Three Stars of Seinfeld boycott DVD deal

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I may think it is a bit different. After all if you tape a show for personal use, you are taping it off the tv service which you have paid for. If you download a show, you may not have paid the television network a dime.

What if you tape it from "over the air". Not everybody has cable So in that case, you aren't paying anybody a dime either.

[:) Smiley]

I don't know about you but I don't pay for broadcast TV.

[Boris Godunov]

Considering Jerry Seinfeld is my least favorite of the four, having the DVD sans the others commentary would probably be more irritating than anything else.

Hey, more power to them. Considering the revenue that Seinfeld has generated, if they can get a little more of the pie that was made off of their work, who could complain? If it's worth having them for the producers, they'd better be willing to pay.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The Supreme Court ruled that taping for home or personal use is not a violation of copyright laws back in 1984. They've yet to make the same ruling in re: to downloads, however.

I may think it is a bit different. After all if you tape a show for personal use, you are taping it off the tv service which you have paid for. If you download a show, you may not have paid the television network a dime.

Back in '84 the majority* of homes were still receiving over-the-air broadcasts which I'm sure the Supremes were aware of.

*rereads previous sentence* And the Supreme Court as well - I don't think Diana Ross rendered an opinion on the matter.

*or a very significant minority - I don't have the figures

[Imran Siddiqui]

but you don't pay anything for network television.

The argument can be made that you pay for network television as part of the price for the TV... they tend to go together (unlike, say, downloaded TV brodcasts on a PC )

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
they tend to go together (unlike, say, downloaded TV brodcasts on a PC )

I think those go together quite nicely. You can say that monitors include the price of television shows, too, if it makes you feel better about it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

but you don't pay anything for network television.

The argument can be made that you pay for network television as part of the price for the TV... they tend to go together (unlike, say, downloaded TV brodcasts on a PC )

From my POV they're the same. My PC has a TV tuner card and actually doubles as a DVR, so downloading them is no different from having the DVR software set up to tape them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My PC has a TV tuner card and actually doubles as a DVR, so downloading them is no different from having the DVR software set up to tape them.

A court may make a difference on that (using DVR) than just downloading them from some individual's server.

The court won't just contain its ruling to broadcast networks, though. Downloading shows could be trying to go around cable and premium bills by DLing those shows.

[Dis]

$100,000 a year!!

They are making plenty of money- even if none of them can find work- aside from KFC commercials.

They don't need the money.

Who cares if they are making rich people richer.

They are supposed to do it for the fans.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They are supposed to do it for the fans.

Yeah... right .

[Arrian]

Anybody know what the projected profits will be? I mean, the demands of these 3 actors might sound outrageous to people like us who aren't millionaires, but if Castle Rock/Columbia are going to make a ****load of money off of this DVD release, do the actors not have the right to demand they get a reasonable share of that money? Note I said a reasonable share (as in %), not reasonable amount (with something as popular as Seinfeld, the money will surely be unreasonable ).

It's like with the baseball players. Do the contracts look outrageous to Joe Schmoe? Of course. But then look at what the owners are making (once you throw out their lies reports and check out some independent info on them) and ask yourself why the employees shouldn't get a big fat share of the pie (or, even better, why the fans keep providing those profits for the owners and players if they think the money is out of control?).

-Arrian

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by JohnT
Waaaah. Widdle babies, upset with a mere 5 or 6-figure participatory fee that contains no residuals. It make me wanna cry!

They can add value to the DVD, and they're trying to recieve more for that added value. What's wrong with that?

[Arrian]

Much more concise than I was, MM.

-Arrian

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Ming


What if you tape it from "over the air". Not everybody has cable So in that case, you aren't paying anybody a dime either.

You're paying by viewing commercials.

*cough*

[The Mad Monk]

Of course, that's where the difference between even a "free" service and downloading lay -- even if you tape it off the air for free, the provider of that programming paid to air it (and are being paid by others to air commercials along with it), so money is going back to the owners.

In the case of most downloading, this is not the case.