attn. JMS: A TV writing question...
Thunder 03
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.
t.k.
Jms at B5
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...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
David Williams
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030627230845...@mb-m20.aol.com...
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
Hmmm... Do I sense some sort of implied show-business metaphors here?
Something to do with bloated carnivorous predators or savages with clubs...
-David W.
Jms at B5
>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 at B5
to movies playing in the LA area).
The correct link is:
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/opinion/perspective/06082003A.html
jms
Jan
> 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.
Isn't that difficult at times, especially since you've said that you've got the
entire episode written in your head before setting finger to keyboard?
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.
Jan
horrid goblin
> 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.
>
Yeah you'd have to be pretty crazy to try it any other way, I heard of this
one freak that planned out a 5 year arc for his show. what a nut job
The Nuclear Marine
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in
news:20030628030101...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>>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=setLocat
> ion &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.
>
>
Hey, look at that, Dumb and Dumberer is playing near you. Wonder if you
should send tickets to that movie to TNT execs.
Nuke
--
Listen to the Black Atheist Avenger: www.InfidelGuy.com
Atheist Radio on the Internet: www.AtheistNetwork.com
She's dead Jim, but still warm, I'll flip you for her.
macthe...@yahoo.com
Excellent article! Thanks for the link.
Excerpts from the article, in quotes:
"As the movie business has changed, liberal critics have raised the
alarm over corporate censorship. But the danger of censorship in the
United States of America is less from business or the religious right
or the self-righteous left than from self-censorship by artists
themselves, who simply give up. If we can't see a way to get our story
told, what is the point of trying? I wonder how many fine, inspiring
ideas are strangled in the womb of the imagination because there's no
way past the gates of commerce."
Actually, this is sickening. The taking over of the creative aspect
by Wall Street, the domination by the blockbuster mentality, the risk
averse, the idea of as much profit as possible and nothing ever being
enough profit, lead to less variety (via "more-of-the-same"
blockbusters) and the subjugation of the story. It's putting the cart
before the horse.
"To the studios today, the art of film and TV is a byproduct of their
main business, a side effect, and like most side effects, more likely
to be a noxious nuisance than a benefit."
There's a lot of arrogance there. Without the art, the product is
nothing but empty calories. It sounds like the meetings are ruled by
MBAs and accountants. Without the story, there's no reason to go and
see the movie.
"But movies are more than a commodity. Movies are to our civilization
what dreams and ideals are to individual lives: They express the
mystery and help define the nature of who we are and what we are
becoming."
As B5 and Crusade do, e.g. "The Needs of Earth." I get the feeling
that Vir would observe the current situation, look at Hollywood and
ask "What was it all for, I wonder? What was any of it for?"
"We need writers with ideas and passion, who write with force and
conviction; directors who have minds enriched by their lives and not a
library of stunts and special effects."
There's nothing necessarily wrong with stunts and special effects, as
long as it's in support of the story, and not the other way around.
Too often in movies today, a minimal story seems to be there solely to
tie together special effects sequences. B5 had lots of special
effects, but they *added* to the *realism* of the story, but it's the
*story* that was in the driver's seat, *not* the special effects.
"They must be centered in their feelings and ideas in the culture and
society, not in comparing grosses and applauding computer-generated
ballets of violence."
True, about "comparing grosses," and CGI for CGI's sake.
"We need it like we need clean drinking water and roads, green parks
and libraries; it is as important as the breath of democratic life.
Somehow we need to keep alive in our hearts the vision of community,
shared interests and understanding of our neighbors' needs, the sense
of connection this fractionated society is losing."
That society is losing this, is scary, and sad. As long as the MBAs
and accountants have their current levels of influence, it's only
going to get worse. About all that can turn things around is if the
general public starts getting tired of it, and votes by withholding
their money. Hopefully, this will happen with "Reality TV" soon, via
low ratings.
KoshN
Aisling Willow Grey
> 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<<
Great article, although at first I wondered if you were trying to get us
to take you to the movies or something...
Anyway, you could change a few words here and there and it would have
been a great article about the music industry, too. And look how the
music industry is starting its slow spin into the toilet. It's taken
decreasing profits in double digits for the music industry to even
realize that its death throes have begun; but, all death is change, and
change (while painful) is often good. So maybe there's hope for the
music industry -- similarly, let's hope the movie/tv industry has an
epiphany at some point.
Aisling
The Nuclear Marine
"horrid goblin" <horrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:10567808...@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net:
Tragic story really. Shame what happened to him. The penguin never
recovered either and had to be put down.
Robert Perkins
wrote:
>http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/opinion/perspective/06082003A.html
Well. The mainstream fare offered *is* these days very consistent, by
and large, with the urges of a teenage boy, isn't it? Why else would
they have to hit us all over the head with
Nail on the head, man. So, what we have is entertainment producers who
are told to pander to the most hedonistic segment of society (that
teenage boy demographic).
Or even in programming for small children. True, the cartoons they
showed were at times inappropriate, but the local clown shows were
*local*, fer cryin' out loud. And now that both of the independent
stations in my area are affiliates of FOX and Paramount, those shows
are just gone, replaced by Pokemon and its ilk. Let's all congratulate
ourselves; Japanese toy manufacturers teach community values to our
kids, instead of the communities we live in.
And the content providers, the likes of Disney/ABC, Scripps Howard (as
a smaller player), NewsCorp, and Viacom, who bundle banal re-run
channels with the high-demand channels and force the lineup and the
cost of the lineup down our throats through must-carry and
most-favored-nation clauses to the cable companies, make it worse. Can
I order my channels a la carte? Under no circumstance, because I, the
end consumer of the product have no contract with the people who make
the product I consume. There are two bazillion middlemen in the way
taking a cut, and making my cable/satellite bill climb every year.
I'm the kind of consumer who wants to receive a total of eight
channels, but in order to receive those channels I have to pay for 93
others I don't want. And the situation is messy enough that even
though I want to receive those feeds on Mountain Time (which would let
me receive programming two or three hours earlier than otherwise, so
that I didn't have to wait until 10:00 p.m.), they've actually
jiggered the LAW to deny me the right to buy reception of channels in
different markets at ANY price.
Yeah, I could get TiVo. I probably will this fall. Then I can subject
myself to only that programming I want at more convenient times. AND
I'll be able to store off five or six "Bob the Builders" or whatever
for a little innocuous TV babysitting, with programming under my
control.
But bundling and dumbing-down is just killing the national TV
entertainment industry.
(rant off. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Ahem. ;-) )
Rob
Robert Perkins
Yeah, he probably grew a whole head of grey hair trying to keep the
show on the air. Maybe he even had to take over all the writing...
Rob, ;-)
Jan
>Tragic story really. Shame what happened to him. The penguin never
>recovered either and had to be put down.
Yeah, but Sinclair's Duck made it all the way to the end. <g>
Jan
Aisling Willow Grey
> [posted and mailed]
>
> "horrid goblin" <horrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:10567808...@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net:
>
>
>>"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah you'd have to be pretty crazy to try it any other way, I heard of
>>this one freak that planned out a 5 year arc for his show. what a nut
>>job
>>
>
>
> Tragic story really. Shame what happened to him. The penguin never
> recovered either and had to be put down.<<
Put down? Don't you mean blown up? Of course, if you _weren't_
referring to the penguin on top of the telly....
Aisling
Eliyahu Rooff
"Aisling Willow Grey" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:3EFE34A3...@fjordstone.com...
industry. What everyone in it forgets is that the idea of musicians becoming
filthy rich from songs they've written or performed is an extremely recent
innovation.
Likewise, copyright that's virtually held in perpetuity is a new concept
that IMHO isn't sensible. One of the factors affecting this, of course, is
that the ability to record a performance is something that didn't exist at
the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and wasn't anticipated.
The argument in favor of the most recent extension of copyright was that it
is needed to encourage writers and musicians to innovate and create. It
isn't. What it does is give large corporations control over the works of
others long after their deaths.
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?
Eliyahu
Jms at B5
Saturday, at 10 pst, not Sunday.
Thunder 03
done, they get to worrying about writing the next one? I see. I sort of
figured that much, but wasn't really sure.
t.k.
Jms at B5
>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 at B5
>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.
Wendy of NJ
THIS musician writes technical manuals for a telecommunications company
to put food on the table and afford to keep her cello playable. If I had
to live off my income from music, we'd all starve on the streets.
I agree the current copyright laws are more to help Walt Disney Company
and AOL/TimeWarner, but if that means I can collect royalties from my
mother's books for a while, I am NOT going to complain.
Copyright is not a patent. I strongly think that a person should be
permitted to control the use of thier creations for their lifetime.
Otherwise, you are going to hear your "public domain" music as the
soundtrack to a porno film. (I believe that happened to Robert Fripp, by
the way, because his "agent" sold him out.)
> Eliyahu
>
>
>
Eliyahu Rooff
What I said was "fifteen years, renewable once." That means income for
thirty years from what you write today. (This, BTW, is entirely unlike the
results of the writing that I do for my livelihood, for which I'm paid
hourly wages, and which is then filed with the court and becomes public
domain. Why shouldn't I receive royalties when an appellate brief which I've
drafted is cited in case law or in pleadings?)
Writing, BTW, is far from being the only field of endeavor thats not
gracious on aging members. In fact, it's much easier for a writer or artist
to continue his work in old age than someone who works in a field requiring
good health, strength and speed. Few folks are astounded when Arthur C.
Clarke releases yet another book despite his advancing age. Similarly, IIRC,
J.S. Bach dictated some final changes to his music while on his deathbed.
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. People engage in a single
amazing act of heroism and then vanish into obscurity. Others make a
suggestion or two that results in a complete change for an entire industry
and are never heard from again. Why should entertainment be a special case?
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 heirs or corporate
heirs. In fact, the use of "limited" would suggest that it was never the
intent of the Founding Fathers to offer lifetime income. Promoting the
"Progress of ... the useful Arts..." is sometimes done better by the absence
of copyright protection. 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. 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.
Eliyahu
Aisling Willow Grey
> Okay, two JMS screwups...the comics special on the history channel is tonight,
> Saturday, at 10 pst, not Sunday.<<
For those who missed this airing, it's also on at 6 PM eastern time
tonight (Sunday evening).
Aisling
Aisling Willow Grey
Yeah, but that wouldn't have anything to do with term of copyright;
that's an ownership issue between him and whoever he signed over his
rights to.
The famous case of a term of copyright expiring during the lifetime of a
creator is Irving Berlin and "Alexander's Ragtime Band." His outliving
his own copyright in that composition is what prompted the US to revisit
our copyright laws, which were very complicated before January 1, 1978
(and which are still complicated for works created before January 1,
1978). We went to the posthumous system (i.e. x amount of years after
the death of the last creator of any work) for works created after that
date; the previous system was registration for 28 years, renewal for 28
years, plus an extension of 19 years, but _only_ if you had filled out
all of the paperwork correctly. Ack. I can't tell you how irritating
this process was on the poor, underpaid publishers. :-p
Anyway, I have no objection to creators being compensated for a period
beyond their own lifetimes; if your parents worked at a job in a factory
or an office their whole lives, and put aside money in a trust fund
for their descendants, you'd be entitled to the fruits of their labors.
Why should creative artists not be permitted to provide for their
descendants? But I'm honestly not sure how I feel about "life plus 90."
I think my feelings about the revisions in the law are colored by the
fact that it was nearly exclusively driven by the greed of Disney not to
lose their rights to the Mouse. And I know my former company is eager
not to lose "Carmina Burana" and "Mack the Knife," their two big
moneymakers! I'm pretty sure both of them would have gone into the
public domain after this year, had the extension not gone through.
Aisling
Wendy of NJ
Wow, I didn't know Carmina Burana was a modern work. And let's not
forget "Happy Birthday To You" - that's still earning royalties for
whoever owns it now...
-Wendy
John C. Anderson
<< Anyway, you could change a few words here and there and it would have
been a great article about the music industry, too. And look how the
music industry is starting its slow spin into the toilet. It's taken
decreasing profits in double digits for the music industry to even
realize that its death throes have begun; but, all death is change, and
change (while painful) is often good. So maybe there's hope for the
music industry -- similarly, let's hope the movie/tv industry has an
epiphany at some point.
>>
Unfortunately, the music industry thinks the whole problem is Napster and other
music downloading sites. Maybe if they actually listened to the stuff they're
putting out they'd realize that the reason people aren't buying albums is that
there is almost no mainstream music worth buying. And what little there is of
quality is from older groups still making good stuff, or from fringe performers
who aren't trying to make the next hot pop/rap/hip-hop hybrid hit.
"It is strange that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a
thing. Such a little thing."
Boromir
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
I'm just disappointed, though that we lost Ivanova's tots in the 5th
season!
--
Carpe Dementem! (grab the wacko)
Wes Struebing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
str...@carpedementem.org
home page: www.carpedementem.org
Phil
wrote:
>>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.
>
I have seen it, not bad. I was hoping rhey would credit you and your
words, but they didn't.
Andrew Swallow
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030629050719...@mb-m25.aol.com...
[snip]
> 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.
>
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.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
"Jan" <janmsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030628224008...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Did it look like this 10 foot tall one?
<http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg166224
04.800>
Andrew Swallow
Kay Shapero
lro...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> Part of the problem with the music industry is just that -- it's become an
> industry. What everyone in it forgets is that the idea of musicians becoming
> filthy rich from songs they've written or performed is an extremely recent
> innovation.
One of the best musicians I know, Leslie Fish, deliberately
stayed out of it for just that reason. Didn't want to get under
the rain of bullpucky. Which hasn't stopped her from being
successful in the sense of acclaim and applause (go look up her
name on Google.) And she's not the only one. There's a thriving
musical culture about well under the radar of the "music
industry" moguls, thank goodness!
--
Kay Shapero
reply address munged - use earthlink.net
filk FAQ http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/filkfaq.htm
David Williams
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@eatspam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bdo35e$717$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> 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.
>
> Andrew Swallow
Anyone please correct me if I am wrong, but "Royalties" were pretty much
unheard of that long ago. If you traveled back in time and used that word,
they'd think you were referring to Elizabeth and her brood.
-David W.
Jms at B5
>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 at B5
>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.
Peter Schuller
> 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.
But this isn't due to copyright law, or am I wrong? Obviously it sucks that
the *makers* of the "product" being sold do not receive proper compensation,
but I would think this is regulated through a plethora of standard contracts
between everyone involved?
I.e., AFAIK copyright law doesn't have anything to say about compensation;
only who's got the rights to what. Once they have the rights, they can do
whatever they want to do within those rights.
So while I whole-heartedly agree that the above stinks, I don't agree it's
an argument against shortening copyright periods.
Perhaps the best thing would be if the makers retained the copyright, and
licensed the material for use by the corporations.
--
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB
PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <peter.s...@infidyne.com>'
Key retrival: Send an E-Mail to getp...@scode.org
E-Mail: peter.s...@infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org
Jan
>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.
>
I really kind of wonder about that. I know that there's a lot of heat over
Napster and it's clones as well as over Internet piracy but is it really going
to have any effect but a small *benefit* in the long run?
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'?
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?
So I guess my question is...Is the sky really falling? I've read results of
people performing the experiment of having items free online who've experienced
positive results. Can the opponents show similar experiments? Granted that one
can't prove a negative but I've never even seen a poll where the respondents
claimed that they wouldn't buy something available for free online.
Wondering,
Jan
Aisling Willow Grey
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 07:02:52 +0000 (UTC), jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5)
> wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>
> I have seen it, not bad. I was hoping rhey would credit you and your
> words, but they didn't.<<
Yeah, I was mildly irked by that, too. They talked about how Spiderman
was the quintessential New York superhero, and thus he _had_ to address
the tragedy...and I figured they were about to mention Joe...but then
they cut right over the Batman writer who started talking about the
issue he wrote about the terrible destruction in Metropolis. 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.
Aisling
David Williams
I seem to recall that copyrights of written works were once set at the
lifetime of the author plus 50 years. The "plus 50" was to allow the
author's surviving spouse and children to enjoy the benefits of the work,
especially in the vent of an untimely death. The assumption was that, by
the end of that 50 years, the spouse would probably have passed away
themselves, and the children would be well-enough established in life as to
no longer require the income.
At any rate, how have these laws changed?
-David W.
Aisling Willow Grey
>>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.
>
>
> But this isn't due to copyright law, or am I wrong? Obviously it sucks that
> the *makers* of the "product" being sold do not receive proper compensation,
> but I would think this is regulated through a plethora of standard contracts
> between everyone involved?
>
> I.e., AFAIK copyright law doesn't have anything to say about compensation;
> only who's got the rights to what. Once they have the rights, they can do
> whatever they want to do within those rights.
>
> So while I whole-heartedly agree that the above stinks, I don't agree it's
> an argument against shortening copyright periods.
>
> Perhaps the best thing would be if the makers retained the copyright, and
> licensed the material for use by the corporations.<<
If by "makers" you mean the creative artists, the reason they often do
not retain ownership in their copyrights is money. If a composer of
symphonic music wants to have a publisher, he has to (in most cases)
relinquish at least partial ownership of his music. If he does _not_,
then he can publish himself. This involves hiring copyists, getting
masters made and copies of scores printed, getting the scores out to the
retail outlets that sell them and to the orchestras that rent them for
performances, having a warehouse and a rental library in which to hold
these very large scores, following up on the rental returns, handling
printing and sales problems, marketing and advertising so that people
even know that this new work exists, and also adminstering the
intellectual property end of things (negotiations, contracts, and any
legal actions) -- all things involving time, money, and labor, which, as
a composer of symphonic music, you probably do not have in spades. Even
the very small handful of successful composers in the US like John
Williams or Philip Glass would be hard pressed to have the resources
necessary to handle the work of an entire publishing company themselves.
Book publishing is much the same.
I'm sure there are similar examples in other fields of the entertainment
industry.
Aisling
Aisling Willow Grey
>>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?
>
Gosh, thanks, Joe. I didn't even know where to begin in my reply to
this one, my head was spinning so rapidly, so I decided to sit on it
overnight. Very glad you did the hard work so I don't have to!
Aisling
Eliyahu Rooff
> >
> >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.
>
paid members of society are not those whose contributions are the most vital
(teachers, firefighters, police officers, sanitation workers), but those who
amuse us the most, whether it be singers, actors or athletes. I don't
begrudge them a decent income, although I do question our tendency to
presume that being a celebrity makes one an expert in dealing with social,
political and military problems.
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) before losing
a sizable portion of my hearing in the Army. While being processed for
discharge, I cross-trained as an illustrator, producing posters, cover art,
illustrations for training materials, and was part of the team which
designed the Army's Air Assault badge. I've written two novels, numerous
short stories and have had several essays published. Currently, with the
benefit of the newest hearing aids the VA has to offer, 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.
Eliyahu
horrid goblin
"Jan" <janmsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> I really kind of wonder about that. I know that there's a lot of heat
I think the thing is sample by definition means a small seperated part
showing the quality of the whole. downloading and entire song/album,
episode/movie/whatever is not a sample it's the entire thing. Say you did
see a movie and you thought it was well worth seeing but not worth seeing
twice. you're probably not going to go down to the movie theatre and pay to
see it so that's nothing but lost reveneiw to the artist. It also takes the
art out of the artists intended medium. a movie director would want your
first viewing to be in the proper context of a movie theatre with a big
screen impressive sound etc, and by watching in bad resolution on am 18 inch
screen in an office chair with the lights on your detracting from the
expeerince of the movie and will probably judge it somewhat accordingly. and
in the case of music downloads arent temporary so as long as all the person
is interested in is the music not all the packaging that comes with it
they'll be less likely to go out and buy it
theres also a big difference in the way certain things are marketed for
example lesser known bands, products etc will get higher sales from being
downloadable because their best friend is word of mouth. where as bigger
known bands/products etc market themselves with hype and antisipation
because their previous works are already known so from there on they have to
sell by being different and keep people in the dark about what's coming
next. that's why Spoilers are called spoilers cos they spoil it for you even
if you choose to read them or not
David Williams
> Gosh, thanks, Joe. I didn't even know where to begin in my reply to
> this one, my head was spinning so rapidly, so I decided to sit on it
> overnight. Very glad you did the hard work so I don't have to!
Yeah, he does that once in a while...
-David W.
David S.
"David Williams" wrote
> I seem to recall that copyrights of written works were once set at the
> lifetime of the author plus 50 years. The "plus 50" was to allow the
> author's surviving spouse and children to enjoy the benefits of the work,
> especially in the vent of an untimely death. The assumption was that, by
> the end of that 50 years, the spouse would probably have passed away
> themselves, and the children would be well-enough established in life as
to
> no longer require the income.
>
> At any rate, how have these laws changed?
>
> -David W.
>
The Copyright Term Extension Act added 20 more years to existing copyrights.
My main issue with the extension is it is retroactive. 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.
This change was made to allow certain individuals to continue to make money
off the works in question, even though
they only market and sell the works. In future I expect another, and another
extension down the road.
For anyone who is interested a bill has been introduced to allow for unused
older copyright to enter public domain.
The bill is HR 2601 the "Public Domain Enhancement Act" You can check this
link for more information
http://www.eldred.cc/
David S.
Wendy of NJ
It depends on the contracts. From 50 years ago, maybe, because there WAS
not video/DVD aftermarket when that stuff was created, so it may have
revrted to the writers, etc. after it was pulled from general theatrical
release. Nowadays, these rights are specified in the contracts, and very
likely cover new and as yet undiscovered distribution and playback media.
> Andrew Swallow
>
>
>
Wendy of NJ
it's now life + 75, and I believe Dizzy (aka the Big Black Mouse) is
lobbying to get it increased. They don't want Tugboat Willie to go
public domain...
>
> -David W.
>
>
Wendy of NJ
Yes, the year I spent placing my CD in retail stores was NOT spent
touring or composing. However, the distributor that I finally landed
would only "push" the CD if I bought advertising, and that ate up most
of what would have been profits from their sales.
-Wendy
http://www.musicforthegoddess.com
Wendy of NJ
Eliyahu Rooff wrote:
> "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030630041031...@mb-m12.aol.com...
>
>>>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.
>>
>
> I know, and it is somewhat ironic that our "heroes" and many of the highest
> paid members of society are not those whose contributions are the most vital
> (teachers, firefighters, police officers, sanitation workers), but those who
> amuse us the most, whether it be singers, actors or athletes. I don't
> begrudge them a decent income, although I do question our tendency to
> presume that being a celebrity makes one an expert in dealing with social,
> political and military problems.
While I agree that a small percentage of artists, actors and athletes
make a phenomenal amount of money, usually in brief spurts, it's really
nothing compared to the executroids who run (I had a typo "ruin" but
erased it, and then re-thought the deletion) the planet. The lower end
execs at a company I worked for (granted, before the bubble burst) were
making 2 MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH, not including stock. That's not the
CEO or the President of the company, either. They made significantly
more. (I still boggle and wonder about how one could spend that much money)
Aisling Willow Grey
In the United States, works created before January 1, 1978 were
protected, _if properly registered with the Library of Congress_, for an
initial period of 28 years. If you properly renewed your copyright, it
was protected for a second period of 28 years, to which a 19-year
extension was eventually added. That was 75 years _from the date of
copyright_. Not from the date of creation. Not from the date of the
last author's death.
In the United States, works created _after_ January 1, 1978 were
protected for life plus 50, which meant 50 years after the death of the
last author (in the case of multiple authors, like a composer and a
lyricist). This brought us in line with most of the rest of the
intellectual-property respecting world, who pretty much all have
posthumous terms of copyright.
The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (which I think passed in fall of
2002) increased this posthumous term to 70 years. So again, a creative
work is protected for 70 years after the death of the last creator.
That's where things stand right now, with a few exceptions (most notably
corporate ownership of copyrights).
Aisling
Wesley Struebing
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>
>> I have seen it, not bad. I was hoping rhey would credit you and your
>> words, but they didn't.<<
>
>Yeah, I was mildly irked by that, too. They talked about how Spiderman
>was the quintessential New York superhero, and thus he _had_ to address
>the tragedy...and I figured they were about to mention Joe...but then
>they cut right over the Batman writer who started talking about the
>issue he wrote about the terrible destruction in Metropolis. 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.
>
I, too, was miffed a tad. A couple panels of Spidey saying, "God...",
and seeing the twisted beams of what was left was nice, but no mention
of the author. I was really hoping that ow might have had something
to say, as well.
<sigh>Life ain't fair!
The Nuclear Marine
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vfu5ln4...@corp.supernews.com:
> What I said was "fifteen years, renewable once." That means income for
> thirty years from what you write today. (This, BTW, is entirely unlike
> the results of the writing that I do for my livelihood, for which I'm
> paid hourly wages, and which is then filed with the court and becomes
> public domain. Why shouldn't I receive royalties when an appellate
> brief which I've drafted is cited in case law or in pleadings?)
>
Although I agree with your main point that copyright laws are too lengthy
(life + 90), you're first point mistakes intellectual property (writings,
paintings and inventions) with public domain (which your brief falls
under if submitted through the court system).
It's a complicated situation that's become even more so with Artificial
Persons (corporations) either buying copyrights or having them
automatically taken because of a rights to intellectual creation of an
employee. With patents, this gets even hairier. Main problem is that we
only think it's the corporations now benefitting from copyright laws
since the guy who does get a $1000 royalty check every month will go
unnoticed.
Ask me, patents need be protected longer and copyrights need be
shortened. We'll say, oh, 40 years from time of publishing or patenting.
Don't know how that will work in concert with Trademark laws but at least
The Guttenberg Project can add thousands of additional books to it's
list.
Nuke - getting in way over his head.
--
Listen to the Black Atheist Avenger: www.InfidelGuy.com
Atheist Radio on the Internet: www.AtheistNetwork.com
She's dead Jim, but still warm, I'll flip you for her.
Jms at B5
>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 at B5
>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.
Jan
>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.
Granted. I agree totally. I realized after I posted that I hadn't specified
that I'm only in favor of works being voluntarily available, never just
pirated.
>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.
Indeed. I've downloaded a few books (legally) but I generally end up buying
them in dead-tree form simply because my computer doesn't fit in my purse so I
can read in lines, waiting rooms, at lunch etc.
And again, 'way back when, record stores used to let you listen to entire
records (both 45s and albums) before deciding to buy. Sure, some probably
decided it was only worth hearing once. That's a risk that the store,
therefore the artists, took.
>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.
And I'd never want to take that from them. But there's at least some anecdotal
evidence that people who've downloaded items *do* still buy them.
Additionally, there's increased exposure and more effective word-of-mouth
advertising which is a help to smaller artists.
BTW, for those interested in the alternative view, here's the best articles
I've seen:
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html
Granted, most of the information in them is about the music industry but I
think much of it crosses over to written or visual media.
My main point is that I think the jury should still be out as to whether the
Internet is going to drive artists out of business in droves. Since artists are
often the ones with clearer vision, perhaps they just need to learn how to
harness this new technology rather than resist it.
Jan
Aisling Willow Grey
Whoopsy. Brain fart. Scratch "Metropolis"; insert "Gotham City." But
you all knew that I meant that. :-)
Aisling
Aisling Willow Grey
> [posted and mailed]
>
> "Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:vfu5ln4...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>>What I said was "fifteen years, renewable once." That means income for
>>thirty years from what you write today. (This, BTW, is entirely unlike
>>the results of the writing that I do for my livelihood, for which I'm
>>paid hourly wages, and which is then filed with the court and becomes
>>public domain. Why shouldn't I receive royalties when an appellate
>>brief which I've drafted is cited in case law or in pleadings?)
>>
>
>
> Although I agree with your main point that copyright laws are too lengthy
> (life + 90), you're first point mistakes intellectual property (writings,
> paintings and inventions) with public domain (which your brief falls
> under if submitted through the court system).<<
Just to elaborate on my earlier post, and to correct the information
here, copyright in the US, for works published after January 1, 1978,
subsists for _70_ years after the death of the last creator, not 90.
For anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire, copyright
endures for 95 years from first publication _or_ 120 years (!!!) from
creation, whichever expires first.
Most films and television programs are works made for hire.
Aisling
David Williams
"David S." <elven...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:slZLa.26$Fl5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> 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, picking a rather large nit: A creator of an artistic work does NOT
base their desire, nor exercise their desire to create on the current
copyright laws in place at a given time. They may be forced to juggle their
decision on **publishing** their creation But that's an entirely different
animal. In fact to the contrary, a creator may be entirely UN-happy about
given laws, but publish anyway. Why? Because for most, the simple act of
creating is not fulfilling enough. They also need to share their creation
with others. Eg. People usually write because they want other people to
read. (Unless of course it's a diary, or their initials are JDS.)
-David W.
David Williams
"The Nuclear Marine" <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote in message
> Nuke - getting in way over his head.
Yup. Please don't be offended if I just sit back & watch ya' get yer ass
kicked...
-David W.
Jan
>Say you did
>see a movie and you thought it was well worth seeing but not worth seeing
>twice. you're probably not going to go down to the movie theatre and pay to
>see it so that's nothing but lost reveneiw to the artist.
I'm not following here. Are you saying that the original viewing was
downloaded?
Jan
Jms at B5
>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 at B5
>> (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 at B5
>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.
The Nuclear Marine
The Nuclear Marine <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote in
news:20030630220054.ZIAD27992.fed1mtao05.cox.net@cx922182-d:
OK, I know I'm answering my own post, so sue me.
> [posted and mailed]
>
> "Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:vfu5ln4...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> What I said was "fifteen years, renewable once." That means income
>> for thirty years from what you write today. (This, BTW, is entirely
>> unlike the results of the writing that I do for my livelihood, for
>> which I'm paid hourly wages, and which is then filed with the court
>> and becomes public domain. Why shouldn't I receive royalties when an
>> appellate brief which I've drafted is cited in case law or in
>> pleadings?)
>>
>
>
> Ask me, patents need be protected longer and copyrights need be
> shortened. We'll say, oh, 40 years from time of publishing or
> patenting. Don't know how that will work in concert with
> Trademark laws but at least The Guttenberg Project can add thousands
> of additional books to it's list.
>
> Nuke - getting in way over his head.
>
Ok, the patent law is silly at the moment. People are now taking patents
then applying to specific areas of public domain to make it chargeable
(Bible online could be such a case). Odd case I heard was a man who
design a remote specifically for controlling a recorded football game
then states this applies to any electronic sports game so he wants a
quarter per.
The idea of life of author is appealing, but instead make it life of
author or 50 years, whichever comes later. This allows relatives to
benefit in event of early death after a great creation. Sad that this
gets into the nitpicky area of what length of time is appropriate.
As for the internet, let's face it, piracy and porn drive technology.
Piracy encourages protection against it while porn encourages wider use
of newer technology. A necessary evil so I'd say don't accept Napster or
Kazaa but develop technology that inhibits its use. Corporations will
not stop putting music out on CD's nor movies on DVD. Only trick is
force the trading back into the IRC's by making peer-to-peer trading
unproductive. For newsgroups, have the corporations sue providers that
make no effort to block pirated postings. The more inconvenient, the
less it's used ie sheep syndrome.
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. For music,
has radio had a negative or positive impact? HBO for movies? I think
idiotic MBA's cannot see past the wrong bottom line if the only benefit
is to the creators. Still, rules are rules.
Nuke
David B Terrell
> 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.
>
> 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.
To lend a little perspective, the most recent copyright extension act
extended copyright from 50 years after the author's death to 70 years.
(works for hire, where the copyright resides with the corporation who
employed the creator of the work now last for 95 years).
We're not really talking about whether or not people can eat anymore,
we're talking about whether or not your great-great-grandchildren
can go to college because they're still raking in royalties.
--
David Terrell |
Nebcorp Prime Minister |
d...@meat.net | The best free things in life are free.
http://wwn.nebcorp.com/ |
Pelzo63
people performing the experiment of having items free online who've experienced
positive results. Can the opponents show similar experiments? Granted that one
can't prove a negative but I've never even seen a poll where the respondents
two words... bottled water.
...Chris
Jeff Vavasour
> >drafted is cited in case law or in pleadings?
>
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.
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. That makes it unique and creative, and thus intellectual
property worthy of protection, but it may be a stretch to call it art.
(Incidentally, if we mold and tweak the definition for "art" so that it
encompasses such works, then the above statement would become circular: art
is worthy of protection; that which is worthy of protection is called art.)
> (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'd think this is the more relevant distinction. Citing is akin to excerpts
of a fictional work quoted for the purpose of review. Though, citing can be
even less infringing, being nothing more than a reference to a publication
without any quotes whatsoever.
- Jeff
Jms at B5
>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 at B5
>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.
macthe...@yahoo.com
A case of "sign the agreement or you don't work?" I guess all the
studios are unified on this? Feels monopolistic. The studios may
have bought the work, but by no stretch of the imagination can they be
considered the author of it, unless maybe it was written by a writer
who is in their employ (i.e. on staff). For example, when I was
salaried and on staff, any software I wrote was considered authored
and owned by the company.
KoshN
KoshN
Jan
>>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.
I think the point being made is that the library purchased one copy of a book
and made it available to many people to read for free. No royalties are paid
for each reading. This can be considered similar to a book being scanned and
made available online for free. Though a fair number of companies are making
works available for small fees successfully. Most of which proceeds (gasp!) go
directly to the author.
Perhaps as a non-artist I shouldn't have an opinion but I think that rather
than jumping on the bandwagon 'that the Internet will drive artists out of
business', the artists would be better off rebelling en masse against the
'blockbuster' mentality of music, print and video corporations. Now *that*
would benefit both artists and consumers.
Jan
Kurt Ullman
(Jms at B5) wrote:
>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?
>
I do a lot of magazines and similar work. This seems to be your equivalent
of my Work for Hire agreement. Lot of the same thinking behind it since WFH
really became popular after the courts had ruled that mags couldn't just put
articles in databases (our equivalent of syndication) without paying for them.
----
"There was an exponential rise in the use of the
apples and oranges metaphor over the last 20 years followed
by the inevitable tail off. When researchers tried to find a
reason for the tail-off, they noted the same thing was seen
in the NASDAQ yearly closing prices for the same time period."
Joseph DeMartino
a book
and made it available to many people to read for free. No royalties are
paid
for each reading. <
And royalties aren't (and never have been) paid for my friend reading a
copy of a book I bought or Blockbuster renting a videotape, or somebody
listening to music I bought in my home. So what? The point is still
that the library *paid* (usually for *many* copies of any popular book.)
And that the circulation of that limited number of copies is itself
limited by the *physical* nature of the distribution medium.
> This can be considered similar to a book being scanned and made
available online for free. <
Only by people who completely miss the point of the difference in the
*delivery* system. If a library has a book I want I must go to the
library to get it and I must return that book to the library within a
reasonable amount of time or face a fine. Same with everyone else.
Same with Blockbuster video rental. And the number of people who can
fit into my house and listen to music for free is quite limited. So's
the number of people who can read a book I own for free. (Only one can
read it at a time, only people who know me can borrow my books, etc.)
Now consider your "similar" case in the digital world: *Millions* of
people can access that "one copy". Each of them can make a perfect
digital copy of that original with no generational loss or distortion
and keep it forever. If I hear about a hot new author I may check out
one of her books from the library rather than shell out $25 to see if I
like her work. But if I *do* like it, I'll buy the next one. If I like
the first one sufficiently to read it again, chances are I'll buy a copy
of that, too, to have on my shelf anytime I want it. Even if I'm on a
budget and can't afford the $25 I may borrow the hardcover from the
library and buy the paperback in a year when that comes out. If I
"borrow" the same book from the internet "library" I already "own" my
copy and never have to buy it in any form at all.
Yeah, that's *real* similar, and obviously wouldn't have any impact on
creators' livelihoods at all. What the heck is wrong with all these
writers and artists thinking that the free internet is some kind of
threat?
Regards,
Joe
Joseph DeMartino
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? <
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
is, is the movie or television episode. When Universal or Fox or
Paramount ponies up 50 or 60 million bucks to produce a film which may,
in the end, little resemble the script it was based on (because it was
altered by the director, re-interpretted by the cast and totally
restructured in the editing room) it doesn't seem utterly outrageous to
me that they end up being considered the "author" for copyright
purposes. Because films (*pace* the French and the Director's Guild)
generally *have* no single author.
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.
Regards,
Joe
Stanley Friesen
>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
>heirs.
It is the corporate heirs that I am concerned about. Lifetime
protection for a human author is one thing, and may well promote "useful
arts", since it encourages more people to become authors.
But virtually unlimited protections for corporations is indeed stifling
to art and science, as you say. Many in Congress seem to have forgotten
that the purpose of these systems was to protect the *individual*, not
the corporation. What is going on here is similar to what is happening
in bankruptcy laws - where there is increasing protection for
corporations and lessening protection for individuals, despite that fact
that *originally* bankruptcy laws were written to protect individuals
from rapacious corporations.
> In fact, the use of "limited" would suggest that it was never the
>intent of the Founding Fathers to offer lifetime income. Promoting the
>"Progress of ... the useful Arts..." is sometimes done better by the absence
>of copyright protection. 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. 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.
>
Note - all of your examples of inhibition of art and science are by
*corporations*, not individual authors.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
> 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.
Mind you, what *I* am worried about is Congress continually extending
the term of *corporate* copyright, effectively making it infinite
without ever actually officially doing so. They are forgetting where
true creativity lies - in the *individual*.
Stanley Friesen
>>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.
>
Indeed I have long thought that the basic approach to art on the
Internet ought to be subscription services of some sort, which do indeed
pay the artists residuals.
Aisling Willow Grey
>>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.<<
Egads. Then, as a former publisher, I suppose this makes me...the
zookeeper! (I feel so unclean!) :-O
Aisling
Chris Patterson
janmsc...@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
> >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.
>
> I think the point being made is that the library purchased one copy of a book
> and made it available to many people to read for free. No royalties are paid
> for each reading. This can be considered similar to a book being scanned and
> made available online for free.
(Not sure I should be jumping into this thread, but here goes...)
This then becomes an issue of scale. A hard copy owned by the library
has a very finite "bandwidth" -- it can only be checked out by one
person at a time, within a well-defined geographic area. Thus it can
only be re-read (royalty-free) a certain average number of times per
year. The combined "bandwidth" of all library-owned copies of a work
worldwide has evidently been deemed acceptable (even beneficial) to
society.
The internet, however, offers vastly greater "bandwidth", as well as
effortless duplication, which (IMHO) crosses that "acceptable" line, and
certainly cannot be seen as "beneficial", at least to the golden geese
and those who enjoy their (continuing) works.
--
=====================================================================
Chris Patterson chrispatterson.at.comcast.dot.net
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
=====================================================================
Jo'Asia
> I think the point being made is that the library purchased one copy of a book
> and made it available to many people to read for free. No royalties are paid
> for each reading.
AFAIK in some countries they are (UK probalbly)
Jo'Asia
--
__.-=-. Joanna Slupek http://bujold.fantastyka.net/ .-=-.__
--<()> (Add one 'l' to 'hel' when replying by e-mail) <()>--
.__.'| ..................................................... |'.__.
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
Kurt Ullman
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>Egads. Then, as a former publisher, I suppose this makes me...the
>zookeeper! (I feel so unclean!) :-O
>
As a former editor, that seems to be a rather apt way to explain it. Maybe
ringmaster is better. (g).
jehanne
"The Nuclear Marine" :
> But honestly, has a library ever had a negative effect on people buying
> books?
In my experience: that depends on how good the book is, how enduring. Good
books available in libraries will increase book sales; fad-of-the-week books
available in libraries will decrease bookstore sales. I've seen this based
on my years of experience in libraries. Case in point is the latest Harry
Potter book; I was working on the Saturday morning after it came out, and I
was amazed that we didn't check out the last of our 75 copies until 2 in the
afternoon... and by the dozen or so people I helped who commented "oh, if I
had known you'd have the book today, we wouldn't have been at Barnes&Noble
last night. It's also book distrubutors delay delivery of new titles to
libraries for as long as possible (usually 2-4 weeks) in order to encourage
bookstores sales. (My county had to purchase its 450 copies -directly- from
the publisher, which we don't do very often.)
So, yes, libraries have some negative impact on sales of some books.
On the other hand: I went out and bought Alfred Bester's "The Demolished
Man" and "The Stars My Destination" a few months ago after reading both of
them from library copies. Not to mention my copies of books by Tolkien,
Asimov, Clarke, Le Guin, and Bronte, and gobs of non-fiction books - 'cause
I make it a point not to buy books (fiction, particularly) unless I know
they're good.
Now: try finding JMS's Spiderman trade paperbacks in your local library. If
your local public library has a graphic novel collection, and if they have a
copy that isn't beaten up beyond recognition, and if you can find it on the
disheveled rack of comics in the corner, then -maybe- you can read the first
volume (the only copy owned by my library, which is busiest public library
in the state.)
But I know JMS's reputation from television and from this newsgroup and from
his many online postings, so even though I'm not familiar with his comics
(aside from B5), I go out and buy the first -3- trades, sight unseen.
They're fantastic.
But am I going to go out and buy, for instance, Alan Moore's "Watchmen," or
"Swamp Thing," without being able at least to take a good look at them
first, even though I hear lots of praise for them? (Instead, I read my
finacee's copies, purchased a while back. They, too, were terrific.).
And try finding, for instance, some recent experimental music in libraries
(even good university libraries with prestigious music departments)... it's
tough. Really tough. I asked about "Buffy" on this group a little while
back, and I'd love to take a look at it... but the 1 university library in
my area with a significant DVD collection doesn't, as a rule, acquire DVDs
of television series, and I can't justify plonking down $40.00 for a show,
sight unseen, no matter how good it is.
IMHO, one of the best things artists, or publishers, and distributors can do
to promote the longer-term sales of truly meaningful creation, is to see
that they get good placement in libraries. Sadly, the large publishers and
distributors don't seem to be interested in dealing with art, just money.
*sighs*
jehanne
Den
$At....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com:
> Now consider your "similar" case in the digital world: *Millions* of
> people can access that "one copy". Each of them can make a perfect
> digital copy of that original with no generational loss or distortion
> and keep it forever.
"perfect copy" is incorrect. For online music, if you're lucky you can get
good downsampled copies. but you will never get perfect ones... almost
never. Dont even think about video. That is unless you consider shrinking
an image down to 25% of its size (and 5.1 channel sound reduced to 2) a
perfect copy.
In any case, by your suggestion, its not copying thats the problem, its the
amount of copying. The industry groups dont say that. These are the same
groups that tried to ban VCRs, then later found they could make zillions
more selling them... and the tapes. Now there was a good bit of foresight.
Other such groups tried to ban Xerox from making copy machines. And there
is alot of copying that could be called illegal. Yet I dont hear anybody
screaming that every business in the world should be scanned for such
activity... and that the machines should all be destroyed.
When was the last time everyone scanned something out of a magazine? Thats
illegal ya know.
jehanne
"Joseph DeMartino" wrote:
> 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
> is, is the movie or television episode.
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?
> 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?
jehanne
Aisling Willow Grey
The Music Publishers Association and the National Music Publishers
Association are both very active in prosecuting illegal photocopying of
music, and collecting damages.
>> When was the last time everyone scanned something out of a magazine? Thats
> illegal ya know.<<
Yeah. I know. What's your point?
Aisling
Den
news:3F01F8F9...@fjordstone.com:
> The Music Publishers Association and the National Music Publishers
> Association are both very active in prosecuting illegal photocopying
> of music, and collecting damages.
Yea... the music biz again. It really is the poster child for the "mine!
mine! mine!" syndrome. Are you speaking of photocopying or those who copy
things like CD covers and sell them?
Andrew Swallow
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
"Joseph DeMartino" <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:sAfMa.15109$gu6....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
Performers Rights in the UK Music Business
http://www.pamra.org.uk/
<http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/resources/other_ip_rights/perfo
rmers_rights.htm>
Here is an extract from the UK Equity (Actors Union) agreement with
Independent producers -
http://www.equity.org.uk/start_ftvr.htm
=> Film, Television, Radio
=> New PACT Television Production Agreement
"The Agreement contains an additional use fee structure, repeat
fees are a percentage of the Artists aggregate earnings i.e. 2nd
UK transmission 55%, 1st USA Network 75% and USA PBS 15%,
the Agreement contains provisions for an out of time escalator
for older productions being repeated. Artists receive a share of
a 17% royalty for sales of productions to UK cable, satellite and
digital channels."
Notice the part for an "out of time escalator for older productions
being repeated". When ever the BBC decides to celebrate its
50/60/70 birthday there are stories about the BBC having to
negotiate with every musician to repeat the very old shows.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
news:slrnbg25c...@pianosa.catch22.org...
[snip]
> To lend a little perspective, the most recent copyright extension act
> extended copyright from 50 years after the author's death to 70 years.
>
> (works for hire, where the copyright resides with the corporation who
> employed the creator of the work now last for 95 years).
>
> We're not really talking about whether or not people can eat anymore,
> we're talking about whether or not your great-great-grandchildren
> can go to college because they're still raking in royalties.
>
talking about whether a CEO can become a multi-millionaire
based on movies made before he was born.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
> >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.
>
contract is too one sided it is in the interests of one side to destroy
the agreement.
If continuing sales of the show do not result in royalties to the artists
then I have not yet heard a valid reason why corporate copyright
should not be limited to sufficient time to recover the money say
70 DAYS.
Fairness means that payments to the artists and payments to
the corporations should last the same length of time.
Copyright lasting seventy years is going to take a lot of explaining,
particularly when the senators realise that only the Californian
Senators have a duty to be pro long copyright. The rest are meant
to be the advocates reducing the length.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
news:20030701024229...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >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.
>
UK Public Libraries also pay a small royalty on the books borrowed.
> >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
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
"Jan" <janmsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030630210331...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> JMS wrote:
[snip]
> BTW, for those interested in the alternative view, here's the best
articles
> I've seen:
>
> http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
>
> http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html
>
> Granted, most of the information in them is about the music industry but I
> think much of it crosses over to written or visual media.
>
> My main point is that I think the jury should still be out as to whether
the
> Internet is going to drive artists out of business in droves. Since
artists are
> often the ones with clearer vision, perhaps they just need to learn how to
> harness this new technology rather than resist it.
>
Some random thoughts :
Sony, CBS Records and BMG etc are not the recording industry; they
are plastic media manufactures. Since most studios that actually
recording record the music are owned and run by small companies
the NARAS members are only middle men.
When electronics went from valves to transistors RCA was the only
major manufacture that survived. There is a high probability that
most of the plastic manufactures will go bankrupt in the next decade.
When does the trade association of an industry that rips off both
its artists and customers become a cartel?
There is no law against an artist signing a recording contract with
Kazzar.
There will still be musicians, singers, dancers, actors and writers
in a hundred years time.
Napster agreed to pay large sums of money in back royalties. What
happened to your share?
The simplest reform to the copyright law is to ban it. There are
more voters than media Suits.
PayPal allows pop groups to charge small amounts for the
downloading of music from their web site.
Once you have been paid for the download do you really care if
the customer listens to the music in his car?
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030630034834...@mb-m12.aol.com...
> >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.
>
I see that they are repeating the same mistakes. In the 1960s I
remember watching silent movies on TV and learning that the
actors were not getting royalties. The studios were however.
Note to get ten thousand dollars out of selling one thousand
recordings simply add 10,000/1,000 = $10 to the price of each
copy. Someone needs to tell the Guild negotiators, who include
Babylon 5 people.
New recording technologies will keep appearing. For instance
once currently appearing is film on flash.
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/News/1133726 MPEG-4 coding.
http://www.divx-digest.com/help.html MPEG-4 player software.
http://www.orcalogic.co.uk/USB_Flash_Drive.htm Memory device
http://www.m4if.org/ More info
Andrew Swallow
The Nuclear Marine
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in
news:20030701024229...@mb-m21.aol.com:
>>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.
>
Joe, I saw Babylon 5 for free, I have said series on tape yet I still
bought the DVDs. That was the point that was made. I saw quality for
free as a child re-imbursed only by watching the occasional commercial
and hyping the series. Even then, as an adult I rewarded that passion by
getting the series in a quality medium I and my family could enjoy.
The library system offers little to artists in way of direct royalties
with exception of research books (I assume). The price tag on
recognition libraries offer artists are incalculable. Certainly you
appreciate that child hood passions can equate to adult purchasing later
in life.
Yet, it is that one book being passed into the hands of many people.
That means according to Corporate "logic" that they've losts millions per
book in the library. This is the logic that somehow says piracy cost X-
billions in lost revenue presuming people who buy the product legitmently
if they had not gotten the pirated material for free. Is there loss,
yes, but not in a quantifiable nature.
Look at some software "contracts". Somehow, before ever opening the
label, I've agreed never to resell this program. It is with these logic,
though legal to a point, that I disagree. Ok, so it gets into corporate
reform but this can be tied to the copyright issue dealing with free
viewing or reselling intellectual property (such as books and old video
tapes at garage sales).
>>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.
>
I would disagree to a point. HBO residuals are a pitance due to the late
70's negotiation but my point was that though we will see movies on HBO
for a mere $10/month, people still go to theatres, buy/rent videos, and
hopefully (and do) buy movies they have seen on HBO and found out they
liked.
I am not saying this justifies the pirating of material. None of my
posts say this. I am saying that individual artists and corporations for
that matter look upon such venues as a means to recognition out there.
Summarize, my post was about the value of supposed free or cheap venues
outside of direct compensation. An intellectual investment if you will.
Nuke
--
Listen to the Black Atheist Avenger: www.InfidelGuy.com
Atheist Radio on the Internet: www.AtheistNetwork.com
She's dead Jim, but still warm, I'll flip you for her.
Jan
>This then becomes an issue of scale. A hard copy owned by the library
>has a very finite "bandwidth" -- it can only be checked out by one
>person at a time, within a well-defined geographic area. Thus it can
>only be re-read (royalty-free) a certain average number of times per
>year. The combined "bandwidth" of all library-owned copies of a work
>worldwide has evidently been deemed acceptable (even beneficial) to
>society.
>
A good point, and one I hadn't seriously considered. I've kept in my mind the
comment made (on this newsgroup, IIRC) once that the Internet community was
only a tiny blip when it came to (in that instance) affecting ratings. I guess
I was unconsciously equating it with only being a small blip in affecting
sales, too.
Still, though. The ones who might lose the most are the ones making the most
because it's the potential blockbusters being the most sought after. The
smaller artists who benefit the most from exposure and word of mouth will be
helped. That doesn't excuse piracy but it's a different perspective.
IMO,
Jan
Jan
>Mind you, what *I* am worried about is Congress continually extending
>the term of *corporate* copyright, effectively making it infinite
>without ever actually officially doing so. They are forgetting where
>true creativity lies - in the *individual*.
For an interesting take on this, I recommend "Melancholy Elephants", a short
story by Spider Robinson. I'll note, however that he's actually changed his
stance since writing that many years ago. It's a complex issue.
Jan
Jan
>Yeah, that's *real* similar, and obviously wouldn't have any impact on
>creators' livelihoods at all. What the heck is wrong with all these
>writers and artists thinking that the free internet is some kind of
>threat?
I didn't say it was exact and I was careful to be polite. You might attempt
the latter if you want a discussion.
Jan
Aisling Willow Grey
Photocopying sheet music. Most of the culprits tend to be school
districts who are knowingly infringing.
Aisling
Den
@fjordstone.com:
> Photocopying sheet music. Most of the culprits tend to be school
> districts who are knowingly infringing.
Must make great press: Go after schools that are having a hard enough time
keeping music programs going as it is. Often, being on the right side of
the law doesnt equate to being on the right side of an issue.
Aisling Willow Grey
How would you feel if the science teacher at your child's school was
stealing the microscopes they used in lab?
Or if the coach stole the footballs?
Aisling
Will Frank
>> Must make great press: Go after schools that are having a hard enough time
>> keeping music programs going as it is. Often, being on the right side of
>> the law doesnt equate to being on the right side of an issue.<<
>
> How would you feel if the science teacher at your child's school was
> stealing the microscopes they used in lab?
I assume you mean "stole the microscopes in the first place so that
they could have microscopes to use since they can't afford them."
In which case: Gratified to have such devoted teachers, and glad my
kid was getting a solid education.
> Or if the coach stole the footballs?
The day a football coach needs to steal footballs because the school
is overspending on music will be one of the happiest days of my life.
Schools are cutting arts education funding all across the
country. Music programs are virtually bankrupt, but in a valiant
effort the teachers keep going by any means necessary. Not for the
school institution, for the kids. So that the kids who can't play
football--which, oddly, often has all the money in needs--can get
their moment in the sun, or at least the lights in the gym as they
squeak out a tune which, no matter how it sounds, gives the parents a
night of enjoyment. If this includes photocopying some sheet music,
well then. As one of my other favorite TV shows, _The West Wing_, put
it, it's the story of the desperate man who breaks into the pharmacy
to get medicine for his wife: A life is saved. A window's broken.
Here: A horizon is broadened. A paper's copied.
--
Will "scifantasy" Frank http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~wmfrank
"All that mankind has done, thought, gained, or been; it is lying
as in magic preservation in the pages of books." --Thomas Carlyle
Kay Shapero
etran...@yahoo.com says...
>
> "perfect copy" is incorrect. For online music, if you're lucky you can get
> good downsampled copies. but you will never get perfect ones... almost
> never. Dont even think about video. That is unless you consider shrinking
> an image down to 25% of its size (and 5.1 channel sound reduced to 2) a
> perfect copy.
In the case of a book, all a "perfect copy" has to do is have
everything spelled right - I frequently buy books from Baen Books
as electronic copy, courtesy their "Webscriptions" service. I
pay for them and their authors get royalties, but the download
process itself is no different and generates no better a copy of
the original than downloading of any other text file would. And
text files are *small* in comparison with song and video; War and
Peace is the biggest thing I ever downloaded from Project
Gutenberg, and zipped, it's about a meg in size.
As has been pointed out already, the real problem is not the
artist being able to provide copies of his or her own works to
the public over the internet; it's having other people do it
without permission. (This is why there's been a rule in
rec.music.filk since the old Fidonet FILK days that posting your
own lyrics is fine, but if you want to post anybody else's, get
their permission first. We've even got a list of folks who have
given advance permission, with contact info for anybody who wants
to record or otherwise use them in some fashion that generates
income. None of this was based on specific laws, merely on
common (I wish) courtesy...)
--
Kay Shapero
reply address munged - use earthlink.net
filk FAQ http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/filkfaq.htm