Many people have opined on what's happened with Veggie Tales now appearing on NBC Saturday mornings. The basics: Apparently at the last minute, NBC demanded an edit of the Veggie Tales episodes to appear, excising references to God, including the standard Veggie Tales tagline, "God made you special, and He loves you very much."
What to do in such a situation? Do you take the stand of Rack, Shack and Benny, and refuse to bow down to the chocolate bunny? Or do you make the cuts as demanded in order to get on the air?
Veggie Tales chose to make the cuts. Immediately some people branded them as having sold out. You can read Phil Vischer's response to their upset fans, if you're interested.
Personally, not knowing anything at all about how the deal went down, my guess is that we're looking at naivete more than selling out. Phil Vischer has never shown much of a head for business, having had his big dreams dashed for lack of an adequate business plan. My guess (purely speculation, I repeat) is that he saw a chance to play in the big leagues again and didn't read his contract well enough. The time to stand up and refuse was when going line-by-line through a contract that certainly gave NBC the right to edit... not at the time when the edits were demanded. So either someone was naive ("Oh, they have the right to edit, but they'll never use it") or sloppy ("Go ahead and sign, it looks okay to me").
But I actually became concerned about the Veggie-Tales-on-NBC issue from a different angle.
A couple of weeks ago, I was driving, with my radio on to a local Christian radio station, KFSH 95.9 FM. And the morning drive time jocks announced that Veggie Tales was going to be on Saturday mornings. Lots of "how cool," etc. And then Bobby Shaw, the guy DJ, said this:
"Tivo them, burn them to DVD, and you'll never have to buy them again!"
My jaw dropped. I had just heard a Christian encourage illegal activity on the public airwaves.
Now, I know that the stats show that Christians steal music online as much as non-believers do. But it's one thing to hear those stats and another to hear someone giving permission to hundreds, maybe thousands of people to do just that.
For shame, KFSH. For shame, Bobby Shaw.
I wrote to Bobby. I pointed out that he was encouraging illegal activity. That copying copyrighted material without paying for it is stealing. I pointed out that, even though his station advertises itself as "safe for the whole family," he was encouraging activity that is harmful to the families of his listeners.
I told him that hundreds of thousands of people (thousands of whom are Christians, and therefore possibly in his audience) rely on the legal sale of the products we work on to put food on the table and gas in our tank. Writers, actors, musicians, all receive residuals, tiny payments based on every DVD sold, every CD sold, every airing on cable TV. Those tiny payments add up. They can make a difference between being able to pay the rent or not, for thousands of people.
I pointed out that my kids know that burning music off the internet, ripping DVDs off the TV, is, in fact, theft. (Cory even approached me with some worry this summer when people started asking him to make a CD of his hit songs from Family Camp: "Mom, we can't do that without violating copyright, can we?" I found myself explaining the concepts of fair use and parody to a 12-year-old.)
I asked Bobby if he wanted his "family-friendly" station to stand for stealing bread off the tables of his listeners? To stand for flippant encouragement of theft? And I asked him to please respond on the air, apologizing for his remarks and taking them back for the sake of the listeners who would be harmed by them.
Here's his response, by return e-mail:
"Thanks!"
What a wuss. What a shameful way to respond.
So, did Veggie Tales sell out in editing for NBC? Yeah, they probably did, most likely without realizing they had (back at the deal stage). But now that they're on the air, I can only hope that they're a HUGE hit, causing many many listeners to race out to Toys R Us and Wal-Mart to buy DVDs and videos of the 'real' episodes. Because that way, maybe my friends who've worked on Veggie Tales will make up a tiny bit of what they lost from an irresponsible DJ making shameful remarks.
And in the meantime, I've taken KFSH off the radio buttons in my car. Because any station that encourages theft and refuses to correct their statements isn't "family-friendly" in my book.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I wish more people talked like this. I've never downloaded a song without paying, and almost everyone I know, people who in every other way adhere to fairly strict moral standards, see nothing wrong with it. I have absolutely no idea why so many of the same people who would say stealing a candy bar from a store would be wrong are completely okay with illegally downloading thousands of songs/movies, etc.
I'm no expert on copyright law, but I don't think that making a copy of a program from free tv is illegal. You can't sell it or transfer it to someone else, but I'm pretty sure you can make a copy for your personal use (as everyone has been doing since the VCR came out). Maybe I'm misreading what the DJ meant, but I don't see any violation here.
Are TiVoToGo™ transfers legal?
Yes, TiVoToGo transfers are legal when used as intended by TiVo Inc. The TiVoToGo feature of the TiVo service is provided for your personal, non-commercial use. TiVo has taken deliberate steps to protect the content that originates on our digital video recorder and is transferred to the PC via our TiVoToGo feature. We view creating tools to subvert that protection as a violation of the TiVo license agreement and strongly discourage such activity. Distribution and/or use of such tools to transfer copyrighted works outside of your home may constitute an infringement of the rights of copyright holders and/or a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and could result in legal action. TiVo reserves the right to terminate the TiVo service accounts of users who transfer or distribute content in violation of the TiVo Service Agreement.
Legal to tape for personal use? Yes, of course. That was the Betamax decision from back in the '70s. But that's different than telling hundreds to thousands of people to rip a DVD "so you won't have to buy it."
Especially when we're talking kids' programming, which is viewed over and over and over and over and over. My attitude has always been: If you want to tape/Tivo for time-shifting purposes, great. But once you want to view something more than once, go buy it (if it's available).
Janet,
Perhaps the apparent sell-out was in part fueled by the recognition that this sort of thing was being encouraged. What easier way to avoid the wholesale destruction of revenue than to turn the network-aired episodes into glorified trailers.
I've not really followed this, as I have no dog in the hunt. But that did occur to me as I read your excellent post.
Andy, I do have to agree with Jan here.
Sure, folks copy for personal use. And if there's someone out there in the viewing audience who doesn't know it, they've been living in a cave for over 20 years.
But for a DJ -who by nature of his job is also a spokesperson for the station that employs him - to tell people to do it specifically so they will never pay for the entertainment again, I think that's a different matter.
He could have said "Copy it. You'll enjoy it." But he didn't. He specifically advocated copying it in order to NOT pay for it. Because the people who worked to make it don't matter, do they? They don't deserve to be paid for their labor, right? And since we're God's chosen, we can do what pleases us, right? (Sorry. I was getting a little heavy on the sarcasm there.)
Perhaps, because my living comes from the entertainment business - as does Jan's - I'm more sensitive to the matter. What is the job that pays for your daily bread? How would you feel if your employer could no longer pay your wage, because their product/services were being stolen, because there was a way people could steal them easily?
It's not pretty when a supposedly Christian DJ advocates short-changing other Christians of their due income.
The fact is, as long as they're copying it for personal use only, its not illegal. The networks air these shows free to the public because they pay for them through advertisers. It really doesn't matter how many times the program is viewed, as long as it is not used for any kind of comercial gain or mass distrubtion they are not in anyway stealing money from those involved in the show.
I really think you need to seperate something that you feel strongly about personally, namely that people should help support those involved in a program by going out and buying it on DvD, from something that is illegal or "stealing", something that copying a nationally aired broadcast is clearly not.
Jan spoke of "my attitude is ...", and Sarah spoke of artists' "due income." My duty as a Christian consumer is to obey the laws set down. As I understand it, I have a right to copy any show transmitted to my TV for my personal use, whether I watch it again once, never, or a million times. The individuals involved in producing the show receive their money when they agree to allow the television channel to air the show. They do not have to agree to put it on TV, where the public can make copies, which is why every movie is shown first in the theatres, then released on DVD, then shown on TV.
Concerning the DJ, it's my (third-hand) impression that he was implying that his listeners would burn a DVD for personal use and show it to their kids, rather than going out and buying DVDs. Thus, he was not advocating doing anything illegal or immoral.
I know this is a sensitive issue to you both, but I think you are trying to impose a duty on Christians that doesn't exist. My belief is that the market will shift in some way so artists will still make money in the future. It may be shaky for awhile, but I think there are too many bright minds and too much money at stake for a solution not to be reached.
As a personal note, I have not downloaded any music without paying for it since it was definitively ruled that peer to peer programs were illegal forms of use, I only obtained a TV last year, do not have TiVo, and I don't even own a VCR to tape shows from. Christians illegally obtaining material is wrong, but I don't think that's the situation here.
Thank you Troy and Andy, I completely agree. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that the music industry or entertainment industry (as a whole) is truly suffering from such use. They both seem to be doing fine.
I personally don't have TiVo or even a VCR (although I'm planning to run out and get one soon so that I don't miss premieres of my favorite shows while attending night classes), but were I to decide to make a VHS collection, say, of Grey's Anatomy Season 3 in order to avoid buying the DVD set, it would not be illegal. Nor would it be immoral. That said, I have no plans to do so.
No, no, no. "Tivo them, burn them to DVD" is not a 'tivo them so you can watch them' idea. Burn them to DVD is a 'make your own product out of their product' idea. 'so you'll never have to buy them again' would be the result of having made your own product.
This has been going on for decades now (anyone remember cassette recordings?) and artists are still suffering and no one has come up with a way to solve that and stealing their work just becomes easier.
The entertainment industries are doing fine. Just like the gas and oil companies and top execs are doing fine. It is the artists that are suffering. It is the owner of the gas station that is suffering. And the artists who created the work are suffering.
Someone point me to a statute or case that states that making a personal DVD from your TiVo is illegal, and I'll understand. Until then, words such as "theft", "illegal activity" and "stealing" are inappropriate. You may owe Bobby Shaw an apology for calling him a thief.
If you want to discuss whether Christians should spend their money on the actual DVD's in order to make a statement in the marketplace to promote the production of more Christian material, that's a valid discussion. But don't accuse others of being a liar and a thief when they have not done anything illegal.
Someone point me to a statute or case that states that making a personal DVD from your TiVo is illegal, and I'll understand. Until then, words such as "theft", "illegal activity" and "stealing" are inappropriate. You may owe Bobby Shaw an apology for calling him a thief.
If you want to discuss whether Christians should spend their money on the actual DVD's in order to make a statement in the marketplace to promote the production of more Christian material, that's a valid discussion. But don't accuse others of being a liar and a thief when they have not done anything illegal.
I didn't accuse Bobby of being a thief. I have no idea if he's stealing copyrighted material. I accused him of encouraging others to steal content, of giving permission to do it explicitly *instead of* buying it -- the presupposition being that the listeners would have bought the content otherwise. He did it not by saying, "Hey if you're not going to be home on Saturday morning, Tivo it so you don't miss it." He told people to do it *so they wouldn't have to buy the DVD.* He was thus encouraging video piracy.
Alice is absolutely right -- the companies are doing okay (more or less). It's the artists who are suffering. Actors in particular, whose contractual pay levels *assume* that a good chunk of their pay will come in the form of residuals. When that doesn't happen (and increasingly, actors are not seeing the residuals they used to see for many reasons, including piracy), they don't get the pay anticipated by all concerned, and they can't pay their rent, their car payments, their utilities. I am seeing this happen all around me.
Writers rely less on residuals than actors, but we're feeling it too. This quarter my residual check was 10% its typical size. How much of that is due to piracy? No way to tell, I suppose, at least w/o massive data available to the studios but not to me. But sit back and think how you would feel if your paycheck was 10% of its normal size? Start parceling out the bills you're *not* going to pay this month.
When someone downloads musical illegally, or burns a DVD of a movie so they don't "have to" buy it, it harms countless people. It has consequences. I see the consequences in my own life, and in the lives of the people (particularly the musicians and actors) I know.
So sorry, but I can't give a pass to a putative Christian making it okay for others to steal from my friends.
I thought calling him a wuss was bad, now a "putative Christian"?
I understand your strong feelings and your argument that it is hurting the lives of many people. I don't know if I agree with it, but it is a logical argument.
However, the DJ was not encouraging his listeners to be thieves. He was not encouraging video piracy; as far as I can tell, he was encouraging people to make a personal copy and watch that personal copy. Video piracy would be taking that personal copy and selling it, sharing it, or making copies to sell or share.
Again, I have no interest in seeing you or other artists see a drop in royalties. But putting material on TV is a business decision, and made with the knowledge that viewers will be able to make legal copies for personal use, and use those copies as much as they want (for their personal use).
Rail away at those making illegal copies to sell or share, or those downloading media illegally from the internet. But attempting to shame other Christians from making legal copies by calling them thieves, simply because you don't like the end result, is not befitting of your role as an informed Christian in Hollywood
Andy, I do understand your point of view. As you said, if it's for personal use only, then a specific viewer's choice to make a copy isn't illegal. And indeed, I often tape things for myself (as a writer, I'm often studying the structure of a show, for instance).
But you're also right in saying that whether it is appropriate for Christians to always do it rather than paying for the work in question is a different question. And I think that is the key to the problem with what the DJ was advocating.
First off: he was, as something of a voice of authority, implying that it is always better for the audience to just "take it off the free airways" than to bother to pay anyone for such work.
Secondly: he is advocating that the audience copy something that we know to be mangled from it's original form. What is airing is not the form the makers originally gave it, and apparently, what is airing is missing elements that would be considered crucial to the work, as Christian art. How is that a good thing?
Third: I am just generally bothered when I encounter the attitude that "because it is not illegal, I as a Christian, am not prohibited from doing it." Because that is just ... wrong. There are many things in this life that might not be illegal, but that are not what I would consider appropriate behavior from Christians. And yet I see such presumptions being made all the time.
On this particular matter: if we want a permanet copy of something, and such a thing is commercially available, is it not appropriate for us to pay for the work? Are the workers not worth their salary? Why should we not pay the artists when there is a means to do so?
Generally... I keep tapes of things that I do not have the means of getting commercially. I usually replace my personal recordings of things when I can - because the commerical product does pay the artists at least something, because the commerical product usually has a better quality and possibly interesting extras.
I try not to ask my friends for their assistence in their areas of professional expertise without at least offering some sort of pay-back. Because the worker is indeed worth their hire. Even when legality isn't even a question.
It's not a simple matter.
But I still think the DJ was wrong in urging people to copy rather than buy the (original, uncut, untampered) commerical versions. He should have just stopped by saying "Watch it!"
Post a Comment