Read much? That was not what I was saying at all. In fact, I mentioned specifically that if any fees are charged to the sub for retransmission, then the originator of the prgram should be compensated. I see nothing wrong with laws to prevent the distance provider from adding commercials or recovering more than the cost of transmission, unless some other arrangment was agreed to by the parties involved.
Well, right now fees are charged to the sub and the originator is paid royalties. This is usually the case for copyrighted materials. The question is who gets to decide when and how the material is distributed. Should it be you, the distributor or the owner?
But, what you and micklewhite, and other defenders of this archaic system and unconstitutional law don't understand is that it has absolutely nothing to do with copyright protection and/or the originators of the programming. That is the smokescreen perpertrated by the owners of non-o&o network affiliates. They want you to watch their programming and their commercials.
I think Greg and I understand the system very well. It has everything to do with copyright. It is in Title 17 of the United States Code. Title 17 is....drum roll please....Copyrights! You keep saying that the system is unconstitutional over and over again as if by doing so you can make it come true. It is not true. The Constitution specifically and explicitly gives Congress the power over copyright. Whatever the motivations of the copyright owner it doesn't change the law. The fact that you are peeved does not change the law. The fact that you want, want, want does not change the law. You need to grow up.
Until a few years ago, viewers had no choice. The physical limitations of the technology prevented them from watching out-of-market programming. Well...that's changed. And, instead of the industry trying to change with it, they lobbied for laws to artificially perpetuate the antiquated system.
The physical limitations of the technology still prevents such viewing. You cannot, on your own, receive LA stations in NY. You require the assistance of a DBS company. The signals are encrypted for a reason. Otherwise you could use the appropriate FTA receiver and set up a dish without the need for E* or D*.
It's not unlike the TV industy's fight against VCR's and now DVR's. Or, the recording industry's fight against audio cassette's, digital tape, CDR, MP3, and file sharing. Or, the film industry's fight againt video rentals and DVD-r. All of those industries adapted, and now enjoy huge revenue from those technologies. (The ones that still exist, of course.)
The only similarity is the concern for people using new technology to steal the property of others. If you copy tapes/CD's/DVD's/whatever in violation of the copyright law you are a thief. End of story. Why is it that someone who (we hope) would not think of shoplifting a CD has no qualms about stealing it at home? Is the locus of the crime really make a difference to you?
I guarantee that the networks themselves would love to broadcast directly to the viewers, bypassing the local affiliates altogether. Trust me, they aren't the ones behind this stupid law. And it's their copyrighted material you are so worried about.
No - because the networks do not fill the entire day. They rely on local affiliates for some part of the programming. They also need to meet their public interest charge. But even assuming that what you say is true, our elected representatives have decided that the system in place is the best choice. I suppose that could change down the line but as long as most viewers have an interest in local programming I doubt it.
So, stop trying to defend this stupid law with your cries of 'copyright protection". It's just a smokescreen obscuring the real reason "local affiliate protection of an century old media distribution system".
Both are important considerations. The goal of localism (it is a goal whether you agree or not) is protected by the mechanisms of the copyright law. That is simply fact. I understand you think a different model would be better. Work towards it but don't smear others by claiming that heartfelt convictions are a "smokescreen."
