
Why We’re Just Now Getting the 1960s Batman TV Show on DVD - ghosh
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/batman-home-video-finally/
======
jonnathanson
The rights to many shows are tangled into "byzantine" webs. This is often a
_good_ thing, for reasons of economic incentives.

To use a personal example: let's look at the various parties involved in
making "The Simpsons," whose DVDs have been available for many years. I had
the good fortune to work on this show, albeit in a limited capacity, many
moons ago. On this show, you have a _lot_ of cooks in the kitchen (and I may
be mangling some names here and there):

\- Gracie Films (production company)

\- Fox Television Studios (studio)

\- Fox Broadcasting Company (network)

\- Akom (animation company, based in Korea)

\- 20th Century Fox Licensing & Merchandising division

\- Whoever holds the rights for the music and theme song

\- Matt Groening

\- Syndicators in US and around the world

\- Actors, writers, crew, and their various agents, managers, and lawyers

\- Affiliates and home video partners

\- Effects shops (if any, and if different from services performed by Akom)

Why would you want all of these moving parts? Isn't coordinating all of these
stakeholders like herding cats? Well, yes. But absent this ecosystem of
specialized players, no single player would be able to do everything at scale.
The distributed ecosystem of TV development, production, distribution, and
licensing is more efficient -- and allows for more shows to be made in the
first place! -- than a system where a single company performs every step of
the process.

Of course, this distributed system has its downsides. Complexity being a big
one. No single party can unilaterally make decisions on behalf of the entire
show. When the right aggregation of the aforementioned parties _cannot_ come
to an agreement about X, Y, or Z, then X, Y, or Z simply don't get done. This
seems to have been the case with the Batman series. It's the case for several
beloved shows, whose absence from the home video market is noticeable. It
sucks when it happens.

This system is far from perfect. It is riddled with inefficiencies.
Occasionally it leads to some mind-numbingly frustrating stalemates. It's
especially bad about managing music rights; many high-profile shows have come
to DVD and Blu-ray only _very_ recently, after many years of wrangling the
rights to the music in the shows. (Particularly '80s shows, which often relied
on lots and lots of the pop music of the day). But in many ways, and on the
balance, today's system is an improvement over the systems that came before
it.

Generally speaking, this system is great at getting shows made. It is less
than great at getting shows distributed to streaming services and home video.
The system's strengths at the former are its weaknesses at the latter. It's an
interesting paradox.

~~~
rkuykendall-com
The sad thing is, we already had a fallback method, for when the many, many
parties which helped to create iconic shows could not come to a deal after
decades: public domain. However, no published work will enter the public
domain again until 2019, with Batman '66 only public in 2062, and that is all
assuming Disney doesn't push yet another extension through.

~~~
jonnathanson
I agree with you there. No argument.

The belief that public domain discourages economic incentives to leverage a
property has been proven, time and again, demonstrably false. Look at Sherlock
Holmes, for example. Or hell, look at Hans Christian Andersen, from whose
works Walt Disney has made a fortune ( _The Little Mermaid_ , _Frozen_ ,
etc.).

~~~
maaku
Yes, but how much money did the Andersen family make off _Frozen_?

~~~
jonnathanson
Hans Christian Andersen published "The Snow Queen" in 1844, which is roughly
169 years prior to Disney's release of _Frozen_. _Frozen_ is a loose
adaptation of "The Snow Queen," and for all intents and purposes, it is mostly
new material. Andersen's heirs have had plenty of time to capitalize on the
characters and scenarios involved in "The Snow Queen" between 1844 and
whenever Disney first started work on _Frozen_. Andersen receives an "inspired
by" credit on the film, though as far as I am aware, his family does not
receive any royalties or other financial consideration.

Now, many people would argue that that's perfectly fair. But they'd also argue
that it's hypocritical for Disney to profit from adapting public-domain
properties, while lobbying the government to preserve _its own_ IP well beyond
the IP's putative lifespan of exclusivity. It'll be a hot day in Arendelle
before a Disney princess enters the public domain.

Let's look at a fascinating example: the story of Mickey Mouse, who first
appeared in 1928. Mickey isn't entering the public domain anytime soon,
because Disney's lawyers are brilliant. They've found ways to extend Walt
Disney's original copyright -- and furthermore, to move beyond copyrights and
into trademarks, which have different lifespans. _Mental Floss_ sums it up
better than I can: [http://mentalfloss.com/article/30946/why-isnt-mickey-
mouse-p...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/30946/why-isnt-mickey-mouse-public-
domain)

~~~
maaku
Context, context. The post I was replying to seemed to imply that Hans
Christian Andersen somehow had economic incentive to create his works even
though they would enter the public domain because later Disney would create
_Frozen_. That logic makes no sense to me. I was trying to point out that the
economic incentives driving creation of _original_ content is totally divorced
from the later derivation of those works in the public domain.

~~~
jonnathanson
_" The post I was replying to seemed to imply that Hans Christian Andersen
somehow had economic incentive to create his works even though they would
enter the public domain because later Disney would create Frozen."_

That's not what I said, and not what I meant to imply. But if that's what you
inferred from my post, then I'll accept full responsibility for having been
unclear. That's my fault. I think you and I are in less disagreement than you
might think.

What I meant to say:

1\. Andersen created "The Snow Queen" 169 years before Disney released
_Frozen_. In pretty much any copyright regime around the world, Andersen's
copyright would have expired long before Disney started work on _Frozen_. That
includes any posthumous copyright periods, during which the IP presumably
passed to Andersen's heirs. [1]

2\. My point about the public domain, and economic incentives, had more to do
with Disney. It is sometimes claimed, by Disney and by others, that the public
domain is a bad thing. If works fall into the public domain, or so this
argument goes, then they enter a sort of "deadpool." Nobody will touch them
again. They'll become commodities. They'll lose their inherent value. Only the
original creators (or heirs) of a property have a rational economic incentive,
and the necessary creative skill, to profit from the property. I reject this
logic. By way of example, I pointed to two properties -- Sherlock Holmes and
"The Snow Queen" \-- that fell into the public domain, and whose public-domain
status has not stopped others from coming along and revitalizing them. The
case of "Snow Queen"/ _Frozen_ is particularly interesting, in that you have a
party (Disney) reaching into the public domain to find gold ( _Frozen_ ), yet
still fighting tooth and nail to keep its own properties out of the public
domain. There's a wonderful irony there.

On a separate note: Hans Christian Andersen and/or his heirs absolutely
deserved a royalty from any profits earned off of "The Snow Queen" during the
lifetime of their copyright to it. By any legal measure, that lifetime had
come and gone by the time Disney got around to making _Frozen_.

[1] To the best of my understanding (IANAL), current US copyright law holds
that a creator of a work owns the copyright for his or her lifetime, plus 50
years after his or her death -- during which time the copyright passes to
whomever the creator designated as an heir. After those 50 posthumous years
are over, the work becomes public domain. I'll admit, however, that I have
_no_ idea what copyright law looked like in Denmark in 1844. :)

~~~
chrismcb
It isn't ironic at all, and I think you are missing the point. A Disney
property entering the public domain is a bad thing for Disney. Yes, people can
make money off public domain properties. If a Disney property enters public
domain then people other than Disney can make money.

~~~
jonnathanson
Respectfully, I think you're missing my point. I don't disagree with anything
you've just written, and nor do my prior posts.

 _" If a Disney property enters public domain then people other than Disney
can make money."_

Correct. And Disney argues the opposite: that, if its properties enter the
public domain, they'll be devalued. Nobody will want to make money off of
them. Hence, my point that Disney (and others who champion the anti-public
domain argument) is wrong about that. Case in point: Disney itself, who makes
a lot of money reviving old public-domain properties. When it comes to the
public domain, Disney wants to have its cake and eat it, too. It happily
revitalizes and capitalizes on properties in the public domain -- then it
turns around and argues that its own properties should never enter the public
domain, because the public domain is a deadpool. That argument is silly on its
face, and Disney is living proof of it.

------
Zikes
For your convenience:

[http://amzn.com/B00LT1JHLW](http://amzn.com/B00LT1JHLW) \- $175 for Blu-Ray,
$135 for DVD

To be released November 11.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I just searched the Pirate Bay, and found all ~20GB of the original series
available, for free (single magnet link).

If you forget you're competing with free in the marketplace, you've already
lost.

~~~
ctdonath
When your hourly pay gets high enough and/or you get interested enough in
other things, it's cheaper & easier to just shell out $175 for the complete BD
package. Fiddling with torrents (with corrupted/bogus links & content, delays,
technical obscurities, assuredly illegal activity, etc) is not _free_ , it's
spending time & resources & risks which _could_ be used for earning more than
$175.

~~~
teh_klev
If the studios allowed me to copy their content to my media server so I can
stream on any device in my house then I might agree 100%. It doesn't need to
be HD or even 720p, I'd settle for your bog standard ~220MB/episode x264. But
their efforts to frustrate my efforts doing that means I still hit up the
torrents to get my DRM free digital copy - despite paying for the media.

~~~
Consultant32452
I'd settle for a fast enough internet connection and Netflix. I SHOULD have
Gigabit to my house for cheap but.. reasons.

------
at-fates-hands
Reminds me a lot of one of my favorite documentaries - "Los Angeles Plays
Itself". The film is an essay on how LA is depicted in film through its
architecture.

It was finished in 2003, but because the film is made up of a ton of film
clips, it took more than ten years to get it on DVD. The reason was no
publisher was willing to take on the mess of getting permission for all those
clips.

Just in case you're interested: [http://dailytrojan.com/2014/10/20/los-
angeles-plays-itself-u...](http://dailytrojan.com/2014/10/20/los-angeles-
plays-itself-unveils-unique-look-at-the-city/)

Glad to see this series finally made it to DVD. My brother was a huge fan, and
I'm not sure he knows this is going to be out in time for Christmas. Should be
a great Christmas!

------
jedberg
Whenever someone asks why Netflix/Amazon/iTunes doesn't have a show, I'm just
going to point them at this article and say, "the licensing rights to pretty
much every show are this byzantine".

~~~
swartkrans
I think we wont see Northern Exposure in any non-physical, digital format in
my life time because of all the crazy rights involved with the show. :(

~~~
mschuster91
Yeah, same for Cold Case due to the background music, which was licensed only
for TV broadcast...

~~~
lsaferite
This is one that bugs me to no end. It's a great show and so sad it'll never
come to DVD/BluRay

~~~
mschuster91
There are higher-quality TV rips available... but seriously, I'd rather buy a
box set than downloading via weirdo 1-click-hosters.

------
RexRollman
This kind of stuff happens and it can cause long delays. I recall there were
issues with Heavy Metal getting released on DVD due to licensing,as well as
Miami Vice.

~~~
joezydeco
Amazingly, a group managed to clear all the music rights that held up _WKRP in
Cincinnati_ all of these years. A new DVD set was launched last week with most
(all?) of the original music intact:

[http://music-mix.ew.com/2014/09/15/wkrp-in-cincinnati-dvd-
so...](http://music-mix.ew.com/2014/09/15/wkrp-in-cincinnati-dvd-soundtrack/)

------
goatforce5
tl;dr: lawyers and money.

(The article is a good read though.)

