http://theclicker.today.com/_news/2012/09/21/14010599-cbs-knows-why-it-still-loves-i-love-lucy-20-million-of-income-annually?lite#__utma=14933801.1504565138.1348161469.1348161469.1348238797.2&__utmb=14933801.12.10.1348238797&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1348161469.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)%7Cutmccn=(direct)%7Cutmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.%7C8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1%5E12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1%5E13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1%5E30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=111195780

Either way, the options for continuing to make money off of old classics seem endless.

"The world is a beautiful place, we're going to get paid more and more," Moonves said.

That is probably the most appalling statement of greed and disconnect I've ever heard from a one-percenter. In a time when the economy for the non-filthy freakin' rich sector is pretty much in the crapper and everyday folks are just struggling to survive, it's really disgusting to see some rich jackass shouting from the rooftops about how great it is to get even richer for something he never even had a part in. I can't believe these statements aren't attracting more attention.

THIS is why I feel like a fool every time I spend what little hard-earned cash I have on material that is decades old. TV shows, music, movies - all of it. Deep down I know I'm just helping line the pockets of the already-rich. How much money does George Lucas need to make off Star Wars??? How many times do The Beatles have to re-release their catalogue??? "The world is a beautiful place" he says???? I'd say the world is a pretty f'ed up place where the rich only seem to get richer and the poor only seem to get poorer. Les Moonves has officially moved onto my list of selfish gazillionaires that deserve a special place in hell.

THIS is why I feel like a fool every time I spend what little hard-earned cash I have on material that is decades old. TV shows, music, movies - all of it. Deep down I know I'm just helping line the pockets of the already-rich. How much money does George Lucas need to make off Star Wars??? How many times do The Beatles have to re-release their catalogue??? "The world is a beautiful place" he says???? I'd say the world is a pretty f'ed up place where the rich only seem to get richer and the poor only seem to get poorer. Les Moonves has officially moved onto my list of selfish gazillionaires that deserve a special place in hell.

You've hit upon something that has long struck me as odd, something that distinguishes the entertainment industry from any other. Once they put something on film or on video or some other media, they can keep making money off of it forever, without having to do another day's work. A farmer has to keep farming. The crop from last year has no value this year. A new crop has to be grown because last year's crop has been consumed. A furniture manufacturer keeps making furniture because over time furniture wears out and needs to be replaced. Same thing with auto makers. All those products are consumed and have to be replenished with something new that will also be consumed. But entertainment, once it's recorded, is never truly consumed in that sense. It can be consumed over and over and never used up. The people who actually labored over that product years ago may all be long gone, but someone they may have never met is making money off of their labors as if it's a brand new product. Very few new jobs are created from this. But as you say, the fat cats at the top are pocketing big money for doing nothing. So they become exponentially richer.

You've hit upon something that has long struck me as odd, something that distinguishes the entertainment industry from any other. Once they put something on film or on video or some other media, they can keep making money off of it forever, without having to do another day's work. A farmer has to keep farming. The crop from last year has no value this year. A new crop has to be grown because last year's crop has been consumed. A furniture manufacturer keeps making furniture because over time furniture wears out and needs to be replaced. Same thing with auto makers. All those products are consumed and have to be replenished with something new that will also be consumed. But entertainment, once it's recorded, is never truly consumed in that sense. It can be consumed over and over and never used up. The people who actually labored over that product years ago may all be long gone, but someone they may have never met is making money off of their labors as if it's a brand new product. Very few new jobs are created from this. But as you say, the fat cats at the top are pocketing big money for doing nothing. So they become exponentially richer.

Exactly. That basic fact is why I am morally opposed to the current copyright laws. The idea that someone else can collect millions upon millions of dollars, long after the project is complete and long after the people who actually did the work are dead in the ground. Yet every single time the copyright laws come up through the courts the terms keep getting extended. What is it now like 100 years? Just more laws to benefit the rich in the only industry where products apparently never expire.

The biggest question is: why stop there? Why not make it 100,000 years? Let's just keep it in the hands of multi-billion dollar corporations and the richest people in the world FOREVER. Let's never let anything enter the public domain EVER AGAIN. This is absolute madness. Imagine if schools had to pay royalty fees every time Shakepeare was read in class or every time The Pledge of Allegiance is performed. For hundreds of years the public domain has existed to let cultural works of art become integrated with society. Once an acceptable amount of time has passed and the original creators have been rightfully compensated, it should belong to everybody.

Gawd I truly hate billionaires who have no problem getting on a soapbox and making the most ignorant, insensitive statements about how great it is to be so wealthy. This is along the same lines as Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake" after being told that peasants had no bread to eat.

I'm somewhat confused about the ranting and raving here. On the flipside, since the show makes money, that means down the road we might see I Love Lucy on Blu-Ray. If these shows were not making for their owners, they wouldn't be releasing them on DVD, so glad they are making money. Look at the bright side, people! :lol:

I'm somewhat confused about the ranting and raving here. On the flipside, since the show makes money, that means down the road we might see I Love Lucy on Blu-Ray. If these shows were not making for their owners, they wouldn't be releasing them on DVD, so glad they are making money. Look at the bright side, people! :lol:

This issue is about how long copyrights should last. If this show were in the public domain already, we'd be seeing it released on Blu-Ray at much cheaper prices. There would be no fewer people employed to create the Blu-Ray versions, but there wouldn't be fat cats at the top reaping huge profits for doing nothing.

Here's something to consider: In 1957, Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz sold the rights to I Love Lucy to CBS for $4.5 million. That's about $36 million in 2012 dollars, which means that if Lucy and Desi were still alive and decided to sell this 60 year-old show to CBS today in those equivalent 2012 dollars -- $36 million -- CBS would recoup their entire investment in less than 18 months! That's one heck of a return on investment! Of course, if they were alive and in that position today, they'd surely be selling for a whole lot more than $36 million! Which makes me wonder, 55 years after they made that sell, and it's still grossing $20 million a year, just how much money has CBS made off of that show?

I'm somewhat confused about the ranting and raving here. On the flipside, since the show makes money, that means down the road we might see I Love Lucy on Blu-Ray. If these shows were not making for their owners, they wouldn't be releasing them on DVD, so glad they are making money. Look at the bright side, people! :lol:

It's definitely not $20 mil that I'm ranting and raving about. In fact I'm rather pleased that ILL can continue to be so prosperous in an era when older TV shows are being forgotten and pushed aside. All outrage is being directed at Les Moonves and his jerky Barry Bondsesque we're-getting-rich-therefore-the-world-is-great comments. The classy thing to say would be along the lines of "We are pleased and grateful for the fans that continue to support the show." Instead he has revealed himself to be a stereotypical smarmy money-grubbing TV executive.

In all probability, this series will see a Bluray release. I would have bet money on it being the first classic sitcom on BR for several reasons but that distinction now belongs to The Dick Van Dyke Show. This won't stop me from ultimately buying it but certainly makes it a little harder to cough up the cash.

In all probability, this series will see a Bluray release. I would have bet money on it being the first classic sitcom on BR for several reasons but that distinction now belongs to The Dick Van Dyke Show. This won't stop me from ultimately buying it but certainly makes it a little harder to cough up the cash.

Could someone tell me what I'm missing here. I'll be honest, I know next to nothing about Blu-ray. I'm wondering what the big fuss is all about. What does Blu-ray offer that's so much greater than DVD that makes someone want to spend money buying shows on Blu-ray that they already have on DVD?

Could someone tell me what I'm missing here. I'll be honest, I know next to nothing about Blu-ray. I'm wondering what the big fuss is all about. What does Blu-ray offer that's so much greater than DVD that makes someone want to spend money buying shows on Blu-ray that they already have on DVD?

If you are a videophile, A/V nut, or any other brand of home theater enthusiast then Bluray is the best thing since sliced bread when done right. It offers the closest possible experience to watching projected film in your home (like in a real movie theater). The storage capabilities of Bluray are outstanding - they allow more video in higher quality than standard DVD as well as being the first digital media to practically carry uncompressed audio as originally heard. Specifically as a fan of classic television it's a real treat to see shows better than they have ever been broadcast with only the original editors possibly having viewed the film in such brilliant condition.

However this is all dependent on how good of a job the Bluray producers do, and how good any previous DVD releases were done. I will fully admit that shelling out money for BR is not worth it to most people when there are perfectly fine DVD releases and these nerdy details mean nothing to you. I Love Lucy has some superb DVD releases and it probably wouldn't be worth it to re-purchase for most people. But for videophiles like myself, the already-great DVDs lower the value of a Bluray release. This is precisely why I'm not spending $300+ on The Dick Van Dyke Show that's coming out on BR next month.

Thanks for the info! I guess I'd have to actually experience it to fully understand. I'm a little behind the times. Okay, a lot! I haven't even advanced to a flat screen TV yet; still using a television set I've had since 1999. And until three years ago, my other TV set I had had since 1986. I would have still been watching that big 'ol thing were it not for a cross-country move three years ago.

If you are a videophile, A/V nut, or any other brand of home theater enthusiast then Bluray is the best thing since sliced bread when done right. It offers the closest possible experience to watching projected film in your home (like in a real movie theater). The storage capabilities of Bluray are outstanding - they allow more video in higher quality than standard DVD as well as being the first digital media to practically carry uncompressed audio as originally heard. Specifically as a fan of classic television it's a real treat to see shows better than they have ever been broadcast with only the original editors possibly having viewed the film in such brilliant condition.

However this is all dependent on how good of a job the Bluray producers do, and how good any previous DVD releases were done. I will fully admit that shelling out money for BR is not worth it to most people when there are perfectly fine DVD releases and these nerdy details mean nothing to you. I Love Lucy has some superb DVD releases and it probably wouldn't be worth it to re-purchase for most people. But for videophiles like myself, the already-great DVDs lower the value of a Bluray release. This is precisely why I'm not spending $300+ on The Dick Van Dyke Show that's coming out on BR next month.