JMS Usenet Posts - 07/08/2003
Dirk A. Loedding
>JMS posted this on June 12th - Don't know if he's had enough takers
>or not, but if you're "eligible" and interested, e-mail him at
>jms...@aol.com.
Okay, this probably ranks with one of the stupider messages I've ever
posted, but....
For some time now, slowly and surrepticiously, cats have moved onto
the area around Casa Straczynski (how they pronounce it is anybody's
guess), and the problem there is that where cats go, kittens follow.
I'm about to start to process of snaring and spaying the adults,
getting them their shots and the like...but that leaves the kittens on
hand (or paw) to deal with.
I'd like to find them a good home. A safe, reliable home. So I
thought I'd come to you bunch first.
Here's the requirements: you have to live in the LA area, so you can
come pick them up in person in neutral territory. I want your name,
phone number, and address, and I want to receive periodic (once a
year) updates on their condition (complete with jpgs), to make sure
the little guys don't land in a lab or something.
If you're up to the task -- they're slightly feral kittens, about a
month old, but they've been around people and should be easily enough
to domesticate -- they're cute as buttons: some gray tabby, others
white-and-black, lemme know in private email.
Thanks.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers, about the new V series in the works:
:Not to bring up old memories, but since that's what you did in your
:expansion; i.e., dig deeper into the characters, etc. how strange does
:this sound coming from Johnson, and what is your reaction to his
:statement?
It's certainly the approach I would take in his position, and did when
I did my script. But by the same token, if someone were bringing back
a show that I'd created, I'd much prefer to be the one writing it than
use somebody else's script.
So I think it's great, he's certainly in the position to do a great
job with it, and I say good luck.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:And here's a snippet of it: "Demographers at the magazine analyzed
:lifestyle characteristics that they say are good indicators of future
:wealth. Those characteristics ranged from the number of people under
:45 with a household income of more than 100-thousand dollars to more
:obscure things, such as watching the sci-fi program 'Babylon 5' or
:reading Architectural Digest."
See? I always said that there were benefits to being a Babylon 5 viewer.
That'll be a dollar, thankyewverymuch.
jms
>I reproduce the original question, with permission:
Ok, here's a very tough question. At what point is the taking of life
justified by a societal organization?
In B5, only military acts such as attempting or killing one's superior
officer merited outright death by spacing. Most other cases were
shown to be punishment by mindwipe. That both essentially kill the
offender would be an argument.
My question would deal with today's time. At what point would the
killing of an individual be warrented? A difficult question with many
variances. Even Thomas Jefferson thought that the inerrancy of man
must be overcome before the government could nobly end a man's life.
Not an easy question, but then what important question is?
>JMS quotes and answers:
:My question would deal with today's time. At what point would the
:killing of an individual be warrented?
The first answer, and the easy answer, is: in self-defense, in one's
home or in wartime.
The less easy answer comes when you get into the legal system. Where
does justice end and vengeance begin?
I think that when you knowingly and deliberately take someone's life,
you forfeit your own. But for me, that means life without the
possibility of parole as a better option than the death penalty.
(This is a position that's taken me a while to get to, to be honest.)
The death penalty and life without parole both are deterrents in that
they permanently remove the offender from society, and I think life in
prison is a far worse fate than a quick death. The difference is that
life without parole allows for the possibility of correcting the few
errors that get through, where the death penalty does not.
The idea of taking someone's life, with malice aforethought (I'm not
talkling about accidental manslaughter or the like) and getting out in
five to ten years is abhorrent.
But that's just me.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:It's been almost two years since the first season of Jeremiah ended -
:have the plans to film season two been shelved?
First, the statement above is not correct. The season finale aired
July 19, 2002, so it's less than one year since the season ended.
Second, last I heard the show was going to run starting the first week
in September so that it could conclude with the last four shows in
November sweeps.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Which Southern Baptist site?
I've been going through my notes trying to find the thing again...and
came across some intersting, related items. Here's a church, the
Shepherd's Care Ministtries, that uses G'Kar's quote about the future:
http://www.findthepower.com/inspirationstorehouse/topicFUTURE.htm
About that quote, if you do a google search on "it is always born in
pain," you'll find any number of sites where it's used for a memorial
or epitaph. (It's also used, without attribution, on a number of other
sites, kinda giving the impression that they came up with it on their
own.)
There are a number of sites that look at B5 from a buddhist point of
view, such as
http://www.hundredmountain.com/Pages/foundobjects_pages/sum01_babylon5.html
If you do a search for Babylon 5 and theology, or Babylon 5 and
Buddhism, or religion, or christianity, you'll find the most
fascinating stuff...and the most fascinating thing of all, for me at
least, is that so often these sites from different or even competing
religions use the *same quotes* and each gets something different, and
something the same, out of them.
We live in fascinating times.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers about David Crowley (who played Lou Welch):
:I was wondering if he was offered a part on the credits, or whether
:his part was just to be expanded. If the former, it just boggles my
:mind that someone would refuse that. Even if you do get typecast (not
:likely for that particular part IMO) being a co-star on a show has got
:to look good on your resume not to mention your bank account. So, was
:he offered a job in the credits?
Truth is, I don't remember. But even if I did, I don't generally
discuss an actor's private business terms unless there's an extremely
valid reason for doing so.
So if I did remember, I'd say it's private; but I don't, so it's moot.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Just had the unusual experience of seeing some VHS tapes of B5
:"dailies" from WWE.
Hmph....
:At the end of the tapes were short lengths of sound-only footage, over
:which ran a title card marking this as a "wild track". It all seemed
:to be there intentionally, but nothing in the tapes I saw/heard
:sounded useful at all. So.. what's a "wild track"?
If there was trouble on a particular line on camera -- an actor
couldn't remember it, or there was bad background noise, or other
complications -- you pick up just the audio for those lines at the end
of the scene. You do it in the same place becuase it means the
background ambience will be the same, so it'll mix better when you
drop it into the production track. Otherwise, no matter how you tweak
the background, it never sounds quite the same. Nine times out of ten
the line will fit pretty well in the actor's mouth on camera because
they're still in the moment, and when it doesn't quite fit the
picture, you just play it on his/her back.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers, after someone asked why it's J. Michael
>Straczynski, and not Joe M. Straczynski:
Never, ever do this again. Not to a man in my condition. And I didn't even
HAVE a condition until I read this.
jms
:It's because it has better balance: 1 syllable, 2 syllables, 3 syllables
:rather than 1 syllable, 1 syllable, 3 syllables.
:You see, as ever, it goes back to the Minbari's obsession with the number
:three. Three words, with a total of six syllables. What is six, but three
:factorial ( 3! ), which is 3 z 2 z 1. Also, 3 + 2 + 1 = 6 - amazing!
:And take into account that 1 appears in both sums - yes, you guessed it -
:"the one" ! You see - more Minbari numerology in there!!
:The Minbari connection is even more remarkable, when you do a quick
:numerological analysis on both forms you suggested:
:-----------------------------------------
:
:J MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
:
:J 10
: 10 SUB-TOTAL
:M 13
:I 9
:C 3
:H 8
:A 1
:E 5
:L 12
: 51 SUB-TOTAL
:S 19
:T 20
:R 18
:A 1
:C 3
:Z 26
:Y 25
:N 14
:S 19
:K 11
:I 9
: 164 SUB-TOTAL
:
: 225 TOTAL
:
: 2 + 2 + 5 = 9 = 3 x 3
:-----------------------------------------
:
:JOE M STRACZYNSKI
:
:J 10
:O 15
:E 5
: 30 SUB-TOTAL
:M 13
: 13 SUB-TOTAL
:S 19
:T 20
:R 18
:A 1
:C 3
:Z 26
:Y 25
:N 14
:S 19
:K 11
:I 9
: 164 SUB-TOTAL
:
: 207 TOTAL
:
: 2 + 0 + 9 = 9 = 3 x 3
:-----------------------------------------
:
:At first sight, it seems that both forms are in fact Minbari-linked, with
:the totals collapsing down to 9. However, closer analysis shows that the
:first form must be the ideal candidate. If you take the first word from
:each form, you get J (10 summed letters), and JOE (30 summed letters).
:
:Rewriting these in Bolloxian form, you get:
:
:(1) J = 10
:(2) JOE = 30
:
:Substituting (1) into (2), you get:
:
:(3) 10OE = 30 => OE = 3
:
:Now, as we know, Joe is a great wordsmith, so it is obvious that that OE can
:only refer to the Oxford English dictionary. And in this context, it is
:obvious that (3) is telling us that we are talking about the 3 volume
:_Shorter_ Oxford English Dictionary. Since J is shorter than JOE, then we
:can only conclude that the first form is correct.
:
:~~~~
:
:Just as an addendum, look at the numerical positions in the alphabet of JMS:
:
:J 10
:
:M 13
:
:S 19
:
:Cam you see the pattern? Yes, the differences are:
:
:J 10
: \
: 3
: /
:M 13
: \
: 6
: /
:S 19
:
:There you go again. Three and six, both multiples of three. And what do
:you get if you add them up? 3 + 6 = 9 = 3 x 3.
:Unbelievable!
:
:
:I hope that this answers your question.
:
:--
:Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
:Kingston upon Thames
:UK
>JMS quotes and answers, in the same thread:
:Actually, it's mainly to sneak up to the startling Straczynski part
:gradually. And because it doesn't scare the cat. ;-)
That's actually more or less correct.
BTW, for those who've been asking about Rising Stars, if you go over to
http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=13
you'll get a pretty good answer.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers someone who read the above URL:
>You have here a very large and loyal fan base; surely there must be
>something we your fans can do by combining our forces in unity?
No, it really is an internal matter, and it wouldn't be appropriate to
take advantage of fans in that fashion.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Question: Why is it there are so many alliances you've been involved
:in which seem great to start with, and then turn not just sour, but
:absolutely putrid?
Actually, they've been more the exception to the rule than the rule.
The nature of TV is that there are egos involved, lots of money
involved, and those two don't tend to play well together.
Nonetheless: my experience with Universal was great on both Murder and
Jake, my experience with WB was great on B5, my experience with Marvel
has been terrific, Showtime was great to work with, and I could go on
at some considerable length about others.
TNT was a nightmare to work for on Crusade when they changed watchmen
on us and took away the good guys who worked with us on b5 and gave us
idiots. Top Cow was a good experience until the situation with the
movie manifested itself, which again results from egos and money in
unfortunate confuence.
:Were you really giving a hyperbolic description of yourself when you
:had Sebastian comment about being "like Diogenes, with his lamp"
:searching for someone willing to die for a just cause for all the
:wrong reasons?
If I were, consciously or otherwise, it would be awfully self-indulgent
of me.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:OTOH, IIRC jms has indicated at one point or another in the past that
:there are ***some*** scripts that you write simply because they are
:paying you to do so. But you can't let yourself fall in love with
:them, because the final product that will make it to screen will be
:completely unrecognizable.
Which is one thing...the other thing is being lied to, which I don't
cotton to real well. If you're going to change something, have the
stones to tell me, don't tell me "the script hasn't come in" because
sooner or later the truth will out, and it ain't pretty.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I was wondering how TV shows do the writing/planning for the next
:season. Is the next season thought up while the current one is in
:production or do they wait until the current season is over? I've
:always wondered about that but have never seen an answer so I thought
:I'd ask...just curious.
Ninety-percent or so of all TV shows work season to season, with a
general sense of where it might go if the show should be renewed. You
keep it at arm's length for the same reason you don't name a baby seal
until you know it's gonna live.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers (note that URL is wrong, and is corrected in
>the next message)
:Hmmm... Do I sense some sort of implied show-business metaphors here?
:Something to do with bloated carnivorous predators or savages with clubs...
Two asides to this discussion...
One, there's a really excellent article by Frank Pierson about the
movie and, by implication, the TV business, at
http://www.moviefone.com/showtimes/closesttheaters.adp?_action=setLocation
&csz=91423&submit.x=14&submit.y=12
Two, there's a documentary about comics on the history channel that
repeats Sunday at 10 p.m. Pacific...apparently (I haven't seen it yet,
just heard about it) there's some nice stuff about the 9/11 issue of
Amazing that I wrote, plus a bunch of other good stuff about comics as
a form.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
Correction to my last post: I put up the wrong link (that was my
standard link to movies playing in the LA area).
The correct link is:
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/opinion/perspective/06082003A.html
jms
>On 6/29, JMS wrote:
Okay, two JMS screwups...the comics special on the history channel is
tonight, Saturday, at 10 pst, not Sunday.
jms
(This airs again on 7/10 at 8pm, with another repeat at midnight)
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Can anyone seriously conceive of writers or musicians deciding that
:they aren't going to write or perform any longer because the copyright
:won't last more than fifty years beyond their deaths? Writers write
:because it's what they want to do. Musicians compose and perform
:because they love to. Painters paint and sculpters sculpt, again,
:because it's what they want to do. To put the question to JMS -- Joe,
:would you cease your writing if the duration of copyright were only
:fifteen years, renewable once?
No...but you're not getting the crucial point.
Residuals, and royalties, are part of a writer's compensation for the
work he does. They're not a bonus, they're part of his (or her)
compensation. It may take a novelist five years to write a given
novel. The money he earns from that book covers the down-time between
that project and the next one.
Writing is a notoriously ill-paying profession, and it is not
especially gracious on aging writers. So a writer's only chance for
income past a certain age is the royalties he's built up on prior works.
If those works become public domain after ten or fifteen years, he can
no longer make a living from those books. Will that writer stop
writing when younger because of that issue? No, of course not.
Will that writer be able to *survive* financially if the rights to
public after a while?
In most cases, the answer to that questino is no.
We're not talking corporations here, we're talkling writers who, in a
lifetime, may turn out maybe five, ten really good books, in the hope
that the royalties from those books will help to keep them alive in
their golden years.
So many of those writers may have to take other jobs to survive,
limiting their ability to write, and hence their output. Or, if they
cannot take othe work -- writers are notoriously poor employees --
more of them may have to survive in serious poverty than before.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Why shouldn't I receive royalties when an appellate brief which I've
:drafted is cited in case law or in pleadings?
There's a flaw in your logic. Are you making a point-for-point
comparison to your brief and, say, Godel-Escher-Bach? Or The World
According to Garp?
There is, and should be, a special category for works of art, and for
artists. The only way that your scenario works is if no one piece of
writing is better than any other piece, and thus they all deserve to
be treated the same. But that's fallacious reasoning.
(And there's a difference between a brief being *cited* and a work
being completely reproduced. Any good lawyer, or paralegal, would
know that.)
:I'll concede that there are some folks who write one bestseller or one
:musical hit, and then never make it back into the limelight.
:Nevertheless, the same can be said for most other areas of life.
Apples and oranges. There's art, and there's everything else.
:People engage in a single amazing act of heroism and then vanish into
:obscurity.
Heroism isn't a book, isn't a painting, isn't something that one
*created*. It's an incident. There are no two contiguous points of
comparison between, say, writing a novel and dragging somebody out of
the lake before they freeze. They're simply two different activities,
and don't belong on the same playing fields. An inappropriate
comparison.
(And some *do* make livings off their brave acts by selling their stories.)
:Others make a suggestion or two that results in a complete change for
:an entire industry and are never heard from again.
Once again, an inappropriate comparison. A suggestion, something
spoken, or even written, isn't the same thing as a painting or a
musical. Your reasoning is specious.
(And in some cases, people who contribute something to a patent may,
on filing suit, be able to secure a portion of that, so again your
argument falls apart on the facts.)
:Why should entertainment be a special case?
It's plain you dont think it *should* be a special place. But artists
are (or can be) special people...we have lots of very nice, good
people who work in assembly lines making widgets...but we've only had
one Beethoven, one Bach, one Spielberg, one Whedon.
You may want everybody to be treated the same way, but society simply
doesn't do that. Not with politicians, entertainers, priests, and a
number of other categories.
:The constitutional provision for copyright law was "to promote the
:Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to
:Authors ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings..."
:There's nothing in there about providing long-term income to them or
:to their heir
At that time, there wasn't really an entertainment industry as it
exists today. Nor could they have forseen it. For that matter, the
average lifespan was about fifty years if you were lucky, so long term
retirement plans weren't often an issue. Lots of things have changed
since the constitution was written, why shouldn't this one? Further,
unless I'm misreading things or you've left something out, there's no
definition as to what comprises a "limited time." If it's five years,
ten years, fifty years, or a hundred years, it's still a limited time,
is it not? Only if it were infinite would it be unlimited. So if
it's fifty years plus, guess what, it's still a limited time.
:In fact, the use of "limited" would suggest that it was never the
:intent of the Founding Fathers to offer lifetime income
That's your inference, but that's not what it says. The provision is
there because the Founding Fathers knew that allowing writers the
exclusive rights to their works WAS what was needed to "promote the
progress of Science and Useful Arts." The whole idea of the provision
as stated isn't to say "no, no, you're limited to this period," it was
to CREATE THE IDEA that they were entitled to such rights in the first
place. It was the ability to earn a living from one's writings that
would create and encourage these useful arts.
You're totally misreading and misusing that provision to try and make
it say something it didn't and wasn't intended to say. They felt that
such rights were essential to creating these arts.
:Promoting the "Progress of ... the useful Arts..." is sometimes done
:better by the absence of copyright protection.
But that's not what the provision is there for. You're arguing at
cross-purpsoes to yourself.
:For example, if I wanted to watch "Song of the South," I'm just plain
:out of luck because Disney owns the copyright and has decided to keep
:it locked up and inaccessible. Without copyright, each of us could
:decide for ourselves if the film has offensive stereotypes and could
:base our viewing decisions on our beliefs rather than letting the
:corporation decide for us.
First: tough. Private property is private property. They don't want
to release their property, it's their call. If they don't want you
to see something they own, it's their call. If you don't feel the
same way, then I suggest you put a web cam in your house so we can all
see whatever we want of your possessions.
Second, there are plenty of books out there with long excerpts, and
quotes, and pictures, more than enough for an educated person to make
that decision for themselves.
:A similar argument can be made regarding the Bettmann Archives, now
:owned by Bill Gates. Millions of items of American history are under
:the umbrella of his corporate copyright, and he now can decide what we
:can and cannot see, and will continue to have absolute control over
:them for the better part of this century.
I don't know enough about this one to comment intelligently, so I'll pass.
The bottom line of the internet is that everything should be available
to everybody else, that no ownership of property can be allowed, that
no one should have to pay for anything, that it should all be free.
Which is great for the deadbeats who don't want to pony up the money
for anything, but it will eventually kill the goose and step on the
golden egg, because it will destroy the ability of authors and artists
and comoposers to make a living doing what they do, which is to create
extraordinary works that reflect our society in one-of-a-kind ways.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Does Hollywood pay writers, actors, dancers and musicians royalties on
:movies made 50 years ago? With tv, VHS cassettes and DVD (and
:replacements) the public is paying to see these old films again.
No, because firstly, most of the stuff made 50 years ago were made
under different contracts that allowed for very little participation
over a very short term. It's only been the last few decades that any
real progress has been made.
But even then, and this would be the secondly, the guilds didn't think
much would come of the VHS market, and gave away all but a few pennies
here and there to the producers. So you literally get about a penny
or two off each VHS sold, and this formula is being applied to DVDs as
well.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Read ASM 54 yesterday. Fun mix of philosophy ("Maybe I worry too much"),
:cynicism ("Ebay") and romance ("...keeping my heart from exploding..")
:all just on the first few pages. Good stuff there, thanks.
Thanks...it's just *such* a fun book to write.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers, about the above-mentioned History Channel show:
>Frankly, I think that particular segment would have been quite a bit
>more weighty if they had focused on Joe's work in ASM, instead.
At the same time, though, the documentary did a great job of
introducing a lot of people to the history of comics, and that was
what it was mainly intended to do. So I wasn't overmuch bothered by
that, I thought it was nicely done overall.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:When the creatators (who are dead now btw) originally made the works
:they obviously were happy enough with the laws of the time to create
:the works.
Well, that's a pretty absurb bit of reasoning. Writers, real ones,
can't not write. But that doesn't mean you're happy with the
circumstances that attend the publication and protection of your work.
If anything, this has been the single most unifying theme in the daily
lives of all writers, how to protect their work. It was Mark Twain
who lamented, "Every time a copyright law is to be made or amended,
the idiots assemble."
There was a man unhappy with the laws, but who continued to produce.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:If by "makers" you mean the creative artists, the reason they often do
:not retain ownership in their copyrights is money.
:..........
:I'm sure there are similar examples in other fields of the
:entertainment industry.
Here's the great irony of the whole situation, as it relates to TV and
film.
The Berne Convention was put together to protect the rights of
writers, to secure for them, by international convention, a piece of
the final film or tv series.
The studios responded by insisting that any writer who works for them
must sign an agreement which stipulates that -- as you will see on
endless movie credits -- "for purposes of the Berne Convention,
Universal (or whatever studio) shall be considered the author of this
work."
Cute, eh?
jms
:BTW, please don't try to infer that I'm unacquainted with the arts. I was
:formerly a music major (bassoon performance with voice minor)
:.......
:While being processed for discharge, I cross-trained as an illustrator,
:producing posters, cover art, illustrations for training materials
:.............
:I'm able to perform with a local choral society and lead the music at
:my synagogue, so I do have an inkling of what creative work is about.
That's as may be. Nonetheless: you do not have to and are not in the
process of making your living as a writer (or singer or artist).
In other words...and don't take this the wrong way, but it's the
fact...you've been to the zoo, but you've never had to be the monkey
in the cage. Your understanding and empathy for the situation is
delineated by which side of the cage you're standing on.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:But honestly, has a library ever had a negative effect on people
:buying books? I've read CS Lewis, Stephen King, Jean Auel and others
:as a kid for free, yet I ended up buying the books later as an adult.
Unless you had a very different library association than mine, all the
books in the library were purchased by the library, and the writers
received royalties.
:For music, has radio had a negative or positive impact? HBO for movies?
HBO pays residuals; radio also pays for the rights to broadcast music.
Apples and oranges.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I've read statements by some successful (defined here solely as
:"making a living from their art)" artists (Janis Ian, Mercedes Lackey)
:who have experienced only positive results from having their work
:available for free on the Internet. The theory on their part seems to
:be that, by having an item available to the casual browser, there are
:actually *more* sales once the consumer knows what product s/he's
:buying. Music stores have allowed customers to listen to records for
:decades without it harming sales. Why shouldn't books and videos be
:available to sample as well? I mean, really - one is supposed to trust
:'reviews' and 'critics'?
Well, those are really a whole passle of very different issues,
ownership vs. review copies, samples vs. whole works, choics vs.
compulsion....
If a person wants to put up samples of his/her work, that's terrific.
It's when someone takes the work and puts it up, or removes ownership,
that's the issue, when choice is removed.
:I can understand that artists seem to feel threatened by the 'free'
:Internet and possible theft of their work but in the long run isn't it
:better to have something available to be sampled and increase sales to
:casual browsers than to clutch each item to your chest and insist that
:each and every item be paid for by a blind consumer?
But the issue isn't samples, it's whole works. There are some usenet
groups, for instance, that have put up every story an author has ever
published. Whole books have been uploaded.
Remembering that the average novelist makes less per year than the
average grade school teacher, if 2000 copies of a book are read or
downloaded online instead of purchased, that loss of $2-3,000 can make
a huge impact on the writer's financial life.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:This is an over-narrow view of what defines a creative work. I
:wouldn't call a textbook "art", per se, but it's no less worthy of
:copyright. The author puts effort into condensing material and spends
:time working on the clarity of the presentation.
And textbooks are indeed protected by copyright.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:OK, so forgive an ignorant question on my part. Who owns the script of,
:for instance, "Value Judgements" (which was never produced) or "Grey 17
:is Missing," (which, AFAIK, has never been published), or "Day of the
:Dead" (which has been published on its own) or "The Coming of Shadows"
:(which has been published in multiple books)? Do JMS or Neil Gaiman or
:Fiona Avery own the scripts they wrote for the show or does Warners?
Under the WGA Separation of Rights provision, the studio owns the
characters and the concept, but the writer owns the physical script
and can do with it whatever he/she wishes, so long as in doing so no
copyrighted images are used on the cover of, for instance, books
containing those scripts.
:> Granted it would be better if the rest of the folk who worked on the
:> picture got a *share* of the actual copyright, rather than a diminishing
:> residual, but this is not exactly the same situation as an author's
:> relationship with a publisher.
:And who gets residuals? Producers? Writers? Star actors? Guest stars?
:Any of the production staff?
Residuals are not a part of ownership or copyright; they are deferred
compensation, if the film or tv series does well, they benefit, if
not, they lose. Everyone on your list gets residuals except
production staff.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Maybe. But consider this: The "final work" in these cases is *not*
:the script, it is the collaborative effort of *dozens* of people from
:the writer to the grips, all of whom work for the studio, and all of
:whom are using the studio's money to produce the *actual* "final work"
That's as may be. But the Berne convention was specifically put into
place to protect *writers* as the authors of the story. A grip is
essential to the making of the movie; a grip is not the author and
makes no claims in that regard.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Joe, I saw Babylon 5 for free
Yes, and no. Technically, yes, you saw the show for free...in that
*you* didn't have to pay for it directly.
But the show WAS being paid for, by the advertisers (and subjecting
you to the commercials is the price *you* pay for the show.)
The actors are being compensated every time that show runs, via
residuals, as opposed to somebody putting up episodes on the net.
(In point of fact, I saw a post recently where somebody was talking
about uploading and downloading B5 episodes, and why it was okay to do
because the studio had made their money on it, why give the money
grubbing guys any more? Except, of course, that the actors, writers
and directors don't get the big bucks, they get residuals when the
show plays. Which makes me ask...if you like the show, and the
characters, and the actors who *played* those characters, why would
you take away the few bucks they make in residuals by putting their
eps on the net?)
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:> In other words...and don't take this the wrong way, but it's the
:> fact...you've been to the zoo, but you've never had to be the monkey
:> in the cage. Your understanding and empathy for the situation is
:> delineated by which side of the cage you're standing on.
:With all due respect, Joe, your reply to Lyle is both profoundly
:arrogant and *wrong*. To suggest that someone who holds a "day job" to
:survive (like probably 90% of all the artists, actors and writers in
:the world) while pursuing their creative endeavor in the precious
:hours outside of 9-5, is somehow less of an artist than someone who
:has been fortunate enough to turn their art into a paying profession
:(with, I might point out, the concomitant compromises that come along
:with commercial success) is both fallacious and condescending.
Yes, it would be, if that was what I had said. Or even what I had
suggested.
Let me read that over again...hmm..."less of an artist"...wait, let me
scroll back a second, and go back to the original message, because I'd
hate to be wrong about something as monumental as this, and check
again...hmmmm.....nope, nope, it ain't there.
This is what's called "reading something that wasn't ever said or
implied into what someone else said."
My point, which everybody else here seems to have gotten but you, is
that a person who does something as a hobby, has a different
perspective on that practice than someone who makes a living at it.
Are you saying this is not so? I don't think you'd find anyone north
of Papua, New Guinea who would go along with that premise.
So: no, I didn't say it, didn't imply it, didn't suggest it. And
pretty much all the other replies I've seen here tend to bolster the
sense that you're the *only* person who came up with this one.
Because you have a tendency to do that, and to try and hammer me with
stuff, usually unprovoked.
I hope that you will be as enthusiastic in your retraction of your
accusation as you were in the making of it.
It would certainly be a refreshing change of pace.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:> Remembering that the average novelist makes less per year than the
:> average grade school teacher, if 2000 copies of a book are read or
:> downloaded online instead of purchased, that loss of $2-3,000 can make
:> a huge impact on the writer's financial life.
>I agree that you should not be posting or copying peoples works without
>permission. However, I am curious how you made the above statistic.
This is hardly news; this has been covered in any number of magazine
articles and books about writing, from Publisher's Weekly on up and down
the line. And it's not limited to prose writers; the Writers Guild of
America noted recently in a report that only about 2% of its members
earn $100,000 or more per year; most earn maybe $15-30,000 a year,
meaning only about one or two sales at tops, and sometimes not that.
Prose advances on fiction (and nonfiction) have not even kept up with
inflation. Where they were about $3,000 for a first novel about 10
years ago, they're still at or near that number.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Just wondering how far you had gotten with the outline for future
:Crusade stories. We all know about the ones that were up on bookface
:but did you have even a rough sketch of how the Crusade story would
:have played out over the next few years? Are you looking at ways of
:continuing the story in comic, book, miniseries, series form?
No, because Warner Bros. owns Crusade.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:And when B5 went only to one cable station (TNT followed by Sci-Fi)
:instead of multiple syndicated stations did this not lower the revenue
:potential of residuals?
Not in the way you mean it, but it would take WAY too long to explain
the details.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>I meant that only as the difference between potential and reality.
>Potential would have had B5 only 4 seasons long and maybe syndicated
>scattershot across the countries various TV station. The reality had
>it being 5 seasons long and continually syndicated since 1998 on an
>individual superstation that is seen by a wider audience. The critics
>would latch on to the "potential" revenue lost to actors residuals by
>B5 only having exclusive rights to one station. The reality means B5
>has had continual exposure with occasional efforts to add in new
>blood. This could mean when it is given to the open market, more
>stations will latch onto it for broadcast. Of course, this was my
>interpretation of the matter. The writers and actors have a better
>position to form an opinion on the matter since the results affect
>their livelyhoods.
It doesn't really work that way.
You're paid on the rerun qua rerun, not on the number of stations
carrying it. WB makes a deal with whomever...a syndicator, a cable
network, somebody...and that organization pays X-dollars per episode
for the right to show it for the length of that contract (usually
about 3-5 years).
There's a slightly different residual formula for cable vs. syndication,
but rather than get bogged down in that, let me get to the point.
If an episode runs on a thousand stations or twenty, the residual is
the same, a percentage of the purchase price of the episode. So the
number of stations really doesn't matter.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers, about "Superman: Birthright":
:Get it. Read it. You'll know why.
Got it. Haven't yet. Will.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:My question is, should copyright extend past the death of the author,
:and if so for how long? If it were up to you? While I agree that the
:author should receive compensation for his works through his old age,
:is it part of society's obligation to provide for the author's heirs?
:If so, for how long?
Well, that's really the rub, isn't it? If copyright means ownership
-- and technically it does -- then it really shouldn't be any
different from passing along anything else one owns to one's family.
It's a part of the estate, same as the old rollaway desk and pictures
of the family dog.
Society's obligation? Seems like we're again looking at the wrong end
of the microscope. The Bush administration is inche away from
*totally* repealing estate taxes, so you carry the burden of that lost
revenue in what you as an individual pay. (Sidelight: the Democrats
said, at one point, "look, tell you what, why don't we just exempt the
first hundred million dollars from estate taxes, but if you get over
$100,000,000, you have to pay some taxes." The Republicans dismissed
it out of hand, not one person went for it. Kind of tells you where
their proirities are, doesn't it? This ain't about helping poor
farmers keep their farms. And whenever they've used that line, btw,
it's been shown afterward that not one farmer could be produced who
lost his farm due to estate taxes.)
Corporations earning billions of dollars incorporate overseas and pay
zero taxes...you and the rest of society are picking up the check on
that one. Personally, I'd be more concerned about that than the
average novel, which earns only a few thousand bucks a year. There
aren't many Steinbecks among us right now.
So yeah, I do think the period should extend beyond the author's life.
Fifty years is a goodly amount of time, but if it were to be peeled
back a bit from that, say to 20 or 30, I'd be okay with that.
One sidelight to this thing...most writers working at a certain level
these days incorporate, and all their works are owned/copyrighted by
the corporation, not the individual. So all Harlan's works are (c)
the Kiliminjaro Corporation, and mine are (c) Synthetic Worlds, Ltd.
Which means that the works are copyrighted for *the life of the
corporation*, not my life.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:>Corporations earning billions of dollars incorporate overseas and pay zero
:>taxes...you and the rest of society are picking up the check on that one.
:Of course you are anyway since corp are legal entities and any taxes
:they pay don't just spring up from nowhere. They are taken from us in
:higher prices, from the shareholder's equity (and with very few
:exceptions the vast majority of the stock is held outside of the
:Inherently Evil board of directors) or wages. If you want to tax them
:for extra rev., go ahead and do it. Don't try to sell it like you are
:stopping the robber barons because all you are doing is taking money
:from one of these three pots.
First, what you have to understand is that what doesn't get paid in
taxes ends up in huge dividends to members of the BoD and to the
CEO...millions of dollars in bonuses that might otherwise have been
paid in taxes.
Second, you have to look at the long term trend in taxation of the
last fifty years. At one point, about fifty years ago, corporations
made up about 70% of the tax burden, while individual taxpayers,
consumers, made up about 30%. Over the decades, that has shifted
until it's nearly inverted...with corporations paying about 30% of the
overall tax burden, and consumers paying the remaining 70%.
Specifically because the corporations have received so much in tax
breaks, corporate welfare, and other writeoffs that billions of
dollars simply go untaxed.
You're right, if it doesn't come out of one pot, it comes out of the
other...only in this case, that pot is your wallet.
As for higher prices...there's a limit which people will generally
accept for some items, and in truth, you're getting gigged for higher
prices anyway. When Michael Eisner took over Disney, he raised the
ticket price at Disneyland so that it brought in millions more that
year in revenue. And as it turns out, his bonus that year...was
exactly equal to what had come in through the jacked up ticket prices.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Question -- what are the benefits of setting up your copyright with a
:corporation? I can sort of sketch out why, but from a theoretical
:point of view, not from having done it. Can you spell out why you
:and others do it this way?
I already answered part of this in the message you cite, where I noted:
:>So all Harlan's works are (c) the Kiliminjaro Corporation, and mine
:>are (c) Synthetic Worlds, Ltd. Which means that the works are
:>copyrighted for *the life of the corporation*, not my life.
So if the corporation survives for 170 years, that is the life of the
owner of the copyright, and it belongs to SWL for 170 years. Now, the
odds of that actually *happening* are about zero, but that's the
theory. They can also be assigned as a corporate value and
transferred. It also separates out who owns what in case of lawsuit.
If you are sued as an individual, the properties owned by the
corporation are generally protected.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Is there a point where a book *should* enter the public domain?
Ultimately, yeah, I think so. I think that at some point, a work of
art must pass from the hands of the creator to the hands of the world,
so that it can be remembered and propagated and cherishd.
What that point in time might be, is what the lawyers are still trying
to define.
jms
>Not a JMS post, but a link to a good interview with JMS:
http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/features/105711664063764.htm
>JMS quotes and answers:
:... the real question is... would JMS like to stop eating and paying
:his bills, just to get Crusade back.
Thing is, of course, there's zip that I can *do* that would achieve
that result. I can stand outside WB and hold my breath until I turn
blue, but that's about it. If a network were to come to them and ask
for it, that's one thing...but the studio owns Crusade, and without a
compelling marketplace and an interested buyer, there's nothing they
can or will do in the matter.
(Which goes to the note some people post asking why I don't write in
this area anymore, do I not care about it. Yeah, of course I do, but
WB owns it, and if I went otf and started writing stories in that
universe I'd be infringing their ownership.)
:Frankly, I dont like the idea of going to a convention and seeing a
:bag of bones with the name tag, JMS attached to its breast.
Which, actually, is not that different from the real thing....
jms
>JMS, SuperHero:
Just a little story, a day in the life, as they say....
You'll remember, when last we gathered, I mentioned that a number of
feral cats and kittens had settled onto the property. (And I think
I've found a group that can help with them.)
Anyway...on Thursday morning, about 9:45 a.m., I heard a caterwauling
from behind the house. I went back to see what the heck was going on,
and the cats scattered from where they'd gathered. As soon as they
were gone, I found out what they were going on about...a mewling was
coming from one of the landscaping drains.
Understand: around the house are a series of vertical 4" landscaping
drains, which usually have covers on them. Designed to carry away
water, they go vertically down about 2 to 2 and a half feet, where
they T into a series of smaller (maybe 3") PVC tubes that evacuate the
water out into the street.
When I looked down the vertical tube, which had somehow lost its cap,
I saw a kitten, maybe 4 weeks old, two-thirds of the way down the
tube, where it had fallen. I reacted instantly and reached in to grab
the kitten, shoving my arm into the tube as far as I could reach...and
I could just barely touch fur. I tried to pull my arm back for
another try...and found that I was stuck. Badly. It's worth
mentioning that, at this particular moment, I was alone in the house.
I fought, twisted, turned, and after several minutes finally got my
arm free.
When I looked back into the drain tube...the kitten was gone,
somewhere in the T that went off in different directions. I could
hear him mewing down there.
I called animal control, and they sent someone over...unfortunately,
it was just one person with a stick and loop, which wouldn't do any
good because he was at very least a few inches around the corner of
the T. And the animal control people don't dig for liability reasons.
By the time she'd arrived, the kitten had stopped mewing. She
suggested that perhaps he had made his way out the street-side drain
already, but in any event, there was nothing that could be done until
they knew a) if he was still in there, and b) where in that maze of
pipes he was.
At this point I had to leave to take care of some appointments that
couldn't wait or be postponed, though I continued to worry. I kept
hoping he'd made it out.
I got back to the house around 6:00 p.m. or so, went back...no sound.
I leaned into the long tube, and...well, mewed. Over and over. I'd
just about given up, and was ready to assume he had indeed gotten out
safely, when I mewed one last time...and from deep underground, he
mewed back.
He was still in there. I think he must have gone to sleep or been too
scared to respond earlier. Now he was calling back in a big way. And
the sound was coming from between that tube and the one nearby which
was a sheer drop to a second maze of tubes beneath.
Frantic, I put blocks at the other tubes in an attempt to keep him
from going any further, then called every plumber in the phone book.
Nobody got back to me; it was, remember, the night before the 4th, and
they wanted to start their vacations. Finally, desperate, I called
the Fire Department, and after several who couldn't help, I found one
that would.
So around 8:00, the bigass fire truck pulled up in front of the house,
and out came the fire captain and three of his guys. They went to the
drain area, and the captain said, "Sir, do you confirm there's a cat
in there?" I confirmed, and they went to work. They dug out the
original vertical tube, pulling out a small cypress in the process,
taking turns, breaking two shovels but still going Even the captain
got in there to do his share of the digging.
Finally, having cleared away the dirt around the tube, we're talking
about a hole nearly three feet deep and as wide around, they removed
the vertical tube and put in a mirror to check the lower tube (which
was, again, only about 3" wide).
No kitten. He'd either gotten past the blocks, or -- my worst
suspicion -- had fallen down the intersecting tubes that would have
taken him even deeper underground. And he'd gone silent again.
Since there was nothing else that could be done at that point, they
headed out. Figuring that the kitten must still be mobile if he was
able to get out of there, I stayed at the hole from 8:30 until 11:30
p.m., never taking my eyes off the hole, putting out cat food and
lights to try and attract him if he came this way again.
Nothing.
Around midnight, the mewing came back again, weaker than before. He'd
now been in these underground tubes, meant to carry away water, for
nearly 15 hours. It was dark above and no doubt pitch black beneath.
I went back to the phone book. Called everybody I didn't call the
first time. Finally, a 24 hour plumbing service sent out a guy at nearly
1 a.m. When I explained the situation, he said he might have to tear
up the pipes, uproot another tree, and it was gonna cost a lot. I
said do whatever you have to. Seeing how determined I was, and that it
was a kitten, he knocked some of the price down, and started digging.
After half an hour, he had the idea to call his brother who had a
snake-camera, the kind you fish in to look at obstacles. Didn't know
if he was home, but tried. Got the brother, he came out, joined the
effort. Kept putting the snake in and looking around. The video
carmera showed nothing, though we could still hear him. It had now
been sixteen hours.
Finally, they shouted and I ran to the display. I could see the
outline of the kitten, on its side, half in water. It had to raise
its mouth above water to mew. The kitten totally filled the pipe,
meaning there was no way it could turn around, it could only go
forward. And that's what it had been doing for sixteen hours, going
forward in the pitch blackness and the water, crawlilng blind. It was
now deeper into the maze, but at a point where if it backed up, it
would eventually get to the opening dug by the fire department. But
that was nearly 20 feet back. If we tried to dig, he might scoot
forward and get clear...and if he went further, he'd be under
concrete, and the end was blocked by roots. If we lost him this time,
he'd be gone for good.
So we started bonking him in the nose with the snake camera. He put
up a heck of a howling at this, but he backed up. Inch by inch, bonk
by bonk, we backed him up for twenty feet.
Finally, he was getting near enough to the opening for me to see the
red light of the camera lighting the tube. I dived into the
freshly-dug hole face first, shoving my hand into the pipe in hopes of
snaring him when he came this way. I knew I was only going to get one
shot at this, and if he squirmed past me, we'd be screwed. It was now
2 in the morning, and there I was upside-down in the mud, hand shoved
into the drain, with every imaginable mosquito and insect crawling
over me, biting, stinging...I'm pretty sure I saw a black widow spider
crawl over the back of my hand. But there was no power on earth that
was going to get me to pull my arm out of that drain; I missed him
once, I wasn't going to miss him again. The water was also backing up
around the kitten, and I could hear him gurgling, choking.
Suddenly I felt his back feet brush my hand. I grabbed hold for all I
was worth, resolved not to let go, and began pulling. To give you some
idea how tightly he was jammed in there, as I pulled his fur dragged
the pipe on all sides, making a shuuuuuuppppp sound as I pulled him
out, worried that I might injure him by the angle I had to use.
With a final pop he came loose and up into my arms, covered in mud,
soaking wet, shivering, but he was OUT goddamnit. The guys were so
moved that they agreed to come back the next day for almost nothing to
fix all the pipes and even replant the trees.
We bundled him up in a towel and got him to an all night emergency
vet's office, where he was diagnosed with extreme hypothermia.
Another couple of hours and he wouldn't have made it. He would've
lost too much body heat.
He stayed at the vet's for 48 hours, getting warmed up, checked out,
getting his blood work and vaccinations done, they checked his fluids
and rotated his tires...and he's fine. His name is Buddy, for what I
said when I got him out, over and over, "you're okay, buddy, you're
okay now."
As I type this, covered in little bites, with the garden more or less
back as it was, he is in one of the guest bathrooms, sleeping soundly
on a warm towel, surrounded by small toys and big bowls of food and
kitten milk. The one thing I've found I can't do is turn the lights
off. He's scared of the dark, and probably will be for a while. He's
the sweetest tempered kitten you've ever seen, with gray-blue eyes,
long black and white fur, and he's just happy to be alive.
I haven't yet decided if I'm going to keep him or let him go for
adoption when the other cats and kittens are taken, but the main thing
is he's okay. The little buddy's okay.
A day in the life, as they say....
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Anyway, as I sit here tearing up just a little, I have to add that I'm
:with Jan -- I think he's yours. You saved his life; now you're
:responsible for him, right?
Thing is, I'm pretty much catted out right now, I just don't think I
can take on another.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:IIRC, development season should be starting around now. Any plans on
:dusting off "Polaris" and/or "World on Fire" and pitching them again?
Polaris is still making the rounds, so we'll see what happens on that
front. "Wofld on Fire" is not do-able anymore because the events of
the world caught up with the story. (Essentially, it was about the
events leading up and following America getting into its next war,
starting with an attack on New York. Very eerily, nearly everything
that was in the script and the planned series has now happened, so the
show is now a moot issue.)
:What's happening with your other projects - new, old , TV, comic,
:play, audio drama or anything else?
I've put my play "Among the Ruins" on a back burner for now, because
it got too clever for its own good, too slick, almost self-consciously
so...it needs time to season and develop the right kind of maturity.
Comics: the first issue of Supreme Power comes out August 6th, and
it's going to be a terrific book. And Spidey continues apace, I'm
just about to start writing issue 500, a 38 page monster that
culminates a three-issue arc that encompasses much of Spidey's history
and some things that should be real surprises for people.
TV: I'm making the network rounds with the people at Marvel
Productions, pitching a new series, but that's all I can say about it
for the moment.
Audio: I've finished the 20 short scripts for "The Adventures of
Apocalypse Al" for a company that will be distributing them either
late fall or early Spring 2004. It's a very, very funny series.
Other than that, working on a novel, making the pitch rounds for
Midnight Nation as a feature, and taking some down time after
finishing season two of Jeremiah last month.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers, about the 1959 "Twilight Zone" series:
:Over on another group I already gave my answer (probably won't be up
:'till tomorrow AM). Just wondered what *you* like about it.
The ingenuity of the stories, especially for that time, the quality of
the performances, and more than anything, the quality of the language,
which was and is amazing to behold.
jms
--
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.info <*> Another fine service of ISN, Mars Bureau
submissions to: b5-...@plage.stanford.edu
comments to: b5-info...@plage.stanford.edu
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dirk A. Loedding <*> ju...@america.net |
| |
| To subscribe to the jms-posts mailing list, go to |
| http://www.yetta.net/mailman/listinfo/jms-posts |
| Archive of JMS Posts at http://america.net/~judge |
| Schedule information at http://america.net/~judge/b5sched.txt |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+