I'm puzzled why the Performing RIghts Society allows pretty much anything to be broadcast, but when said broadcast comes to be released on video or audio tape (or whatever) to be sold, suddenly there's a problem and edits are made or episodes never get released. Why is this? It seems to be taken as red by Corpses, mentioned with a shrug as if nothing can be changed.

I am ignorant of the details - why is it such a problem?

No shrugs from us. The rules change because a CD/video release is a tangible item and can be played ad nauseam by its owner; a simple broadcast, on the other hand, doesn't actually 'exist' (unless it is being taped, which is illegal), so artists are only paid once.

Thta's how I understand it anyway.

Don't get me started - that's another area of abuse of copyright that really makes my blood boil...

Did you know - much disputed fact this one, but careful scientific research leads me to belive its true: Pink Floyd had some kind of unpleasant run-in with the PRS in the early 1970s (possibly linked to their insistence on releasing album-side-length tracks, although that's just my speculation), and their revenge was to tack an almost imperceptible recording of a string quartet playing The Beatles' "Ticket To Ride" at the very end of "Dark Side Of The Moon". Get a good speaker system, and turn the fade (after "...matter of fact, it's all dark") up to full volume, and you can just about hear it.

Why doesn't SOTCAA become the comedy equivalent of Napster ie. a site where you can download bits of the R4/BBC/Talkback archives for free?

>Why doesn't SOTCAA become the comedy equivalent of Napster ie. a site where you can download bits of the R4/BBC/Talkback archives for free?

I believe the current litigation that Napster is facing may be a deterrant!

No, because the drummer in Metallica is a big "On The Hour" fan & he'll change sides when he realises he can finally get a decent copy of "Thank God It's Satire Day!" etc.

Lou Reed and Eminem are both on the look out for missing episodes of "Brass Eye" as well.

David Bowie's been trying to get "The Day Today" Mininews for years.

...so the MP3 option is out, but as far as I know there's little anyone can do to stop the exchange of meticulously recorded tapes.


Between us all, we've probably got everything.

>Why doesn't SOTCAA become the comedy equivalent of Napster ie. a site where you can download bits of the R4/BBC/Talkback archives for free?

Common misconception #1: Napster is a site where you can dowload mp3's for free. It's actually a site where you can download a piece of software that allows you to download the mp3's from someone else's PC. The site also maintains the catalogue of what mp3 is on what PC. This is why the litigation is so drawn out, if they were hosting the mp3's themself it would be an open and shut case.

Similarly, if SOTCAA were to make available for download all that stuff, they'd be at risk of getting sued to death. However, there is loads of stuff out there that Talkback et al don't seem too bothered about, or more likely nobody's drawn their attention to it.

If people are interested in a Napster like toy for swapping comedy files (presumably videos, since audios could be swapped on Napster as mp3s) then they should do a web search for Gnutella, which is a similar thing to Napster but for any file type. In fact, let's all do that.

Try http://www.gnutella.co.uk/

There are various projects like this -Gnutella has the flaw that downloading is not anonymous so irate copyright owners could potentially "git you" - but this doesn't apply to Freenet and some of the others. The main problem will be bandwidth, not copyright law.
I don't think "On The Hour" is a good example as the dispute seems to be between different groups of the copyright holders e.g. Lee and Herring vs. the rest - so it's not that there's "no good reason" not to release it. But the point is taken.
Apparently in the UK patent system, if a patent-owner sits on a patent the use of which would be socially beneficial, the Crown can revoke it. Copyright holders who withhold their "properties" to manipulate the market (e.g. Disney) should be made to pay in a similar manner.
Eventually the cost of "publishing" a video or CD will just be putting it on a server for download. I would always make sure that I retained copyright on anything I wrote (above a 2 line jotting for TVGH, anyway) as comedians will eventually be publishing themselves. Of course, if fans aren't honest and prefer to napster the files between themselves, comedians will have to make their money from touring or doing adverts instead.
Pokari Sweat - "You want the moon on a stick".

>eventually be publishing themselves. Of course, if fans aren't honest and >prefer to napster the files between themselves, comedians will have to make >their money from touring or doing adverts instead.

I don't think the issue here is one of honesty, it's one more of availablility. For example, I downloaded the On the Hours that someone pointed a poster to a couple of weeks ago, and wrote CDs of them all, but I'd still buy the commercial releases if the became available.

>as comedians will eventually be publishing themselves.

Balls.

Take a look at the web - all of those shitty home pages to read through, one at a time. That's what it will be like when "comedians publish themselves." The sad fact is that we will rely even more on central agencies to sort through the dross for us and find the "talent," or we will just have an enormous list of nonentities facing us as every saddo jumps on the bandwagon. So there is no avoiding the need for comedians/musicians/writers to suck up to talentless middlemen in order to get promoted to a large audience.

Alternatively, everyone could just make their own entertainment and forget all this "fame" stuff.

If you ask me, it's quite obvious that comedians can't publish themselves. Someone, somewhere always believes that they own the copyright over something that they had nothing to do with the actual production of, but then behave like a complete twunt over their 'rights' and refuse to allow the public access to it. The story of the BBC dragging their financially motivated heels so spectacularly over the commercial release of "Why Bother?", and indeed their complete failure to actually get any copies in the shops once it had been released (it took me over three weeks to get hold of it - ridiculous!), is evidence enough of this.

When I talked about self-publishing, I wasn't talking about lame homepages. I was talking about in the distant space future when we have fast Internet connections so that we can download albums and videos of decent quality in a reasonable time.
Of course, there's always the question of the BBC etc. being arsy, but the point is that this stuff could be passed around in ways that they couldn't prevent.

Yes, well, obviously that's okay for downloading "classic" albums/comedy stuff, but what about anything new? What about "discovering new talent"? How's that going to work, eh?

By punters and comedians trudging around godforsaken hellhole venues for years, same as it did in the good old days. It works, why change it?

Don't knock the system that gave Phill Jupitus, Jeff Green, and some others their big break.