There is widespread agreement that "WKRP in Cincinnati" was one of the greatest television sitcoms ever produced. The original episodes are rightly considered to be a national treasure and cultural landmark.

Copyright law madness has destroyed it forever - plain and simple.

Two years ago, I predicted that the original cut of the show would never be released on DVD due to the overly restrictive costs of re-licensing the popular music that was integral to the program.

I was in a position to know. One of my first jobs out of college was as a post-production coordinator for MTM Enterprises - the original distributor of WKRP. During my years with MTM, I was asked to perform the most painful duty I have ever had to do in entertainment business. I was given the task of excising much of the original music from the episodes and replace it with Muzak-style songs that could be licensed in perpetuity for a small flat fee. This was deemed necessary in order to keep the program in syndication.

The new music that was inserted into the show sucked ass. It was wrong for the feel and attitude of the show. Some scenes relied on specific songs at particular junctures (i.e., Les Nessman trying on a toupee to the soundtrack of Foreigner's "Hot Blooded") . Those scenes were ruined. In many instances, we couldn't even finesse the proper audio levels in order to cut the costs of replacing the music.

WKRP was created at a time when mass consumer home video was unheard of. As a result, the much of the music was only licensed for a limited number of years for use on broadcast television. You would think that by licensing the music, a derivative work such as a television show would have a fair use right to continue to use the music in order to preserve the artistic integrity that was vital for show to continue to exist. You would think that - but you'd be wrong. Within the maddening culture of entertainment legal affairs, the music licenses did not entitle the episodes to continue to use the music in other mediums in the future. The only way the show could be seen in the future was to destroy its original artistic vision and substitute other music tracks, which in some cases completely alter the feel of the scenes.

Most copies of the original show were destroyed - out of fear that if a tape were mislabeled and still contained the original music, then even a single accidental airing of the episode containing the original (unlicensed) music could subject the company to massive liability.

For each episode, we attempted to save at least one master copy of the original cut on 1" video. All of these were sent into long term storage. If these elements were ever lost or damaged - then the original WKRP in Cincinnati would be in danger of being lost forever. The only alternative would be to find an original copy on 2" video (a largely defunct format), or to re-cut the episode from scratch using the original individual production elements (a hugely expensive process).

After my initial prediction that WKRP would never see the light of day on DVD, I received a mysterious e-mail from an individual who claimed he was in touch with a studio looking at WKRP for a DVD release and asked me where the elements were stored at. I relayed the information as best as I could recall. I had no idea if the storage company was even still operating - let alone what condition the WKRP elements were in. I wished him the best of luck, thinking that there was no way that the show would ever see the light of day in its original form.

Imagine my surprise when I read the announcement that WKRP would be released on DVD at the end of this month by Fox. [MTM was later purchased by The Family Channel cable company. They in turn were purchased by Fox - creating the Fox Family Channel. So it makes sense that Fox would now be the distributor.]

I thought to my self, "Did a miracle happen?" Did Fox manage to overcome the barriers of music licensing cottage industry which makes the use of music prohibitively expensive?

Alas - no.

Early word is that the release of this WKRP in Cincinnati is an artistic travesty.

Read the reviews on Amazon.com to see what most WKRP fans think. Even those who agree that WKRP is a classic of American culture are only giving this box set 1 out of 4 stars.

Allegedly, the original producer of the show (Hugh Wilson) was involved in replacing the Muzak with some other generic songs that are more palatable. While this is admirable, and Wilson has some great artistic instincts, it still isn't enough to undo the damage.

Jamie Weinman has a detailed look on how an American classic was butchered at the hands of copyright law and the music industry.

[Weinman indicates that even "Fly Me to The Moon" had to be replaced. For those familiar with that episode, only 13 individual notes of "Fly Me To The Moon" were used in the context of Jennifer's doorbell chime. And yet, they were forced to replace even that fleeting reference to the song!]

This is a prime example of how our copyright laws have become completely dysfunctional.

If you are required to license artistic work X in order to create artistic work Y, then Y will never be a truly independent work. Any derivative work Z, created from Y will not only have to license Y, but X as well. Each successive derivative work then creates a longer chain of gatekeepers that you have to buy off in order to create and distribute a work. Couple that with the fact that copyright schemes are increasing in length and restrictions, and you are then left with world where copyright actively suppresses the creation of new works - and blocks the continued distribution of older classic works.

If you maintain that copyright law is still necessary to inspire the creation of works, then there ought to at least be a rethinking of the way licensing works. Licensing should become a compulsory "either/or" proposition as a matter of law. It should not be limited or divided by time, media forms, or physical territories. Either a work should be allowed to be licensed in perpetuity in all media and territories for a reasonable, one-time flat fee, or it shouldn't be licensed at all. But if it is licensed, then there should be a legal presumption that the licensing should never prevent the derivative work from being distributed in its original form as its own separate artistic work.

You often hear of great film directors professing outrage over changes to their films (i.e., edits for televison, colorization, etc.). Why is it that there is not similar outrage here? Is it because we have been conditioned to think that television is inherently more consumerist than film (and thus less worthy of artistic preservation)? WKRP is one of the few sitcoms that ranks up there in quality with the great works of American cinema.

Those of you under 30 probably don't remember the original cuts of WKRP. Trust me when I tell you that you are all culturally poorer for the fact that you will likely never experience them.

The butchering of "WKRP in Cincinnati" is an outrage. How many more outrages will we need for people to realize that we are in desperate need for copyright reform?

In today's New York Times' Economic Scene column, Hal R. Varian discusses the lack of intellectual property in the fashion industry, and cites the outstanding work of Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman. They have been a two-man intellectual demolition crew on IP in fashion goods. Their work on the piracy paradox is a must read.

He rightly notes that if lawyers called the fashion tune, fashion would become "boring, boring, boring." Not to mention more scarce and expensive.

Unfortunately, he goes off the rails a bit in claiming that the lack of copyright in America for foreign authors hurt the book trade. In fact it promoted the growth of literacy, and the development of the book industry and an American authorial class.

Yesterday's New York Times had an obituary for Calvert DeForest aka "Larry (Bud) Melman" of "Late Night With David Letterman" fame. It reported, as some of you may remember, that NBC claimed ownership of the Larry (Bud) name when Letterman moved to CBS ---- and Calvert was barred from using the name again. Another example, perhaps small, of the evils of intellectual monopoly. link here

Thanks to David K. Levine (no relation to me) and the rest of the gang here at Againstmonopoly.org for inviting me on as a guest blogger.

Brief background about myself: I produce a radio show in Los Angeles. I am also a licensed attorney who still occasionally dabbles in law on the side (mainly in defamation defense - but also with some experience in copyright infringement defense). Before that, I worked in film and television post-production which helped to form my views that current IP schemes overburden artists and stifle creativity.

I have previously guest blogged for other sites, including: Patterico.com, The Southern California Law Blog, and Calblog.com. I still occasionally guest blog for the first two sites listed, but I thought it best to bring over my posts about IP to this site for the sake of thematic consistency within blogs. If you still have an interest in other areas of law and/or media bias - feel free to check out those sites as well.

I have previously written a series of posts concerning IP entitled The Tyranny of Copyright Law, The Tyranny of Trademark Law, The Tyranny of Patent Law, and the (somewhat related) Coming Legal Superstorm Against Bloggers. [Each post is a multi-part series that is often spread out over multiple blog sites. Click on the links and they will provide further links to other parts of the respective series.]

I welcome all feedback and debate regarding my posts and the ideas that are generally put forth by this site. I know that many readers of the other blogs I have written for have a difficult time accepting the difference between real (tangible) property and so-called intellectual property. They would often roast me over the coals in their comments with delightfully amusing abuse. I hope that they will follow me over to this site on occasion to continue it (and in that process, hopefully become exposed to some new ideas that will change their thinking over time).

:-)

Greg Mankiw link here points us to Joe Stiglitz' piece on Prizes vs Patents link here. Mankiw argues that prizes aren't so great, as they will require taxes, presumptively distortionary, and the prize awarding committee is composed of fallible humans. The argument gets ideological, particularly in the comments at Mankiw's site where some have a dreamy view of patents costs, but like most things in life, there are tradeoffs and the best choice isn't always clear initially. There ought to be room for both.

Here is my take on what Michele just wrote:

Bell Labs was once a jewel of American science. After the Justice Department broke up the Bell System, AT&T let Bell Labs deteriorate until it spun them off as part of Lucent. Lucent, in turn, deteriorated until it was bought up by Alcatel, which seems to be now behaving as a patent troll.

Alcatel just won an enormous patent suit against Microsoft -- $1.52 billion for using Bell Labs work on the MP3 format. The suit manner may or may not hold up, but I presume that Alcatel is now preparing suits against others, finally figuring out how it can commoditize the work of Bell Labs.

MICHAEL CRICHTON writes on "Patenting Life" (link here). A few quotes will make its tenor clear. "YOU, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it's only too real." "Gene patents are now used to halt research, prevent medical testing and keep vital information from you and your doctor." "Why? Because the holder of the gene patent can charge whatever he wants, and does."

Strong stuff, well stated.

I tried to write a couple of comments on my earlier post, Competition--surprise-- fosters innovation. For some reason they were just deleted.

After I posted my original piece, I was off the web and didn't see the comments from others, but I think David answered them pretty well.

I would add one thought. A contest doesn't guarantee that the resulting innovation won't be patented, so if the sponsor patents it, the price to society may be a lot higher than just the prize money. Thus, I may have exaggerated the relative merits of contests and patents or copyrights. But I remain intrigued.

I was led back to this subject by a post from Alex Tabarrok (link here) which takes you to a Business Week story about Goldcorp. The gold mining company was in trouble and had suspended mining. It had mining leases. Question: should it develop any of them and if so how. In a contest, it posted the geological data on the leases and issued the "Goldcorp Challenge" which made a total of $575,000 in prize money available to participants who submitted the best methods and estimates. Big response and big success for Goldcorp, though rising gold prices had something to do with it as well.

Subsequently, I Googled "contests+innovations" and got 915,000 hits. Obviously, I haven't looked at more that a few, but there seems to be more going on out there than I thought; lots of competition, just not from patent and copyright holders.

A while back, I sent David an email questioning whether patents and copyrights didn't contribute significantly to rising income inequality in the US. He didn't think so (his emphasis was on significantly) and I ceased that line of inquiry. This week, Matt Yglesias raises the same question (link here) and references posts from Brad Delong on income inequality (link here) and from Bradford Plumer who writes on how rich people control politics and get their wealth enhanced (link here). Yglesias cites the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and sends readers to Wikipedia. The logic of that story is that the act served no purpose but to enrich existing copyright owners (usually not the creator and therefore constitutes little incentive to innovate) and served to create income inequality. As David argued earlier, this by itself could not be a significant contributor to total inequality. I remain unsure and would like to see more evidence.

Yglesias cites as well Dean Baker's book, the Conservative Nanny State (free to download here), which argues that the rich have overwhelming political power. Commenters on Yglesias' piece cite only one additional piece of evidence, that the Mar's and other rich families spent $500 million to get the inheritance tax reduced (link here). But none of this actually uses statistical data to make the case that it is a significant cause of income inequality.

Ideology, Marxist or Libertarian or Friedmanesque or Keynesian, doesn't count in this discussion. We need more numbers.

David Leonhardt writes in the NYTimes today about another way to increase innovation offer prizes (link here). He takes off from Netflix' search for better algorithms to suggest movies to subscribers in which they would likely be interested, based on what they have already seen and rated highly. The prize is a million dollars, and there is a threshold to beat, a ten percent improvement over Netflix' present algorithm. The competition lasts five years and seems very risky to enter, but has attracted widespread participation.

Prize competitions were apparently common centuries ago; Leonhardt cites one example, the British Parliament's £20,000 prize for a way to determine longitude and thus a ship's position at sea.

Leonhardt argues that prizes are efficient in that they only pay for success, the cost is fixed in advance, and the competition is open to everyone. This contrasts with grants, an alternative way to get innovation, but one which is essential in the sciences where the setup costs are so great.

I would suggest that the lesson is, if you want innovation, create competition. The contrast is with patents and copyrights, where the payoffs are undefined, the costs to consumers are huge, and they are increasingly used to prevent competition; in the process, they end up slowing innovation.