this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
165 points (100.0% liked)
Television
2434 readers
135 users here now
Welcome to Television
This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.
Other Communities
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
- !movies@piefed.social
- !animation@piefed.social
- !trailers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Television Communities
A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.
Rules:
- Be respectful and courteous to all members.
- Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
- Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
- Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
- Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
- Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags.
List of Best Rated TV Series as voted by the Fediverse
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I find it ridiculous that the default legal decision is that because the tech was new all income defaulted to the distributor instead of requiring the residuals to be proportional to broadcast or renegotiated.
I think that's a valid argument. I think another valid argument is that, after 30 years, the rights for this should be in the public domain.
See also every new medium needing to re-litigate 'by buying this object with cash, you've secretly signed a contract we made up.'
The "default legal decision"? She mentioned that the contract gives her residuals for syndication. Yes, the "default legal decision" is that a contract actually means what it says, not that you can just change it ad hoc if circumstances change in a way that disadvantages one party. The whole point of a contract is that the terms don't change unless either both parties agree or part of the contract is invalid as determined by a court.
Edit: "Lemmy users are given a basic understanding of how contracts work in the US; get asshurt and shoot the messenger" wasn't on my bingo card for the day, but here we are.
They should argue that streaming is a form of syndication
I'm sure plenty of more successful, wealthy actors have similar contracts that screwed them over in the streaming era, I'm sure those actors would want to and possess the means to argue in front of a court that streaming is broadcast syndication if they thought they could win, and I'm sure news would get around the industry if there were precedent for that. I'm likewise sure that Sweetin could find a lawyer willing to represent her pro bono for a portion of the winnings if they thought she would likely win. The reality is that broadcast syndication is a real term, not just a generic term for redistribution, and while that unfairly fucks Sweetin over, contracts – with few exceptions relating to their formation – are designed to be consistent, not indefinitely fair. I can't say for sure what's in Sweetin's contract, but it seems like she's assumed that's not a valid argument (and I'd imagine in her position she's at least talked to a few people about it).
Why does the distribution company get to distribute in new ways not covered by the contract?
I don't know. Look at Jodie Sweetin's contract and tell me?
Your honor, the contract says exclusive streaming rights but our free movie website uses a technology called "squirting" so all contracts are void.
Yeah.
'The status quo sucks.'
'Uh excuse me it's the status quo? EDIT: Jeeze it's like you don't understand the status quo.'