[B5JMS] ATTN JMS - Forbidden Planet canceled & rewritten?

[b5jms at mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Troy Heagy <electrictroy at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 04:35:03 -0800 (PST)
Lines: 25


jms wrote:

> because so much of the Forbidden Planet screenplay
> was leaked out, Warners and I have decided to chuck
> the screenplay in its entirety and start over.  

First off, that's disappointing.  Very disappointing.  I speak-out vocally about the damage caused by pirating television shows, but typically that just leads to my banning from the forum.  They don't want to hear it.  If you have no intent of buying some trashy show, no big deal, but if you enjoy the show (like Babylon 5 or Crusade) then you should go BUY it and support the actors, writers, and other workers behind the scene.  To download a television show, burn it to DVD, and stick it on your shelf is stealing, pure and simple.

Second: Is it really necessary to chuck everything and start over?  I just did a quick Google search for your script and I found nothing.  If a google search can't turn-up the script, how much damage has really been done?  Seems minimal - virtually no damage caused.

Also:  What will WB do to keep script #2 secure?

Aside:

I'm disappointed we won't be getting any more B5: Lost Tales.  Those were some of the best episodes out of the whole series, and I was looking forward to seeing more.  Especially with Londo and Vir, my favorite comedy duo.  ;-)






      



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <ala_dir_diver at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:45:48 -0500
Lines: 81

"Brian Harvey" <bh at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote in message 
news:NGItl.72346$cI2.45289 at newsfe09.iad...
> "jmsatb5 at aol.com" <jmsatb5 at aol.com> writes:
>>Second, when you download a show (and most of the shows that are
>>downloaded don't fall into the category of "there's no other way to
>>get it," they're downloads of popular shows and movies, so lets
>>dispense with THAT bit of nonsense right off the bat...
>
> I'm one of the several people who, in this thread, have said things like
> "I agree that pirating a commercially available video is theft, but here's
> an example of a situation in which I've felt justified in burning a DVD of
> such-and-such /unavailable/ video."
>
> When you dismiss these posts as "nonsense," are you suggesting that we're
> all lying about what we buy and what we burn?  None of us denied that 
> /some/
> people -- okay, /many/ people -- download pirated copies of commercially
> available movies, and we all agreed that /that/ counts as simple theft.
>
> Copyright laws, as you point out later in your message, exist to provide
> an income to creators of entertainment and culture.  They don't exist to
> /prevent/ people from access to that entertainment and culture altogether!

Actually, they do, in that if the copyright holder get to decide how the 
item is distributed.
copyright - right to copy....

> On the contrary, copyright is a /bargain/ between society and authors, in
> which the latter get a protected income and the former gets an enriched
> culture (and, eventually, supposedly, the transfer of protected works into
> the public domain, although recent changes to copyright laws have, imho,
> made a mockery of this principle).
>

Copyright doesn't say anything about income. It's more saying that society 
agerees that your work..be it story, music, picture, etc is yours, to do 
with as you see fit.

<snip>
>
> The problem is with /old/ stuff that isn't on DVD.  There are at least two
> distinct cases here: (1) Stuff that's so obscure that it'll probably never
> make it to DVD.  Actually, now that "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is out
> on DVD, it may be that this category no longer exists. :-)  (Yes, I bought
> the DVD.)  But it does include things like amateur recordings of concerts
> that weren't professionally recorded.  (2) Stuff that the distributor is

If they did not hve the recording rights, then it's...theft.
Artists do sell concert recordings. If they chose not to do so at that 
venue, it's their choice.

> deliberately withholding with the intent of releasing it later at a higher
> price than they could sustain by keeping it in print.  The canonical
> example is Disney cartoons that go in and out of print.
>
> I claim that in case (1) nobody is hurt by bootlegging, and that in case
> (2) the distributor is violating the bargain entailed in copyright, and
> deserves the inevitable result.  (Yes, it's only the distributor who
> deserves it, not the author, actors, etc.  I don't have a solution, but,
> again, in the long run these artificial scarcities will have to 
> disappear.)
>

You can claim that.I'm pretty sure a judge and jury would disagree.

> One situation that a few of us have mentioned is taping something off the
> air (perfectly legally), then burning a DVD (probably illegal) for more
> convenient viewing.  We all said that when/if the same content comes out

Probably come under "time-shifting" fir use privisions. Selling it, or 
distributing to friends, would be illegal.

> on high quality commercial DVD, we go buy it, for our own sake as well as
> for the copyright holders' sake.
>
<snip>

Dennis 

. 


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Josh Hill <usereplyto at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:51:18 -0400
Lines: 40

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:45:48 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver at yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Brian Harvey" <bh at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote in message 
>news:NGItl.72346$cI2.45289 at newsfe09.iad...

>> Copyright laws, as you point out later in your message, exist to provide
>> an income to creators of entertainment and culture.  They don't exist to
>> /prevent/ people from access to that entertainment and culture altogether!
>
>Actually, they do, in that if the copyright holder get to decide how the 
>item is distributed.
>copyright - right to copy....

But see the Copyright Clause of the Constitution: "To promote the
progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to
authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings
and discoveries." It can I think be argued, as a matter of principle
if not of law, that the purpose of copyright is thwarted if the
copyright holder withholds his work from the public. It's not an
argument I find compelling, but I do think the intent of the Framers
may be applicable to the ongoing lengthening of copyright to protect
companies like Disney, which want perpetual control over characters
like Mickey Mouse. I would argue that at a certain point, the original
intent of the Constitution, and its reference to a "limited time," is
violated by de facto perpetual copyright, and that our culture is
damaged as a result, since creators have historically drawn on
fictional and semi-fictional characters in the public domain, a
Hercules, say, or a Merlin. Another way of looking at it is that it
removes copyright from the realm of the creator and immediate heirs,
and makes it the province of the corporatocracy, leading to a stifling
of creative freedom (who's to say what another artist could do with
Mickey Mouse?) and a perpetual corporate tax on properties that would
have entered the public domain.

-- 
Josh

"What is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?" - Sarah Palin


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Doug Freyburger <dfreybur at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Lines: 72

Josh Hill <userepl... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But see the Copyright Clause of the Constitution: "To promote the
> progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to
> authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings
> and discoveries."

Part of the problem is the US signed up for the international
copyright convention without thinking thorugh that issue.  It
used to be that anything over 75 years old was public domain
without the option to renew the copyright and that did reflect
the intent of the Constitution but it violated the international
convention.

> It can I think be argued, as a matter of principle
> if not of law, that the purpose of copyright is thwarted if the
> copyright holder withholds his work from the public. It's not an
> argument I find compelling, but I do think the intent of the Framers
> may be applicable to the ongoing lengthening of copyright to protect
> companies like Disney, which want perpetual control over characters
> like Mickey Mouse.

I think the unlimited problem will eventually get
overturned.  It's only a matter of time before a case
about it gets to the US Supreme Court and the
loophole gets closed.  Disney is defintely using what
most people now consider a loophole.  If I were a
major stockholder in Disney I'd want my legal team
to come up with just this sort of strategy but as a
customer I want the Constitutional intent not the
loophole.  Yeah, yeah, evil corporations and all that,
they are using a loophole that needs to be closed.
I get why they are doing it, and I get that it has to be
closed at some point.

> I would argue that at a certain point, the original
> intent of the Constitution, and its reference to a "limited time," is
> violated by de facto perpetual copyright, and that our culture is
> damaged as a result,

Yet trademarks are de facto perpetual in a similar way
and it's viewed as beneficial to society - As long as a
company remains profitable enough to keep maintaining
a trademark they can keep it.  On the one hand the first
corporation ever seems to still be in business.  On the
other hand nearly all businesses eventually go out of
business and their trademarks pass into the public
domain.

> since creators have historically drawn on
> fictional and semi-fictional characters in the public domain, a
> Hercules, say, or a Merlin.

And when the copyright on Babylon 5 eventually expires
then fans while be able to go nuts writing non-cannon
material.  Well, we're 10 years into the 75 and we're still
here so what's the chance?

> Another way of looking at it is that it
> removes copyright from the realm of the creator and immediate heirs,
> and makes it the province of the corporatocracy, leading to a stifling
> of creative freedom (who's to say what another artist could do with
> Mickey Mouse?) and a perpetual corporate tax on properties that would
> have entered the public domain.

This is where the design of Constitutional principles and
most laws I know of come in - There's an assumption that
stuff is done by mortal people yet corporations are legal
entities that can potentially be immortal.  This skews more
than just copyright law.  It's a problem of how to tax corps,
how to deal with corporate lobbying and so on.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: bh at cs.berkeley.edu (Brian Harvey)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 05:18:20 GMT
Lines: 56

Doug Freyburger <dfreybur at yahoo.com> writes:
>Part of the problem is the US signed up for the international
>copyright convention without thinking thorugh that issue.  It
>used to be that anything over 75 years old was public domain
>without the option to renew the copyright and that did reflect
>the intent of the Constitution but it violated the international
>convention.

I take a more cynical view of this.  The US didn't just sign the convention;
our government was a big player in drafting it, as a /deliberate/ end run
around the Constitution (since the Constitution gives treaties equal weight
to itself, trumping our own laws).

Sadly, the ever-increasing length of copyrights /has/ gone to the Supreme
Court, in an attempt to overturn the Sonny Bono extension, and the Court
ruled the wrong way.  They didn't say perpetual copyright is okay, but they
said you can't infer a de facto perpetual copyright from the fact that
Congress keeps extending it.

Throughout this discussion there has been an intermingling of arguments about
what current US law, as currently interpreted by US courts, makes legal or
illegal, on the one hand, and arguments about the /intent/ or /social value/
or /ethical basis/ of the law, on the other hand.  So people like Josh and
me talk about the founders' intent on copyright, and the reason it has a
limited term, and the fact that that limited term means that it's /not/
actually a "right" at all -- it's a bargain between creators and society --
and then people like Jan and JMS say "you're breaking the law, you're a
thief, end of story."

I'd like to see someone on the other side reply to our argument on its own
terms.  Why do /you/ think the Constitution limits the term of copyrights?
It's rare to see such small details in the Constitution; they must have had
a reason.  And this is notably different from how the law handles real
property; you can pass your real property down to your great-great-great-
grandchildren and even throw in strange entailments.



I would prefer to see a law that said, "if it's out of print, it's out of
copyright."  I accept that that's not a perfect rule either, but I think that
as simple rules go, it would be better than the one we have now.

P.S.  I think the use of DRM technology that allows providers to retain
control over the use of the protected content even after the copyright
expires is way against the spirit of copyright.  So my perfect copyright
law would also say "any material provided in a DRM form that doesn't
automatically become freely readable when the copyright expires is denied
legal copyright protection."

Yes, the DMCA says quite the opposite.  That's because the legislators are
on the side of the large businesses that bribe them (oh, sorry, I mean,
"make contributions to their campaign funds"), not on the side of the public
good, as they should be.  JMS, next time you're tempted to call someone a
thief, just imagine yourself saying "the law's against you" to the Mars
colony rebels.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Doug Freyburger <dfreybur at yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Lines: 66

b... at cs.berkeley.edu (Brian Harvey) wrote:
>
> I'd like to see someone on the other side reply to our argument on its ow=
n
> terms. =A0Why do /you/ think the Constitution limits the term of copyrigh=
ts?
> It's rare to see such small details in the Constitution; they must have h=
ad
> a reason. =A0And this is notably different from how the law handles real
> property; you can pass your real property down to your great-great-great-
> grandchildren and even throw in strange entailments.

Patents and copyrights are intended to draw "the useful arts
and sciences" into the public domain by way of profit incentive
to the creators.

Before the first-to-publish credit system made it into science
a vast but unknown amount of knowledge was lost across the
ages.  Understanding of that fact must have been included in
the education of the framers of the US Constitution.  The
system of "trade secrets" continues to lose an unknown
amount of technology when companies decline to patent
new techonlogies.

A basic assumption of patent law is that technology
advances slowly.  A new product can profit the inventor
long enough to enrich, but in the long run generics
eventually overwhelm the market.  It takes a stable
technology for this to work well but eventually all
technologies mature and stablize.

The system of copyrights formalized a protfit motive in the
publishing industry in a parallel manner.  Before enforced
copyrights any printer could copy any book without paying
royalties so authors wrote for their own pleasure.  Add a
profit motive to the equation and the amount of material
increased.  Even though Sturgeon's Law applied at least
it applied to a larger mass of printed material.

The copyright system was designed before the advent of
alost any media other than print.  A similar pattern of
mature technology aging will eventually cause the other
media to settle to a stable system.

> I would prefer to see a law that said, "if it's out of print, it's out of
> copyright." =A0I accept that that's not a perfect rule either, but I thin=
k that
> as simple rules go, it would be better than the one we have now.

There was a recent case where Google agreed to scan a lot
of out of print books and make them available.  Some out of
copyright, some merely out of print.

The result I'd like to see from this case - Boutique print shops
who will print single copies of these books for you.  In or out
of copyright cuts of the price go to the publisher, the author,
the translator, and whoever else.  It would have to be very
easy to find the estates to send the checks to or the money
goes to some fund (charity? authors pension?  whatever).
The result would be few books would ever be out of print ever
again and keeping a book in print would be less important.

Whatever the deal, I want both JMS and the studio investors
to continue to get residuals from B5 for a long time.  Whatever
ends up working out that way is to the good.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Andrew Swallow <am.swallow at btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:17:47 +0000
Lines: 14

Doug Freyburger wrote:
[snip]

> 
> Whatever the deal, I want both JMS and the studio investors
> to continue to get residuals from B5 for a long time.  Whatever
> ends up working out that way is to the good.
> 

I believe that the Babylon 5 actors are no longer getting residuals
for the show.

Andrew Swallow


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "jmsatb5 at aol.com" <jmsatb5 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Lines: 29

On Mar 16, 4:17=A0pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal... at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > Whatever the deal, I want both JMS and the studio investors
> > to continue to get residuals from B5 for a long time. =A0Whatever
> > ends up working out that way is to the good.
>
> I believe that the Babylon 5 actors are no longer getting residuals
> for the show.
>
> Andrew Swallow

The writers and actors are in the same situation.  Just to clarify,
because this isn't entirely correct and goes back to a story that was
put out that we all gave up residuals, which ain't true...there aren't
any broadcast residuals coming in to any of us because the show isn't
being broadcast anywhere at the moment.  Residuals are paid when the
show is aired.  We are getting a small piece of the DVDs, as noted in
another thread.

If and when the series shows up on broadcast or cable TV again, then
residuals will kick in once more.

jms