Harlan Ellison versus James Cameron
Adam H. Kerman
"The Terminator" for ripping off two scripts Ellison had written for
the marvelous anthology series "The Outer Limits".
I recently rewatched "Demon with a Glass Hand", one of the two scripts.
It stars Robert Culp as Trent, a man without a memory who has awaken
1000 years in the past. He is pursued by aliens from the same future
who are at war with Planet Earth and were just about to succeed...
except that humanity invoked a terrible doomsday weapon and went into
hiding. The weapon is a chemical and biological device that's deadly
only to aliens and humans, higher life forms, but no other life. Trent's
left hand is glass, containing a computer. But the computer isn't intact
as the aliens are holding three of its "fingers". The aliens need the
"hand" to learn the secret of the doomsday weapon and where humanity is
hiding and set up an elaborate trap for Trent in the Bradbury Building,
the famous architectural gem in old downtown Los Angeles seen in so many
movies and tv episodes. You'll recognize the famous interior light court
and wrought iron.
That's the set up. Trent is aided by a dressmaker, also trapped with him in
the Bradbury Building. Time travel is by the time mirror, which the aliens
installed in the building disguised as an ordinary office. The aliens
themselves are disguised as humans. The trip is only into the past, although
the aliens believe that the glass computer can tell them how to return to
the future without dying. They aren't actually tied to the past, but held
there with a small gold medallion on a neck chain. The aliens are readily
defeated by ripping the medallion off their necks, which destablizes them
in time smashing them back into the future. Trent wears such a medallion
too.
The atmosphere is moody and suspenseful and the apocolyptic future vision
is interesting, but the plot isn't terribly interesting. As part of the
trap, the aliens keep bringing the "fingers" into the past, intending to
reassemble the computer. It's not clear what they had intended to do to
separate it from Trent, but they keep bringing him fingers and he keeps
killing them.
The dressmaker falls in love with Trent but he believes they'll be dead by
morning. She's seen the aliens "kill" him but she's also seen the glass
hand, which instructs her how to "resurrect" Trent. The twist ending isn't
much of a surprise: Trent is a cyborg. Despite have watched him die and
bringing him back to life, that he's a cyborg horrifies the dressmaker,
who rejects him. Trent has to destroy the time mirror to prevent more
aliens from following him into the past, so we don't learn if the hand
was capable of coming up with a method of forward time travel. Trent's
alone and must wait 1000 years plus additional time for the consequences
of the doomsday weapon to dissapate.
Yeah, "The Terminator" has elements in common from this story: Pursuit of
a cyborg into the past, apocolyptic future, time travellers disguising
themselves as human, and an ordinary woman to protect. Also, a similarly
absurd method of time travel.
But Robert Culp has a hell of a lot more personality than Ah'nold. It's
hard to see this as a direct ripoff.
Culp keeps the hand covered with a thin glove. When the hand is covered,
Culp keeps using his hand in an ordinary fashion. With the hand uncovered,
it's merely shaped like a hand. It's much too thick and incapable of motion.
Is this an error on the actor's part, or the director, or the script? Or
wasn't the prop anything like the hand was described in the script? Curious.
Anim8rFSK
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> But Robert Culp has a hell of a lot more personality than Ah'nold. It's
> hard to see this as a direct ripoff.
Agreed.
"Soldier" is much more the source for "Terminator" -- Hell, the second
half of "Soldier" is the basis for Terminator 2. Soldier befriends boy,
turns friendly, another Soldier comes back, first Soldier sacrifices
himself to save boy.
But there are also big hunks of a third TOL episode, Anthony Lawrence's
"The Man Who Was Never Born" starring Martin Landau as sort of both
Reese and Ahnold (his character's name is 'Andro'). Andro comes back in
time to kill the mother of the man who destroyed the human race, ends up
falling in love with her, and, having changed history, vanishes, since
he's now "The Man Who Was Never Born"
Of the 3, "Demon" is the one I see the least of in Terminator. I
recognized both "Soldier" and "Man" the first time I saw Terminator in
the theater. I think "Demon" mostly gets included 'cause it's another
ep of the same series by HE.
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Year"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
Default User
> As we all know, Harlan Ellison sued James Cameron over the script of
> "The Terminator" for ripping off two scripts Ellison had written for
> the marvelous anthology series "The Outer Limits".
The odd thing is that you're not supposed to be able to copyright
ideas, but nobody seems to pay attention to that.
Brian
--
Day 323 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
David
wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> As we all know, Harlan Ellison sued James Cameron over the script of
>> "The Terminator" for ripping off two scripts Ellison had written for
>> the marvelous anthology series "The Outer Limits".
>
>The odd thing is that you're not supposed to be able to copyright
>ideas
It's why I'm not rolling around in Snuggies money.
John McWilliams
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> As we all know, Harlan Ellison sued James Cameron over the script of
>> "The Terminator" for ripping off two scripts Ellison had written for
>> the marvelous anthology series "The Outer Limits".
>
> The odd thing is that you're not supposed to be able to copyright
> ideas, but nobody seems to pay attention to that.
A fleshed out script is a lot more than an idea.
--
john mcwilliams
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>Of the 3, "Demon" is the one I see the least of in Terminator. I
>recognized both "Soldier" and "Man" the first time I saw Terminator in
>the theater. I think "Demon" mostly gets included 'cause it's another
>ep of the same series by HE.
I think "Demon" gets included because HE is sue-crazy.
-- Rob
Unique
> Culp keeps the hand covered with a thin glove. When the hand is
> covered, Culp keeps using his hand in an ordinary fashion. With the
> hand uncovered, it's merely shaped like a hand. It's much too thick
> and incapable of motion. Is this an error on the actor's part, or the
> director, or the script? Or wasn't the prop anything like the hand
> was described in the script? Curious.
Many of the props and costumes in the series appear quite crude to us
now but it's important to remember that this was a TV series that ran
from 1963-65 and it was able to do a lot with the money they had to work
with.
--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Amerika,
Space, Lon Chaney, George Washington 1 & 2,
Rich Man Poor Man 1 & 2, Beatles Music Videos,
and many more...
Professor Bubba
<Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
There is a Henry Kuttner short story from the 1940s that predates all
this stuff. A powerful, implacable robot pursues a guy who thinks he's
gotten away with a crime. The robot's mission is to kill the guy. The
story is about how the guy tries and tries to evade the robot.
That story was the first thing I thought of when I saw the first
Terminator film.
Adam H. Kerman
>Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:57:36 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Of the 3, "Demon" is the one I see the least of in Terminator. I
>>>recognized both "Soldier" and "Man" the first time I saw Terminator in
>>>the theater. I think "Demon" mostly gets included 'cause it's another
>>>ep of the same series by HE.
>>I think "Demon" gets included because HE is sue-crazy.
>There is a Henry Kuttner short story from the 1940s that predates all
>this stuff. A powerful, implacable robot pursues a guy who thinks he's
>gotten away with a crime. The robot's mission is to kill the guy. The
>story is about how the guy tries and tries to evade the robot.
>That story was the first thing I thought of when I saw the first
>Terminator film.
Les Miserable?
The plot of several hundred Westerns?
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Culp keeps the hand covered with a thin glove. When the hand is
>>covered, Culp keeps using his hand in an ordinary fashion. With the
>>hand uncovered, it's merely shaped like a hand. It's much too thick
>>and incapable of motion. Is this an error on the actor's part, or the
>>director, or the script? Or wasn't the prop anything like the hand
>>was described in the script? Curious.
>Many of the props and costumes in the series appear quite crude to us
>now but it's important to remember that this was a TV series that ran
>from 1963-65 and it was able to do a lot with the money they had to work
>with.
I am not faulting the budget they had to work with. With a good script,
I can suspend disbelief. I love a lot of '50's and '60's anthology shows.
I'm simply asking what the intent was: Was the glass hand supposed to
function like a hand, or what? If it was supposed to be stiff, then
Culp's performance was flawed, which has nothing to do with budget.
Sometimes decisions are made after scripts are written or during production,
and they cannot afford to re-shoot affected sequences. Just curious.
Default User
But no portions of the script were reused. What Ellison sued on was the
ideas from his work. No specific passages or characters were used.
Invid Fan
<defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think most of this was due to Cameron actually bragging in interviews
that he stole the plot from a couple Outer Limits episodes. Never admit
it!
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
tomcervo
> In article <7pd646Fb6...@mid.individual.net>, Default User
>
>
>
> <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > John McWilliams wrote:
>
> > > Default User wrote:
> > > > Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> > > > > As we all know, Harlan Ellison sued James Cameron over the script
> > > > > of "The Terminator" for ripping off two scripts Ellison had
> > > > > written for the marvelous anthology series "The Outer Limits".
>
> > > > The odd thing is that you're not supposed to be able to copyright
> > > > ideas, but nobody seems to pay attention to that.
>
> > > A fleshed out script is a lot more than an idea.
>
> > But no portions of the script were reused. What Ellison sued on was the
> > ideas from his work. No specific passages or characters were used.
>
> I think most of this was due to Cameron actually bragging in interviews
> that he stole the plot from a couple Outer Limits episodes. Never admit
> it!
Shocker.
The last part of "Titanic"--woman goes down into the depths of the
doomed structure to rescue a trapped loved one--is nothing but the
last part of "Aliens". Cameron also has a habit of depending on the
dedication of an actress ferociously committed to a part. That works
well with Sigourney Weaver and Kate Winslet, less well so with Linda
Hamilton.
Default User
> In article <7pd646...@mid.individual.net>, Default User
> <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > John McWilliams wrote:
> >
> > > Default User wrote:
> > > > Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As we all know, Harlan Ellison sued James Cameron over the
> > > > > script of "The Terminator" for ripping off two scripts
> > > > > Ellison had written for the marvelous anthology series "The
> > > > > Outer Limits".
> > > >
> > > > The odd thing is that you're not supposed to be able to
> > > > copyright ideas, but nobody seems to pay attention to that.
> > >
> > > A fleshed out script is a lot more than an idea.
> >
> > But no portions of the script were reused. What Ellison sued on was
> > the ideas from his work. No specific passages or characters were
> > used.
> >
> I think most of this was due to Cameron actually bragging in
> interviews that he stole the plot from a couple Outer Limits
> episodes. Never admit it!
I don't believe that to be an accurate accounting of his comments. When
asked what his inspirations were, he mentioned "Demon with a Glass
Hand" and "Soldier".
Indeed, honesty might not have been the best policy.
Brian
--
Day 324 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Extravagan
> Shocker.
> The last part of "Titanic"--woman goes down into the depths of the
> doomed structure to rescue a trapped loved one--is nothing but the
> last part of "Aliens". Cameron also has a habit of depending on the
> dedication of an actress ferociously committed to a part. That works
> well with Sigourney Weaver and Kate Winslet, less well so with Linda
> Hamilton.
Linda Hamilton is just fine, thank you very much.
Barry Margolin
While it's true that copyright only strictly protects the actual words,
not ideas, the entertainment media has generally treated it more
broadly, and the courts go along with it.
The problem is that without such liberal use of copyright law, creative
people would get ripped off left and right. You'd submit a script, the
studio would reject it, then just have someone rewrite it.
I asked about this a while ago in misc.int-property. What has always
seemed strange is the way game and reality shows are licensed. When
"Survivor" or "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" are licensed in different
countries, they're just copying a general format, not anything in the
scripts (except maybe a phrase like "Is that your final answer?").
There isn't really anything in copyright law that supports this type of
licensing, but I think the industry voluntarily follows this code of
conduct to prevent utter chaos. So studio A licenses ideas from studio
B, so that later on studio B will license things from A, and it's a
win-win scenario.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Pete B
ANIM...@cox.net says...
> In article <hgqbho$urq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > But Robert Culp has a hell of a lot more personality than Ah'nold. It's
> > hard to see this as a direct ripoff.
>
> Agreed.
>
> "Soldier" is much more the source for "Terminator" -- Hell, the second
> half of "Soldier" is the basis for Terminator 2. Soldier befriends boy,
> turns friendly, another Soldier comes back, first Soldier sacrifices
> himself to save boy.
Next it might be the Poul Anderson estate coming after Cameron, based on
Andersons novel "Call me Joe" which is about a paraplegic who
telepathically connects with an artificial life form in order to be able
to explore a planet with a dangerous atmosphere, and ends up going
native.
Pete B
says...
> > I think most of this was due to Cameron actually bragging in
> > interviews that he stole the plot from a couple Outer Limits
> > episodes. Never admit it!
>
> I don't believe that to be an accurate accounting of his comments. When
> asked what his inspirations were, he mentioned "Demon with a Glass
> Hand" and "Soldier".
>
> Indeed, honesty might not have been the best policy.
>
Always remember the three golden rules: Deny, Deny, Deny!
Extravagan
> While it's true that copyright only strictly protects the actual words,
> not ideas, the entertainment media has generally treated it more
> broadly, and the courts go along with it.
>
> The problem is that without such liberal use of copyright law, creative
> people would get ripped off left and right.
No, they wouldn't. The problem is that the legislature and the courts
have been bought by Big Media.
> I asked about this a while ago in misc.int-property. What has always
> seemed strange is the way game and reality shows are licensed. When
> "Survivor" or "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" are licensed in different
> countries, they're just copying a general format, not anything in the
> scripts (except maybe a phrase like "Is that your final answer?").
> There isn't really anything in copyright law that supports this type of
> licensing
No, but there is something in trademark law that does.
> but I think the industry voluntarily follows this code of
> conduct to prevent utter chaos. So studio A licenses ideas from studio
> B, so that later on studio B will license things from A, and it's a
> win-win scenario.
Actually, it's a win-win-lose scenario: the consumer loses, since the
prices for many things are higher than they would be without this
collusion and price fixing by Big Media.
Barry Margolin
Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > While it's true that copyright only strictly protects the actual words,
> > not ideas, the entertainment media has generally treated it more
> > broadly, and the courts go along with it.
> >
> > The problem is that without such liberal use of copyright law, creative
> > people would get ripped off left and right.
>
> No, they wouldn't. The problem is that the legislature and the courts
> have been bought by Big Media.
So you think that if there were no consequences, there wouldn't be MORE
of what Cameron supposedly did to Ellison?
>
> > I asked about this a while ago in misc.int-property. What has always
> > seemed strange is the way game and reality shows are licensed. When
> > "Survivor" or "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" are licensed in different
> > countries, they're just copying a general format, not anything in the
> > scripts (except maybe a phrase like "Is that your final answer?").
> > There isn't really anything in copyright law that supports this type of
> > licensing
>
> No, but there is something in trademark law that does.
So you're saying that they sign these deals just so that they can give
the program the same name as the original? Does trademark protection
cover translations into other languages?
I don't recall anyone in the intellectual property group mentioning this
aspect. It seems like something those experts would know.
>
>
> > but I think the industry voluntarily follows this code of
> > conduct to prevent utter chaos. So studio A licenses ideas from studio
> > B, so that later on studio B will license things from A, and it's a
> > win-win scenario.
>
> Actually, it's a win-win-lose scenario: the consumer loses, since the
> prices for many things are higher than they would be without this
> collusion and price fixing by Big Media.
But would authors submit scripts as much if they didn't think they had
some protection of their ideas? Fewer submissions mean less stuff for
us to watch, and the consumer loses.
Remysun
> So you're saying that they sign these deals just so that they can give
> the program the same name as the original? Does trademark protection
> cover translations into other languages?
> I don't recall anyone in the intellectual property group mentioning this
> aspect. It seems like something those experts would know.
It is cheaper to buy the idea and tinker it to suit your own audience
than to independently develop your own similar idea, carefully
avoiding the similarities that would risk a lawsuit. This is
compounded by the fact that if you don't bid on the property, your
competitor can.
tomcervo
does. Left to his own powers of invention, he couldn't fill the back
of a postcard. And if he did, we'd call him George Lucas.
Extravagan
> In article <hgv35k$ldp$1...@aioe.org>,
> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>> Barry Margolin wrote:
>>> The problem is that without such liberal use of copyright law, creative
>>> people would get ripped off left and right.
>> No, they wouldn't. The problem is that the legislature and the courts
>> have been bought by Big Media.
>
> So you think that if there were no consequences, there wouldn't be MORE
> of what Cameron supposedly did to Ellison?
What did Cameron do to Ellison? From what I've seen written, Cameron did
not do anything to Ellison. Cameron took inspiration from some stories
Ellison wrote, and from various other things, but that is not any kind
of crime, or any kind of harm to Ellison.
If anything, by mentioning that a wildly popular movie series was
inspired by a couple of Ellison's stories, he raised the profile of the
latter and they might get a bit more attention than they would have had
he not been so inspired.
So, Ellison not only did not lose anything compared to if Cameron had
ignored Ellison's stories, but quite possibly Ellison gained something.
And for this, he intends to launch a frivolous lawsuit?
Ingrate.
>>> I asked about this a while ago in misc.int-property. What has always
>>> seemed strange is the way game and reality shows are licensed. When
>>> "Survivor" or "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" are licensed in different
>>> countries, they're just copying a general format, not anything in the
>>> scripts (except maybe a phrase like "Is that your final answer?").
>>> There isn't really anything in copyright law that supports this type of
>>> licensing
>> No, but there is something in trademark law that does.
>
> So you're saying that they sign these deals just so that they can give
> the program the same name as the original? Does trademark protection
> cover translations into other languages?
It covers logos and names. Those are often unchanged in a translation,
and translated versions can always be trademarked too.
Trademark, and the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright, allows me to
e.g. make my own knock-off Transformers but not call them Transformers,
or write a story involving killer cyborgs from the future but not call
this Terminator.
>>> but I think the industry voluntarily follows this code of
>>> conduct to prevent utter chaos. So studio A licenses ideas from studio
>>> B, so that later on studio B will license things from A, and it's a
>>> win-win scenario.
>> Actually, it's a win-win-lose scenario: the consumer loses, since the
>> prices for many things are higher than they would be without this
>> collusion and price fixing by Big Media.
>
> But would authors submit scripts as much if they didn't think they had
> some protection of their ideas?
The only "protection" ideas ever need is from obscurity. If an idea
becomes widely-known, then it has been successful, and that success can
be leveraged to make money, in various ways, by anyone closely
associated with the idea.
Barry Margolin
Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <hgv35k$ldp$1...@aioe.org>,
> > Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> >> Barry Margolin wrote:
> >>> The problem is that without such liberal use of copyright law, creative
> >>> people would get ripped off left and right.
> >> No, they wouldn't. The problem is that the legislature and the courts
> >> have been bought by Big Media.
> >
> > So you think that if there were no consequences, there wouldn't be MORE
> > of what Cameron supposedly did to Ellison?
>
> What did Cameron do to Ellison? From what I've seen written, Cameron did
> not do anything to Ellison. Cameron took inspiration from some stories
> Ellison wrote, and from various other things, but that is not any kind
> of crime, or any kind of harm to Ellison.
Maybe I misunderstood, I thought someone said that Ellison successfully
sued Cameron over this.
>
> If anything, by mentioning that a wildly popular movie series was
> inspired by a couple of Ellison's stories, he raised the profile of the
> latter and they might get a bit more attention than they would have had
> he not been so inspired.
>
> So, Ellison not only did not lose anything compared to if Cameron had
> ignored Ellison's stories, but quite possibly Ellison gained something.
>
> And for this, he intends to launch a frivolous lawsuit?
I didn't realize it was declared frivolous.
>
> Ingrate.
Ellison is not unique, lawsuits like this are common. Another one was
over Steven Spielberg's "Amistad", although the author later dropped the
suit.
>
> >>> I asked about this a while ago in misc.int-property. What has always
> >>> seemed strange is the way game and reality shows are licensed. When
> >>> "Survivor" or "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" are licensed in different
> >>> countries, they're just copying a general format, not anything in the
> >>> scripts (except maybe a phrase like "Is that your final answer?").
> >>> There isn't really anything in copyright law that supports this type of
> >>> licensing
> >> No, but there is something in trademark law that does.
> >
> > So you're saying that they sign these deals just so that they can give
> > the program the same name as the original? Does trademark protection
> > cover translations into other languages?
>
> It covers logos and names. Those are often unchanged in a translation,
> and translated versions can always be trademarked too.
But are those elements so important? If I were a TV producer and liked
the idea of WWTBAM, I'd copy the format of the show but come up with a
new name and catch phrase, to avoid trademark infringement. Changing
these minor details seems like a small price to pay compared to shelling
out millions of dollars in licensing fees.
>
> Trademark, and the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright, allows me to
> e.g. make my own knock-off Transformers but not call them Transformers,
> or write a story involving killer cyborgs from the future but not call
> this Terminator.
>
> >>> but I think the industry voluntarily follows this code of
> >>> conduct to prevent utter chaos. So studio A licenses ideas from studio
> >>> B, so that later on studio B will license things from A, and it's a
> >>> win-win scenario.
> >> Actually, it's a win-win-lose scenario: the consumer loses, since the
> >> prices for many things are higher than they would be without this
> >> collusion and price fixing by Big Media.
> >
> > But would authors submit scripts as much if they didn't think they had
> > some protection of their ideas?
>
> The only "protection" ideas ever need is from obscurity. If an idea
> becomes widely-known, then it has been successful, and that success can
> be leveraged to make money, in various ways, by anyone closely
> associated with the idea.
But the problem is that the original author is NOT associated with the
idea. When we think of Terminator, we think of Cameron, Schwarzenegger,
and Hamilton, not Ellison (except in the context of the lawsuit).
Default User
> In article <hgv35k$ldp$1...@aioe.org>,
> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > While it's true that copyright only strictly protects the actual
> > > words, not ideas, the entertainment media has generally treated
> > > it more broadly, and the courts go along with it.
> > >
> > > The problem is that without such liberal use of copyright law,
> > > creative people would get ripped off left and right.
> >
> > No, they wouldn't. The problem is that the legislature and the
> > courts have been bought by Big Media.
>
> So you think that if there were no consequences, there wouldn't be
> MORE of what Cameron supposedly did to Ellison?
What exactly did he do to Ellison? Nothing in the Terminator series
affects the salability or profitability of the old Outer Limits shows.
If Cameron hadn't said something publicly, it probably never would have
occured to Ellison or anyone else that the ideas were related.
Brian
--
Day 325 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Default User
> In article <hh0bdj$gqq$1...@aioe.org>,
> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> > What did Cameron do to Ellison? From what I've seen written,
> > Cameron did not do anything to Ellison. Cameron took inspiration
> > from some stories Ellison wrote, and from various other things, but
> > that is not any kind of crime, or any kind of harm to Ellison.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood, I thought someone said that Ellison
> successfully sued Cameron over this.
Depends on how define "successfully". They settled out of court.
Whether Ellison would have won at trial is unknown.
Brian
--
Day 325 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Adam H. Kerman
Adam H. Kerman
>No, they wouldn't. The problem is that the legislature and the courts
>have been bought by Big Media.
Excuse me.
Seamus, I have previously banned you from posting followups in my threads.
You must not participate in my threads. Is that clear?
Barry Margolin
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If Ellison got something in the settlement, I'd consider it successful.
And apparently the court didn't consider it frivolous, or it would have
been thrown out in the first place.
The general point I was making in the thread is that the entertainment
industry acts as if story ideas and program formats are protected. They
routinely license these things. Studios have a blanket policy that they
won't even open scripts that aren't submitted through a recognized
agency, to avoid problems if they later make a movie that resembles it.
And when lawsuits like this are filed, they're taken seriously.
IANAL, so I don't know the legal basis for this.
Barry Margolin
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > In article <hgv35k$ldp$1...@aioe.org>,
> > Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > > While it's true that copyright only strictly protects the actual
> > > > words, not ideas, the entertainment media has generally treated
> > > > it more broadly, and the courts go along with it.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that without such liberal use of copyright law,
> > > > creative people would get ripped off left and right.
> > >
> > > No, they wouldn't. The problem is that the legislature and the
> > > courts have been bought by Big Media.
> >
> > So you think that if there were no consequences, there wouldn't be
> > MORE of what Cameron supposedly did to Ellison?
>
> What exactly did he do to Ellison?
It's not what he did, it's what he failed to do: pay him.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Barry Margolin wrote:
>>>Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>>>>What did Cameron do to Ellison? From what I've seen written,
>>>>Cameron did not do anything to Ellison. Cameron took inspiration
>>>>from some stories Ellison wrote, and from various other things, but
>>>>that is not any kind of crime, or any kind of harm to Ellison.
>>>Maybe I misunderstood, I thought someone said that Ellison
>>>successfully sued Cameron over this.
>>Depends on how define "successfully". They settled out of court.
>>Whether Ellison would have won at trial is unknown.
>If Ellison got something in the settlement, I'd consider it successful.
>And apparently the court didn't consider it frivolous, or it would have
>been thrown out in the first place.
>The general point I was making in the thread is that the entertainment
>industry acts as if story ideas and program formats are protected. They
>routinely license these things. Studios have a blanket policy that they
>won't even open scripts that aren't submitted through a recognized
>agency, to avoid problems if they later make a movie that resembles it.
>And when lawsuits like this are filed, they're taken seriously.
>IANAL, so I don't know the legal basis for this.
It makes sense to try to reduce the expense of defending against lawsuits.
Your comments on copyright law are well taken.
Barry Margolin
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
If there were really no legal basis, the courts would just dismiss the
cases, wouldn't they? "Mr. Ellison, you should now by now that
copyright law only protects the actual words, not story elements or even
entire plotlines. I don't want to see you in my court again unless
they've xeroxed your script."
But since they aren't laughed out of court, I presume there's some
validity. I doubt that the legal costs of a truly frivolous suit would
be more than what they settled for.
> Your comments on copyright law are well taken.
--
Adam H. Kerman
>If there were really no legal basis, the courts would just dismiss the
>cases, wouldn't they? "Mr. Ellison, you should now by now that
>copyright law only protects the actual words, not story elements or even
>entire plotlines. I don't want to see you in my court again unless
>they've xeroxed your script."
>But since they aren't laughed out of court, I presume there's some
>validity. I doubt that the legal costs of a truly frivolous suit would
>be more than what they settled for.
Remember, the judge doesn't rule on whether the evidence supports the
plaintiff's claim, just on its admissability. It's amazingly how few
lawsuits in which the defense has appeared to do no wrong are dismissed
in pre-trial motions.
Anim8rFSK
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <hh0bdj$gqq$1...@aioe.org>,
> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > In article <hgv35k$ldp$1...@aioe.org>,
> > > Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> > >> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > >>> The problem is that without such liberal use of copyright law, creative
> > >>> people would get ripped off left and right.
> > >> No, they wouldn't. The problem is that the legislature and the courts
> > >> have been bought by Big Media.
> > >
> > > So you think that if there were no consequences, there wouldn't be MORE
> > > of what Cameron supposedly did to Ellison?
> >
> > What did Cameron do to Ellison? From what I've seen written, Cameron did
> > not do anything to Ellison. Cameron took inspiration from some stories
> > Ellison wrote, and from various other things, but that is not any kind
> > of crime, or any kind of harm to Ellison.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood, I thought someone said that Ellison successfully
> sued Cameron over this.
You didn't understand. Ellison was harmed and did persevere. I have
however never understood why HE didn't get credit on the follow up
Terminator properties.
>
> >
> > If anything, by mentioning that a wildly popular movie series was
> > inspired by a couple of Ellison's stories, he raised the profile of the
> > latter and they might get a bit more attention than they would have had
> > he not been so inspired.
> >
> > So, Ellison not only did not lose anything compared to if Cameron had
> > ignored Ellison's stories, but quite possibly Ellison gained something.
> >
> > And for this, he intends to launch a frivolous lawsuit?
>
> I didn't realize it was declared frivolous.
It wasn't. It was declared 'victorious' as far as HE is concerned.
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Decade"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
Anim8rFSK
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <7piip8...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > > In article <hh0bdj$gqq$1...@aioe.org>,
> > > Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > What did Cameron do to Ellison? From what I've seen written,
> > > > Cameron did not do anything to Ellison. Cameron took inspiration
> > > > from some stories Ellison wrote, and from various other things, but
> > > > that is not any kind of crime, or any kind of harm to Ellison.
> > >
> > > Maybe I misunderstood, I thought someone said that Ellison
> > > successfully sued Cameron over this.
> >
> > Depends on how define "successfully". They settled out of court.
> > Whether Ellison would have won at trial is unknown.
>
> If Ellison got something in the settlement, I'd consider it successful.
He got his name added to the end credits, and unknown other
consideration.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Barry Margolin wrote:
>>>>Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>>>>>What did Cameron do to Ellison? From what I've seen written,
>>>>>Cameron did not do anything to Ellison. Cameron took inspiration
>>>>>from some stories Ellison wrote, and from various other things, but
>>>>>that is not any kind of crime, or any kind of harm to Ellison.
>>>>Maybe I misunderstood, I thought someone said that Ellison
>>>>successfully sued Cameron over this.
>>>Depends on how define "successfully". They settled out of court.
>>>Whether Ellison would have won at trial is unknown.
>>If Ellison got something in the settlement, I'd consider it successful.
>He got his name added to the end credits, and unknown other
>consideration.
Ah'nold's voice on his home answering machine.
Barry Margolin
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
But don't they rule on whether the case even has legal basis? If you
can't copyright an idea, how can you file a lawsuit claiming that
someone stole your idea?
Extravagan
> You didn't understand. Ellison was harmed
He was not.
Extravagan
> In article <7pid1k...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Barry Margolin wrote:
>>> In article <hgv35k$ldp$1...@aioe.org>,
>>> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>>>> Barry Margolin wrote:
>>>>> While it's true that copyright only strictly protects the actual
>>>>> words, not ideas, the entertainment media has generally treated
>>>>> it more broadly, and the courts go along with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that without such liberal use of copyright law,
>>>>> creative people would get ripped off left and right.
>>>> No, they wouldn't. The problem is that the legislature and the
>>>> courts have been bought by Big Media.
>>> So you think that if there were no consequences, there wouldn't be
>>> MORE of what Cameron supposedly did to Ellison?
>> What exactly did he do to Ellison?
>
> It's not what he did, it's what he failed to do: pay him.
Pay him for what?
You pay someone for something you want to take, that he won't have any
more if you take it, or for someone to do something for you.
Cameron neither wanted Ellison to do something for him nor wanted an
object of Ellison's that Ellison would no longer have, and therefore
Cameron had nothing to pay Ellison for.
dfffgnh
dfhdfh
dfhsdfh
dfhnhj
dghjn
mjfjgfjgf
jgfjgfjgf
jgfjgfjgf
jdjdfj
fgjfgjgf
dfjjgfhj
gfjgfjgfj
gfjgfjgfj
dfgjgfjgf
gfjgfhj
gfjgfj
gfjgfjgf
jgfjgfjgfjgj
gfjgfjdj
Someone please tell me what the fuck is wrong with aioe today? a)
retention in this group apparently shortened from
already-ridiculously-low 7 days to 1 day(!), b) no news at all appearing
in some groups, and c) it now rejects articles that are over 50% quoted
text (not the 80% it used to be, which was already ridiculously low).
Barry Margolin
Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <7pid1k...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Barry Margolin wrote:
> >>> In article <hgv35k$ldp$1...@aioe.org>,
> >>> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
> >>>> Barry Margolin wrote:
> >>>>> While it's true that copyright only strictly protects the actual
> >>>>> words, not ideas, the entertainment media has generally treated
> >>>>> it more broadly, and the courts go along with it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The problem is that without such liberal use of copyright law,
> >>>>> creative people would get ripped off left and right.
> >>>> No, they wouldn't. The problem is that the legislature and the
> >>>> courts have been bought by Big Media.
> >>> So you think that if there were no consequences, there wouldn't be
> >>> MORE of what Cameron supposedly did to Ellison?
> >> What exactly did he do to Ellison?
> >
> > It's not what he did, it's what he failed to do: pay him.
>
> Pay him for what?
>
> You pay someone for something you want to take, that he won't have any
> more if you take it, or for someone to do something for you.
You also pay people for intellectual property. Movie studios pay
authors for the right to turn their stories into movies.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>If there were really no legal basis, the courts would just dismiss the
>>>cases, wouldn't they? "Mr. Ellison, you should now by now that
>>>copyright law only protects the actual words, not story elements or even
>>>entire plotlines. I don't want to see you in my court again unless
>>>they've xeroxed your script."
>>>But since they aren't laughed out of court, I presume there's some
>>>validity. I doubt that the legal costs of a truly frivolous suit would
>>>be more than what they settled for.
>>Remember, the judge doesn't rule on whether the evidence supports the
>>plaintiff's claim, just on its admissability. It's amazingly how few
>>lawsuits in which the defense has appeared to do no wrong are dismissed
>>in pre-trial motions.
>But don't they rule on whether the case even has legal basis? If you
>can't copyright an idea, how can you file a lawsuit claiming that
>someone stole your idea?
I don't understand the legal arguments either. I do know that it's
fairly easy to get into court.
Adam H. Kerman
>Someone please tell me what the fuck is wrong with aioe today? a)
>retention in this group apparently shortened from
>already-ridiculously-low 7 days to 1 day(!), b) no news at all appearing
>in some groups, and c) it now rejects articles that are over 50% quoted
>text (not the 80% it used to be, which was already ridiculously low).
I'm not allowed to tell you.
Everyone else, this is what's happening. Keep it a secret from Seamus!
AIOE migrated to a new server, as announced weeks ago.
Generally, what's wrong with AIOE is that Seamus isn't kicked off.
Default User
> In article <7pid1k...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What exactly did he do to Ellison?
>
> It's not what he did, it's what he failed to do: pay him.
Pay for what? He didn't use anything but some ideas, which are supposed
to be under copyright.
Brian
--
Day 326 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Barry Margolin
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > In article <7pid1k...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What exactly did he do to Ellison?
> >
> > It's not what he did, it's what he failed to do: pay him.
>
> Pay for what? He didn't use anything but some ideas, which are supposed
> to be under copyright.
Isn't that the point? Or did you leave out a "not" in there?
But I already pointed out that Hollywood DOES consider ideas to be
protected. They routinely license them, and sue each other over
unauthorized adaptations of ideas.
Adam H. Kerman
>But I already pointed out that Hollywood DOES consider ideas to be
>protected. They routinely license them, and sue each other over
>unauthorized adaptations of ideas.
Maybe there's a distinction being made between ideas and stories.
Barry Margolin
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Copyright law supposedly does make that distinction. It only protects
against literal copying, performances, and derived workds (e.g.
translations). So you're not supposed to have protection over the idea
of an android from the future coming back to kill someone, just the
actual words in the story.
But we hear all the time about networks licensing game show formats.
Except for the trademarked titles and catch phrases, there doesn't seem
to be anything there that could be protected by copyright.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>But I already pointed out that Hollywood DOES consider ideas to be
>>>protected. They routinely license them, and sue each other over
>>>unauthorized adaptations of ideas.
>>Maybe there's a distinction being made between ideas and stories.
>Copyright law supposedly does make that distinction. It only protects
>against literal copying, performances, and derived workds (e.g.
>translations). So you're not supposed to have protection over the idea
>of an android from the future coming back to kill someone, just the
>actual words in the story.
But if Cameron's story were similar enough to Ellison's, despite not using
exactly the same words, then perhaps the law recognizes that story is
developed beyond its various ideas.
That's my best guess.
>But we hear all the time about networks licensing game show formats.
>Except for the trademarked titles and catch phrases, there doesn't seem
>to be anything there that could be protected by copyright.
Some of that could get into trademark/servicemark licensing.
Extravagan
Captain Infinity
Extravagan wrote:
Second verse, same as the first!
**
Captain Infinity
Default User
> In article <7pm487...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > > In article <7pid1k...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > What exactly did he do to Ellison?
> > >
> > > It's not what he did, it's what he failed to do: pay him.
> >
> > Pay for what? He didn't use anything but some ideas, which are
> > supposed to be under copyright.
>
> Isn't that the point? Or did you leave out a "not" in there?
Right, I meant to say "not supposed to be". Sorry.
> But I already pointed out that Hollywood DOES consider ideas to be
> protected. They routinely license them, and sue each other over
> unauthorized adaptations of ideas.
Copyright laws specifically exclude ideas.
It's not my intention to go back and forth on this. Whatever the laws
are, it's case history that matters. I just personally think Ellison
was wrong. I don't know the history of this case well. It's possible
that when he sued, Cameron just didn't want to make a big deal out of
it and gave Ellison some money and a credit.
Brian
--
Day 327 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Barry Margolin
Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
You're totally ignoring the entire discipline of intellectual property.
You also pay people to let you copy or perform things they wrote, or to
license their patents to you.
Barry Margolin
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > In article <7pm487...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <7pid1k...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > > "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What exactly did he do to Ellison?
> > > >
> > > > It's not what he did, it's what he failed to do: pay him.
> > >
> > > Pay for what? He didn't use anything but some ideas, which are
> > > supposed to be under copyright.
> >
> > Isn't that the point? Or did you leave out a "not" in there?
>
> Right, I meant to say "not supposed to be". Sorry.
>
> > But I already pointed out that Hollywood DOES consider ideas to be
> > protected. They routinely license them, and sue each other over
> > unauthorized adaptations of ideas.
>
> Copyright laws specifically exclude ideas.
I know that. Yet the entertainment industry has an active market in
ideas. Maybe there's some other principle involved. Maybe there are
contracts between all the publishing houses, talent agencies, and movie
studios saying they won't steal ideas. That could explain why studios
will accept scripts submitted by agents, but not by independent authors.
Extravagan
> In article <hh5muk$vsn$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>> Barry Margolin wrote:
>>> In article <hh40pp$c29$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>>>> Barry Margolin wrote:
>>>>> It's not what he did, it's what he failed to do: pay him.
>>>> Pay him for what?
>>>>
>>>> You pay someone for something you want to take, that he won't have any
>>>> more if you take it, or for someone to do something for you.
>>> You
>> You pay someone for something you want to take, that he won't have any
>> more if you take it, or for someone to do something for you.
>
> You
You pay someone for something you want to take, that he won't have any
more if you take it, or for someone to do something for you.
(Are we having fun yet?)
Adam H. Kerman
>Copyright laws specifically exclude ideas.
I gotta say, if the law were absolutely clear on any particular point,
lawyers would starve.
Captain Infinity
Extravagan wrote:
>You pay someone for something you want to take, that he won't have any
>more if you take it, or for someone to do something for you.
>
>(Are we having fun yet?)
You seem to be enjoying making a moron of yourself.
**
Captain Infinity
**
Captain Infinity
...Do noT meddle in the affairs of telep`ths,
for we are mushy and sugar-coated,
and taste good with chocolate milk.
Barry Margolin
Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
No, we're not. Saying that over and over doesn't make it true. You
keep ignoring copyright, patents, and trademarks.
Silly me, I just noticed who I'm replying to. Of course someone who
doesn't understand simple things like TV show preemptions would have a
difficult time with complex legal concepts.
Extravagan
> Once Upon A Time,
> Extravagan wrote:
>
>> You pay someone for something you want to take, that he won't have any
>> more if you take it, or for someone to do something for you.
>>
>> (Are we having fun yet?)
>
> You seem to be enjoying making a moron of yourself.
*PLONK*
Next!
Extravagan
> In article <hh7kr3$reo$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>> You pay someone for something you want to take, that he won't have any
>> more if you take it, or for someone to do something for you.
>>
>> (Are we having fun yet?)
>
> No
Then perhaps it's time for you to stop replying.
David Johnston
Oh noes! He wrote "plonk". If he had a killfile that would mean
something!
Anim8rFSK
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <7pnr87...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > > In article <7pm487...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <7pid1k...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > > > "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > What exactly did he do to Ellison?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not what he did, it's what he failed to do: pay him.
> > > >
> > > > Pay for what? He didn't use anything but some ideas, which are
> > > > supposed to be under copyright.
> > >
> > > Isn't that the point? Or did you leave out a "not" in there?
> >
> > Right, I meant to say "not supposed to be". Sorry.
> >
> > > But I already pointed out that Hollywood DOES consider ideas to be
> > > protected. They routinely license them, and sue each other over
> > > unauthorized adaptations of ideas.
> >
> > Copyright laws specifically exclude ideas.
>
> I know that. Yet the entertainment industry has an active market in
> ideas. Maybe there's some other principle involved. Maybe there are
> contracts between all the publishing houses, talent agencies, and movie
> studios saying they won't steal ideas.
bwahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
That could explain why studios
> will accept scripts submitted by agents, but not by independent authors.
I think it's more to avoid potential lawsuits with hundreds of fanboys
that write in and say "how about an episode where Monk catches Trudy's
killer" and then when that inevitable episode happens, scream THIEF! I
get tons of people sending in scripts, or what they think passes for
scripts; I can't imagine how inudated the studio level must be.
Another reason would be to simply weed out the dreck; let the agent do
the work of separating out the absolute garbage. Somewhat along the
lines of companies requiring a Master's degree for some job that doesn't
possibly require it, simply because they've got too many applicants, and
it's a way to thin the herd.
Professor Bubba
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
Back in the day, David Gerrold wrote a Star Trek animated show about a
creature that eats tribbles. The week before the show aired, Gerrold
made an appearance at a convention, and a fanboy in the autograph line
told him, "You should write a script about a tribble predator."
Uh-huh, said Gerrold. Gerrold's cartoon was broadcast five or six days
later. The fanboy immediately wrote Gerrold to demand "his half" of
the proceeds.
No pro writer ever discusses ideas or plots or anything like that with
fans. This is why.
Extravagan
> Back in the day, David Gerrold wrote a Star Trek animated show about a
> creature that eats tribbles. The week before the show aired, Gerrold
> made an appearance at a convention, and a fanboy in the autograph line
> told him, "You should write a script about a tribble predator."
> Uh-huh, said Gerrold. Gerrold's cartoon was broadcast five or six days
> later. The fanboy immediately wrote Gerrold to demand "his half" of
> the proceeds.
>
> No pro writer ever discusses ideas or plots or anything like that with
> fans. This is why.
Sad, isn't it? Perhaps if we got rid of the horror that is copyright
law, these kinds of problems would go away and creativity could fluorish.
Professor Bubba
<extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
Copyright law had nothing to do with this. This moron thought Gerrold
had written the script, and the animators had drawn it, and NBC had
readied it for broadcast, in less than a week. He was a drooling
idiot, but he caused Gerrold a problem even though Gerrold was himself
blameless.
This kind of thing would only get better if you brought back the laws
that allowed morons to be put in looney bins forever.
Ubiquitous
>> I know that. Yet the entertainment industry has an active market in
>> ideas. Maybe there's some other principle involved. Maybe there are
>> contracts between all the publishing houses, talent agencies, and movie
>> studios saying they won't steal ideas.
>
>bwahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Wasn't that a BIG complaint about Paramount wrt submissions for Star Trek?
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats
did to America.
Hovdhvgbhf
wrote:
>Professor Bubba wrote:
Troll O Meter
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------
^
|
Professor Bubba
<web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> ANIM...@cox.net wrote:
> > Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I know that. Yet the entertainment industry has an active market in
> >> ideas. Maybe there's some other principle involved. Maybe there are
> >> contracts between all the publishing houses, talent agencies, and movie
> >> studios saying they won't steal ideas.
> >
> >bwahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>
> Wasn't that a BIG complaint about Paramount wrt submissions for Star Trek?
Up until Enterprise, Trek took submissions over the transom, and was
the only show doing it. I think they bought an unsolicited script for
Voyager once.
Ubiquitous
If memory serves, there is some dispute about the similarities
between DS9 and B5...
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Anim8rFSK
> ANIM...@cox.net wrote:
> > Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I know that. Yet the entertainment industry has an active market in
> >> ideas. Maybe there's some other principle involved. Maybe there are
> >> contracts between all the publishing houses, talent agencies, and movie
> >> studios saying they won't steal ideas.
> >
> >bwahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>
> Wasn't that a BIG complaint about Paramount wrt submissions for Star Trek?
Yep
Captain Infinity
Ubiquitous wrote:
>If memory serves, there is some dispute about the similarities
>between DS9 and B5...
Yeah, let's all time travel to 1994 and talk about that.
**
Captain Infinity
Extravagan
> In article <hhb52c$sjf$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Extravagan
> <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>> Professor Bubba wrote:
>>> Back in the day, David Gerrold wrote a Star Trek animated show about a
>>> creature that eats tribbles. The week before the show aired, Gerrold
>>> made an appearance at a convention, and a fanboy in the autograph line
>>> told him, "You should write a script about a tribble predator."
>>> Uh-huh, said Gerrold. Gerrold's cartoon was broadcast five or six days
>>> later. The fanboy immediately wrote Gerrold to demand "his half" of
>>> the proceeds.
>>>
>>> No pro writer ever discusses ideas or plots or anything like that with
>>> fans. This is why.
>> Sad, isn't it? Perhaps if we got rid of the horror that is copyright
>> law, these kinds of problems would go away and creativity could fluorish.
>
> Copyright law had nothing to do with this.
Copyright law has everything to do with this. If it did not exist,
people would not have these crazy ideas that they somehow own ideas, and
are somehow entitled to money whenever someone has a similar idea, and
therefore there would be none of these stupid lawsuits. Nor these
"licensing agreements" among big businesses in various areas, which end
up being used to oligopolize an industry and shut out competition.
Default User
Well, if anybody could it'd be you Cappy.
Brian
--
Day 330 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
David
wrote:
>Captain Infinity wrote:
>
>> Once Upon A Time,
>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>> > If memory serves, there is some dispute about the similarities
>> > between DS9 and B5...
>>
>> Yeah, let's all time travel to 1994 and talk about that.
>>
>>
>> **
>> Captain Infinity
>
>Well, if anybody could it'd be you Cappy.
And to think, when that guy tried to warn us about invisible robot
tentacles we locked him in a sanitarium!
Default User
I think we all learned something that day.
Brian
--
Day 331 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Anim8rFSK
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I for one still feel like a sucker.
Ubiquitous
>"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Captain Infinity wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> > If memory serves, there is some dispute about the similarities
>>> > between DS9 and B5...
>>>
>>> Yeah, let's all time travel to 1994 and talk about that.
>>
>>Well, if anybody could it'd be you Cappy.
>
>And to think, when that guy tried to warn us about invisible robot
>tentacles we locked him in a sanitarium!
The invisible robot twenty feet tall shaped like a penguin with
blood that goes spurting "psssssshhhh" in slow motion when stabbed?
David
wrote:
>David wrote:
>
>> On 30 Dec 2009 06:54:25 GMT, "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Captain Infinity wrote:
>> >
>> >> Once Upon A Time,
>> >> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > If memory serves, there is some dispute about the similarities
>> >> > between DS9 and B5...
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, let's all time travel to 1994 and talk about that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> **
>> >> Captain Infinity
>> >
>> > Well, if anybody could it'd be you Cappy.
>>
>> And to think, when that guy tried to warn us about invisible robot
>> tentacles we locked him in a sanitarium!
>
>I think we all learned something that day.
To always trust our first instinct.