Tories to the right, so they are now
less representative of majority middle of the road Britain than they
have been for about 25 years. Add to that the incessant lying and
debilitating incompetence of their leadership, and many would say that
UK politics is up shit creek without a paddle.

> Or Scotland where the Greenies have managed to get some power because of
> PR even though they are a bigger bunch of loonies than the Liberals.

Imbecilic paranoid bigotry left in for everyone else to laugh at - the
current Scottish government is way more credible than the 'bunch of
loonies' south of the border, some of whom show their credentials for
that epithet in the puerile posts they make here.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:27:39 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

>Subject amended, [OT] tag added.
>
>williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13/10/2021 16:12, critcher wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > you all know proportional representation is coming,
>> > and the sooner the better
>>
>> Never, because no party in power would countenance it.
>>
>> Bill
>
>Just look at what happened the last time the Liberals held the
>balance of power here in the UK. Also, take a look at the power
>vacuums that exist in several European nations where they
>cannot cobble together a consensus coalition government for
>more than five minutes, e.g. Belgium; Italy; and latterly Germany.

At least they end up with governments not run by rich tosser.

>Can weak governnments such as these stand against kleptocratic
>states such as Russia or expansionist totalitarian regimes such as
>Communist China? If it comes to that, what influence do they have
>over the relatively benign USA?
>
>Perhaps they should just abdicate all responsibility and hand over
>power wholesale to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats such as
>those who rule in Brussels. I'm sure they'd make a better job of it...

but they don't. Only readers of the Daily Mail and Express believe things like
that. While a government is being formed the civil service of the country run
it. No empty shelves in supermarkets and filling station queues in The
Netherlands, despite half a year of trying to form a coalition. The Dutch and
the Germans have had coalition governments since the war.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 14/10/2021 11:17, Martin wrote:
> At least they end up with governments not run by rich tosser.

What like Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, hardly on the breadline? Even Corbyn
is said to be quite wealthy.

In article <sk6b62$ds0$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Erm, you've forgotten many science/history/etc documentary programmes.
> > Some of these have useful material. e.g. the old 'Station X' series
> > which interviewed many involved who then gave info not made public
> > before then.

> But that is not where the demand will come from and not where there is
> lots of money to make.

The aim is to make 'vaulted' material available. Not to make loadsadosh.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sk6bae$ds0$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Is it 'confiscation' for a publisher to fail to make copies of a work
> > available - thus denying those involved in a work any income or
> > reputation that might accrue from continued publication?

> I don't think there is any right to have a work published once the
> rights have been sold though plenty of lawyers who will be happy to
> charge for taking it to court.

You're talking about the current situation, not what I'm suggesting we
change to.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <dfac654c-e2e5-d972-f195-597e47022e23@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 10:27, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <eac35022-6b38-a24c-1873-2a36b0d200e9@outlook.com>, Robin
> > <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd be interested to know how you would envisage the law to give
> >> effect to all this dealing with the rights of others - e.g. actors -
> >> to royalties and other secondary fees.
> >
> > Performing Rights Societies, Authors Societies, etc. i.e. much as now
> > but adapted to the new arrangements.
> >

> Sorry, those are arrangements where owners of rights have signed up to
> allow their works to be used. You are proposing to deal with works
> where they have not done so and may not want to.

> Let's take a specific example. For a long time "The Professionals"
> could not be broadcast on TV. Would your legislation have allowed
> repeats without the permission of Martin Shaw?

Since I don't know the relationship between him and the programme it isn't
possible for me to say. However the people who *created* the work would be
entitled to payment by any new publisher who took on the task.[1] The key
change is that an existing 'owner of the right to publish' would not be
able to block that. Nor would their being unfindable block it when the
people who created the work wished republication - and payment for it.

Basically, the change would be to present any previous publisher who had
ceased making copies for sale, etc, to "fish or cut bait". And the
*creators* of the work created would be able to seek a new publisher if the
old one wasn't publishing.

The point being that both creators and audience win when compared to new
copies of the work being unobtainable for purchase.

BTW Note that although people talk about "copyright", this is actually
often used as a collective term for *copyrights*. Some rights may remain
under the control of the creators. e.g. the right to be identified as the
creator, regardless of who publishes. The right not to have changes made
without their permission which might harm their reputation as a creator.
etc.

The problem isn't simply 'orphan' works. It is also, for example, works
that a publisher hides away because it helps them make money from selling
other works.

I don't think anyone would expect a new bill to cover the changes would
be short enough to write on the back of a fag packet. The aspects raised
here - and many others - would need to be covered and agreed. But the aim
is basically as outlined earlier. Life is rarely pure or simple.

...Particularly when lawyers get involved. :-)

And the reality is that existing laws on IPR are compromises, etc. Just that
this would shift the balance towards making continued publication easier,
and the law designed to give more control to the originators of works.

Jim

[1] Assuming they were, per copy, under the orginal agreement.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <isoe5sFsiafU2@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 13/10/2021 16:12, critcher wrote:

> >
> > you all know proportional representation is coming, and the sooner the
> > better

> Never, because no party in power would countenance it.

I look forwards to the Daily Mail demanding a referendum on PR and
denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as "Enemies of The People"! 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sk6vha$u8q$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 13/10/2021 16:12, critcher wrote:
> > you all know proportional representation is coming, and the sooner the
> > better

> Not in England, there seems littl danger of the Liberals or even
> Greenies getting any sort of power. No one else wants it.

"I keep telling people: There's no call for it!", eh? 8-]

Now that the UK has become a State where referenda are acceptable, maybe
we should have one on PR for Westminster... Oh, sorry, I forgot. A party
that relies on NOT having PR to get into power isn't keen on that
particular 'voice of the people', eh?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sk6t19$1sa8$2@gioia.aioe.org>, critcher
<dennis.gange@gmail.com> wrote:

> you all know proportional representation is coming, and the sooner the
> better

Ernm... We already have it. :-) Just that Westminster continue to resist
because the current system there suits those it advantages.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 14/10/2021 10:22 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <sk6vha$u8q$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 13/10/2021 16:12, critcher wrote:
>>> you all know proportional representation is coming, and the sooner the
>>> better
>
>> Not in England, there seems littl danger of the Liberals or even
>> Greenies getting any sort of power. No one else wants it.
>
> "I keep telling people: There's no call for it!", eh? 8-]
>
> Now that the UK has become a State where referenda are acceptable, maybe
> we should have one on PR for Westminster... Oh, sorry, I forgot. A party
> that relies on NOT having PR to get into power isn't keen on that
> particular 'voice of the people', eh?
>
We had a referendum on the possibility of PR for Parliamentary elections.

It was defeated handsomely (circa 75:25) by the electorate.

On 15/10/2021 14:07, JNugent wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 10:22 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <sk6vha$u8q$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 13/10/2021 16:12, critcher wrote:
>>>> you all know proportional representation is coming, and the sooner the
>>>> better
>>
>>> Not in England, there seems littl danger of the Liberals or even
>>> Greenies getting any sort of power.  No one else wants it.
>>
>> "I keep telling people: There's no call for it!", eh? 8-]
>>
>> Now that the UK has become a State where referenda are acceptable, maybe
>> we should have one on PR for Westminster... Oh, sorry, I forgot. A party
>> that relies on NOT having PR to get into power isn't keen on that
>> particular 'voice of the people', eh?
>>
> We had a referendum on the possibility of PR for Parliamentary elections.
>
> It was defeated handsomely (circa 75:25) by the electorate.

So it may have been, but it was a rigged question asking only about a
specific type of different, and hardly proportional, representation
namely alternative vote:

"At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs
to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used
instead?"

For fairness and impartiality, the question should simply have been
whether *a* proportional system should be used instead.

It's sadly a common tactic to give just one option out of many, which of
course cuts down the number of people who would vote for change.

The same grubby manoeuvre was used in the Australian republic referendum
in 1999:

"A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth
of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being
replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the
members of the Commonwealth Parliament. Do you approve this proposed
alteration?"

There are many who wanted change to a republic, but not that particular
one, who could not therefore vote for it.

Now, of course, there are those who, with the passage of time and quite
likely deliberately, forget all the shady nuances and maintain (a) that
we rejected proportional representation and (b) that the Australians
rejected the idea of becoming a republic, full stop.

It's rather dishonest.

On 14/10/2021 10:22, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Now that the UK has become a State where referenda are acceptable, maybe
> we should have one on PR for Westminster... Oh, sorry, I forgot. A party
> that relies on NOT having PR to get into power isn't keen on that
> particular 'voice of the people', eh?

The last one did not show any enthusiasm for it.

The only ones who want it are the small parties like the Greenies and
Liberals because it is the only they can get any sort of power because
of their limited support.