• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public domain?

Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public domain?

  • Total voters
    27
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

I don't think so. On one hand I see the argument that the public paid for it therefore it should be widely available, but by trademarking they can try to become partially self sustaining.

Also...think of it this way, how about Big Bird? It is character and brand paid for and created with the use of tax dollars. does that mean anyone should have the ability to sell a replica of it for money? Isn't that a business and money just being made off of public funding?
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

my wife and i are regular viewers of PBS, and donors to the local affiliates

we love antiques road show on mondays

and catch some of the great shows throughout the year

i dont know if PBS is a winning or a losing proposition.....

i do know they provide quality shows that probably wouldnt be seen elsewise

if someone airs something on PBS should the public have automatic rights to it?

i dont think so.....but that is just my opinion.....and i am not an expert on how all of this works
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

clownboy said:
Well, not quite "freely", you still have to pay the TV license. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You pay that to watch live. You can stream it online for free later.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

jamesrage said:
Should tv shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv channels be public domain?
yes
No
other

Public domain | Define Public domain at Dictionary.com
the status of a published work or invention upon which the copyright or patent has expired or which has not been patented or subject to copyright. It may thus be freely used by the public

I say yes for the simple fact we as tax payers paid for it.
Click to expand...
I say yes for the same reason... the taxpayers funded it. Shouldn't matter where it's aired.

Wait, hold on a sec... restricted to American citizens. It doesn't need to be public domain to somebody in another country.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

jamesrage said:
Should tv shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv channels be public domain?
yes
No
other


Public domain | Define Public domain at Dictionary.com
the status of a published work or invention upon which the copyright or patent has expired or which has not been patented or subject to copyright. It may thus be freely used by the public





I say yes for the simple fact we as tax payers paid for it.
Click to expand...

I don't think any shows should be paid for with tax dollars. If the public wanted those shows, producers would offer them and commercial sponsors would foot the bill.

The market. Is. Always. Right.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Peter Grimm said:
I don't think any shows should be paid for with tax dollars. If the public wanted those shows, producers would offer them and commercial sponsors would foot the bill.

The market. Is. Always. Right.
Click to expand...


so you see no need for kids learning shows, with no advertising?

or taped shows of plays, operas, concerts that the majority of people could never afford to see

commercial tv has its place....and they make their money

public broadcasting to me is akin to art and music in schools

it is almost criminal to not offer them......

for the few dollars we spend, the benefits are immense
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

gdgyva said:
so you see no need for kids learning shows, with no advertising?

or taped shows of plays, operas, concerts that the majority of people could never afford to see

commercial tv has its place....and they make their money

public broadcasting to me is akin to art and music in schools

it is almost criminal to not offer them......

for the few dollars we spend, the benefits are immense
Click to expand...

If the market wants those things, they'll become available on regular commercial tv

The market will fill any need there is
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

gdgyva said:
so you see no need for kids learning shows, with no advertising?

or taped shows of plays, operas, concerts that the majority of people could never afford to see

commercial tv has its place....and they make their money

public broadcasting to me is akin to art and music in schools

it is almost criminal to not offer them......

for the few dollars we spend, the benefits are immense
Click to expand...

No, government shouldn't be in the business of making TV or radio programmes.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Peter Grimm said:
If the market wants those things, they'll become available on regular commercial tv

The market will fill any need there is
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The free market will only fill any need big enough to be cost effective. Not all needs are cost effective. The free market will not fill "all" needs.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

radcen said:
Incorrect. The free market will only fill any need big enough to be cost effective. Not all needs are cost effective. The free market will not fill "all" needs.
Click to expand...

Costs for producing and airing PBS-type programming are no higher than those for commercial programming.

The only difference is the public interest in them is not high enough to produce the advertising revenue that would offset the cost.

So basically, the public is not interested in PBS, but the all-knowing leftist faction of the government thinks we need to be spoon fed content we are not interested in watching (if we were interested, that content would be commercially viable).
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Peter Grimm said:
The only difference is the public interest in them is not high enough to produce the advertising revenue that would offset the cost.
Click to expand...
DERP!

Since the idea is to produce COMMERCIAL FREE content, it is kinda hard to have advertising revenue.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

jamesrage said:
Should tv shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv channels be public domain?
yes
No
other


Public domain | Define Public domain at Dictionary.com
the status of a published work or invention upon which the copyright or patent has expired or which has not been patented or subject to copyright. It may thus be freely used by the public





I say yes for the simple fact we as tax payers paid for it.
Click to expand...
Maybe...if the entire product was totally funded by tax dollars....but with a lot of programming on (partially tax funded) public radio and tv, that isn't always the case.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

jamesrage said:
should tv shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv channels be public domain?
Click to expand...

absolutely!
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Gimmesometruth said:
DERP!

Since the idea is to produce COMMERCIAL FREE content, it is kinda hard to have advertising revenue.
Click to expand...

"Commercial free" is a luxury, not a necessity. All the more reason we shouldn't be allocating our tax dollars to such excesses.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Peter Grimm said:
"Commercial free" is a luxury, not a necessity. All the more reason we shouldn't be allocating our tax dollars to such excesses.
Click to expand...
Commercial free is a means to removing the influence of corporate bias, to allow less biased expression.

It would not surprise me in the least that you neither listen/read/watch public radio/tv/sites/publications nor are a direct funder.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Peter Grimm said:
"Commercial free" is a luxury, not a necessity. All the more reason we shouldn't be allocating our tax dollars to such excesses.
Click to expand...

It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutory formula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent.

This amounts to roughly .012 percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget – or about $1.35 per person per year. (Some global perspective: elsewhere in the world, Canada spends $22.48 per citizen, Japan $58.86 per citizen, the United Kingdom $80.36 per citizen, and Denmark, $101 per citizen.)

Big Bird Debate: How Much Does Federal Funding Matter to Public Broadcasting? - ProPublica
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Gimmesometruth said:
Commercial free is a means to removing the influence of corporate bias, to allow less biased expression.

It would not surprise me in the least that you neither listen/read/watch public radio/tv/sites/publications nor are a direct funder.
Click to expand...

All it does is exchange one bias for another.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

radcen said:
All it does is exchange one bias for another.
Click to expand...
If only it was so simple.

If you are interested in the corporate version, well there you are.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Gimmesometruth said:
Commercial free is a means to removing the influence of corporate bias, to allow less biased expression.

It would not surprise me in the least that you neither listen/read/watch public radio/tv/sites/publications nor are a direct funder.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that the general public is too fragile to listen to commercials?

Like I said, commercial-free TV is a luxury, not a necessity, and we shouldn't be wasting tax dollars on luxuries.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Gimmesometruth said:
It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutory formula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent.

This amounts to roughly .012 percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget – or about $1.35 per person per year. (Some global perspective: elsewhere in the world, Canada spends $22.48 per citizen, Japan $58.86 per citizen, the United Kingdom $80.36 per citizen, and Denmark, $101 per citizen.)

Big Bird Debate: How Much Does Federal Funding Matter to Public Broadcasting? - ProPublica
Click to expand...

Given our massive national debt and our gaping budget deficit, I find such spending wasteful and inappropriate regardless of the scale of impact.

We shouldn't be borrowing money from China so that you have the luxury of not having to watch commercials.

If you enjoy PBS programming, in my book there are 3 options: have commercials, offer it as a paid subscription, or find big donors that can foot the bill for the whole thing.

The use of tax dollars is not appropriate.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Peter Grimm said:
Are you implying that the general public is too fragile to listen to commercials?
Click to expand...
No, that is you inferring something that doesn't exist....but then I would expect that.

Like I said, commercial-free TV is a luxury, not a necessity, and we shouldn't be wasting tax dollars on luxuries.
Click to expand...
Yep, you said it....just as you say that businesses should be free to racially discriminate. Just because you say such dumb things doesn't mean they are correct....they are just dumb things you say.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Peter Grimm said:
Given our massive national debt and our gaping budget deficit, I find such spending wasteful and inappropriate regardless of the scale of impact.

We shouldn't be borrowing money from China so that you have the luxury of not having to watch commercials.
Click to expand...
Phew, thats a relief, and here I thought the t-bills purchased by China were for 99.99999% of other thingys.

If you enjoy PBS programming, in my book there are 3 options: have commercials, offer it as a paid subscription, or find big donors that can foot the bill for the whole thing.

The use of tax dollars is not appropriate.
Click to expand...
I see a best seller on the horizon. You ought to get started on it.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Gimmesometruth said:
Phew, thats a relief, and here I thought the t-bills purchased by China were for 99.99999% of other thingys.

I see a best seller on the horizon. You ought to get started on it.
Click to expand...

No substance. So honestly, do you have any good reason why PBS programming should be commercial free? You mentioned that commercials provided "bias," however that's no different from commercials on any other station.
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Peter Grimm said:
No substance. So honestly, do you have any good reason why PBS programming should be commercial free? You mentioned that commercials provided "bias," however that's no different from commercials on any other station.
Click to expand...
"No, there is nothing wrong with corporate POV's, they are by far the best perspective on any and all topics and should never be questioned."

OBEY
 
Re: Should shows funded by tax payers and aired on tax payer funded tv be public doma

Peter Grimm said:
Are you implying that the general public is too fragile to listen to commercials?

Like I said, commercial-free TV is a luxury, not a necessity, and we shouldn't be wasting tax dollars on luxuries.
Click to expand...

$445 million over two years works out to less than two cents per year per person. They can have my two cents. I'd pay a hundred times that much to not have to listen to the damned commercials every five minutes.

That said, commercial free subscriptions to radio/TV not corporate sponsored should be made available. I know I'd subscribe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom