I know, that’s why I asked about them separately (and ethically also)

I understand that, and yes I agree that it is a benefit for some people, but for others (myself included) it just isn’t.

Because I’m interested, as in, in the topic of legal, moral and ethical implications, not just of this show, but ambiguous media in general. I’m not on about absolving anything. I simply find it an interesting topic is all. Is that not motivation enough to ask? In any case, what’s it to you why I care?

Well first of all, I did mention that this was something that happened 5-6 years ago. To be clear, I did watch the show on YouTube back then (I know I didn’t mention that, I probably should’ve), that wasn’t really the point of this post. You’re looking at it backwards: you’re assuming I’m asking because I want to know if I should watch the show. What actually happened is, I watched the show and it got me curious in a general sense what other people think (years later, I didn’t have Lemmy back then). I’m asking out of curiosity what other people think, not because I’m trying to make my own mind up. I was actually only using that show as an example for the question I was asking — any other show under the same ambiguity would’ve sufficed just as well to explain what I was asking, really. Second of all, the reason I don’t want to say the name of the show is because it’s a show that had a very niche audience, and I know other people IRL who use this platform and I don’t want to risk them finding out I have an account here for personal reasons. They know I was a huge fan of this show so they’ll click straight away if they came across this and I’d named the show.

No, I’m afraid I don’t think thats it either, plus I can’t view the episode it’s not available. But thanks for the suggestion

lol true

I’m only asking people’s views out of interest, whether I do or I don’t will be independent of this.

This reminds of what happened with one of the most infamous sci-fi design controversies: the Daleks:

The concept was conceived by a writer called Terry Nation, but he only created the outline (the story, etc.) but didn’t create the design. Instead, these characters were designed by Raymond Cusiak, and they became immensely popular, drawing in millions of viewers. However, because of some legal loophole, Cusiak did not receive royalties for his design, only Terry Nation received royalties despite the fact that the design of the Daleks (the lure for viewers) was created by someone else entirely. Not necessarily a legal issue, but certainly a moral/ethical one.

Even if they paid for the legal rights to?

Interesting. What’s your belief on the subject for media that was crated by someone who no longer makes money off of it (e.g. they’re dead, or they sold the rights or ip) but is owned by someone else who had nothing to Do with the creation?

No problem, thanks for the suggestion anyway

Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is it. The show I’m looking for is one of those sorts of shows where they cut to random interviews with real people (out on streets, in parks, etc.) and live action segments to, not just purely a cartoon. Idk if this show had that of any sort?

It’s the right sort of era, but it also Says it was never broadcast in the uk. Plus, I’m fairly sure that the main cartoon character was a human boy (animated) rather than a dog. Good suggestion nonetheless, thank you

I would rather not say tbh. The name of the show is not relevant to the question being asked, as the topic in question can apply to any and all shows that are stuck in this state (there are actually more than you might think). However, if you are knowledgeable about that era of shows, I will soon be posting about another forgotten show which you might find more interesting as I cannot for the life of me find this other show.

But what if you didn’t know if the creators had definitely abandoned it? After all, if they maintain copyright control, there’s surely the possibility that they might revive it at some point/re exert their control over it, right?

That plus they don’t make media in the digital landscape clear in terms of stealing and copyright. Thats why I have issues with the system as it is — it’s a type of product that’s practically unprecedented. If it were, say, stealing a loaf of bread in the shop, it’d be an easy explanation. But the digital landscape is so complex, not just in terms of content and ownership, but also in the legal, ethical and moral nuances, especially if the owner/copyright holder themselves is ambiguous/unclear on their stance) that I just find making head or tail of it incomprehensible. Or that’s my view of it anyway.

Wow, that’s a very well thought, articulated opinion. Thanks for sharing

Can you explain in what terms?

Sad

Makes me think of that old horror movie Nosferatu: Stoker’s wife sued the producers and the court ordered that all copies of the movie be destroyed. It was only that a few prints of the movie were hidden (arguably pirated, certainly meeting the legal definition) that that movie is still watchable today, and critics call it one of the greatest horror movies of history (or at least one of the earliest/most influential)