I wish Harlan Ellison would just die already...

[Jan]

Let's take Star Wars as the most obvious example. George Lucas already made a gazillion bucks with it. Why can't someone else remake it and do his take on it?

So you think that it's okay for (presumably) a government to decree an upper limit on how much money anybody can make? I most vehemently don't!

What? Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I don't think I did. You seemed to be saying that you thought Lucas had made enough money and so other people should be allowed to do so in addition to or instead of Lucas. If so, that would seem to indicate that there should be a measure somehow of when somebody had made 'enough' money on something they created. If so, then some entity would need to decree what that 'enough' would consist of, wouldn't they?

If that's not what you meant, and only were thinking that copyright should be incredibly short, then I apologize and still vehemently disagree.

Jan

 

[Professor Zoom]

Actually JarodRussell, let's not focus on Lucas for a moment. what about the writer who has written a book, mildly successful, but, not setting the world on fire. It falls into the hands of say Spielberg, who LOVES it and wants to make a blockbuster.

Should that writer of the book be paid? Does Spielberg have the obligation to pay the writer of the book? In a world without copyright, that writer would receive nothing.

And more directly, what do you object about copyright? that it exists? Or the length of time it exists?

 

[RJDiogenes]

This is exactly what I was talking about, and why we need guys like Ellison. The Internet generation thinks they should be able to grab whatever they want without paying and without regard to ownership. Being able to illegally download MP3s without paying has taught them that morality is whatever you can get away with.

 

[Professor Zoom]

This is exactly what I was talking about, and why we need guys like Ellison. The Internet generation thinks they should be able to grab whatever they want without paying and without regard to ownership. Being able to illegally download MP3s without paying has taught them that morality is whatever you can get away with.

And I sorta get it, because they are ripping off people who are RICH, so it doesn't matter to them.

But what about the artists who AREN'T? What about the ones scraping by?

Copyright is so important, especially for the little guy/gal

 

[RJDiogenes]

Well, theft is theft. And I doubt if most of the bands or artists that are being ripped off are rich, anyway. Certainly very few writers, poets and artists are.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Well, theft is theft. And I doubt if most of the bands or artists that are being ripped off are rich, anyway. Certainly very few writers, poets and artists are.

Agreed. But I think that's how people justify it. In this thread alone, why should Lucas have copyright control of a gazillion dollar franchise... Money must be a part of the justification, or not bring it up at all.

But, as you said, theft is theft.

 

[USS Kongo]

Well, theft is theft. And I doubt if most of the bands or artists that are being ripped off are rich, anyway. Certainly very few writers, poets and artists are.

Yep, this. Besides, the copyright law works for everyone, equally--regardless of their wealth. George Lucas is protected by it, but so is the struggling writer who copyrights his novel.

Sean

 

[TremblingBluStar]

I think you're mistaking my vigorous defense for copyright as an advocate for a permanent copyright. I'm sure Disney will lobby. And I hope it's turned down. Conversely, I don't think copyright should be what it was 200 years ago. I think Life plus 50 or 75 is fine. AND, it has to be a HUMAN BEING not a corporation that holds the copyright.

Corporations are people too!

This is exactly what I was talking about, and why we need guys like Ellison. The Internet generation thinks they should be able to grab whatever they want without paying and without regard to ownership. Being able to illegally download MP3s without paying has taught them that morality is whatever you can get away with.

Well, I hate to say it, but the giant corporations, the rich, and especially politicians aren't exactly setting a good example here for people. When a person, especially a teenager, is constantly told about the rich and corporations buying politicians so the laws go in their favor, and the increasing income gap and diminishing middle class, they feel powerless.

I'm not saying that gives them the right to steal, or that downloading music will make their life any better - but when we are living in a corrupt society where cheating and defrauding is rampant, it's hypocritical for corporations to wag their fingers at teens using bittorrent.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, and corporations have feelings too!

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Yeah, and corporations have feelings too!

Leave the corporations ALONE!!!

 

[JarodRussell]

Actually JarodRussell, let's not focus on Lucas for a moment. what about the writer who has written a book, mildly successful, but, not setting the world on fire. It falls into the hands of say Spielberg, who LOVES it and wants to make a blockbuster.

Should that writer of the book be paid? Does Spielberg have the obligation to pay the writer of the book? In a world without copyright, that writer would receive nothing.

And more directly, what do you object about copyright? that it exists? Or the length of time it exists?

That's an adaptation, for which I haven't fully made my mind up yet. It's virtually a direct copy, just on another medium. Of course the writer should get paid for that, and/or get the opportunity to write the screenplay himself. Because it's like you hire the writer again for your movie.

What I was talking about was sequels, prequels, reboots and spinoffs. I see no reason why one should prevent people to play with universes created by others and be successful with it. But when you make a word for word, shot for shot remake, you didn't do much yourself.

Let's take James Cawley, for one thing. Why shouldn't he be allowed to get Phase II on screen and profit from it? It's his production. If he finds a producer, a distributor and an audience, why the hell not? If he uses old scripts without changing anything, it's like he hires the writers again, so he's got to compensate them of course.

And nobody should be then prevented to take that Phase II "fan" production and base further works on it.

 

[Jan]

Actually JarodRussell, let's not focus on Lucas for a moment. what about the writer who has written a book, mildly successful, but, not setting the world on fire. It falls into the hands of say Spielberg, who LOVES it and wants to make a blockbuster.

Should that writer of the book be paid? Does Spielberg have the obligation to pay the writer of the book? In a world without copyright, that writer would receive nothing.

That's an adaptation, for which I haven't fully made my mind up yet. It's virtually a direct copy, just on another medium.

Not in the real world, it's not. Witness what's been done to World War Z. By the time it's finished, if it bears the slightest resemblance to the book other than locations I'll be amazed.

Of course the writer should get paid for that, and/or get the opportunity to write the screenplay himself. Because it's like you hire the writer again for your movie.

Just because a writer does a good novel doesn't mean he'll write a good screenplay. He should be paid for the use of his characters, situations and unique story. Perhaps he might do a decent job on a script but chances are he'd end up re-written anyway (and yes, that writer should be paid for his services, too). What a director ends up doing with them will be out of his control but that doesn't mean that if the project started based on his work that he shouldn't get paid for the use of it.

Jan

 

[David cgc]

If he uses old scripts without changing anything, it's like he hires the writers again, so he's got to compensate them of course.

If he uses old stage sets without changing anything, it's like he hires the carpenters again, so he's got to compensate them of course.

 

[JD]

Actually JarodRussell, let's not focus on Lucas for a moment. what about the writer who has written a book, mildly successful, but, not setting the world on fire. It falls into the hands of say Spielberg, who LOVES it and wants to make a blockbuster.

Should that writer of the book be paid? Does Spielberg have the obligation to pay the writer of the book? In a world without copyright, that writer would receive nothing.

And more directly, what do you object about copyright? that it exists? Or the length of time it exists?

That's an adaptation, for which I haven't fully made my mind up yet. It's virtually a direct copy, just on another medium. Of course the writer should get paid for that, and/or get the opportunity to write the screenplay himself. Because it's like you hire the writer again for your movie.

What I was talking about was sequels, prequels, reboots and spinoffs. I see no reason why one should prevent people to play with universes created by others and be successful with it. But when you make a word for word, shot for shot remake, you didn't do much yourself.

Let's take James Cawley, for one thing. Why shouldn't he be allowed to get Phase II on screen and profit from it? It's his production. If he finds a producer, a distributor and an audience, why the hell not? If he uses old scripts without changing anything, it's like he hires the writers again, so he's got to compensate them of course.

And nobody should be then prevented to take that Phase II "fan" production and base further works on it.

But all of that can still happen if you get the rights to something in the modern system. Sure you have to pay for the rights, but I believe the majority of the money will still go to the person who made the new movie, if the new person isn't heavily involved. And if you can afford to make the kind of movie you seem to be talking about making, then the chances are that you will be able to afford to buy the rights, and if you can't afford the rights then chances are that you won't have the money to make a big movie.

Now what about if you use a preexisting public domain character, but it's your own unique version, like DC Comics, Marvel Comics, and Hercules: The Legendary Journeys all having their own version of Ares (yeah, I know it's random, but I've been getting into all three of those, and I noticed they all have their own versions of the gods in them), could someone tell a story with an Ares who is exactly like one of those three, but has no connection to any of their universe?

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Even if the guy is a douche there's really no reason to have a title like that.

It's not like the guy's a murderer or anything.

 

[RJDiogenes]

What I was talking about was sequels, prequels, reboots and spinoffs. I see no reason why one should prevent people to play with universes created by others and be successful with it.

Because it's not theirs. They don't own it. Therefore they can't use it without permission.

 

[JarodRussell]

If he uses old scripts without changing anything, it's like he hires the writers again, so he's got to compensate them of course.

If he uses old stage sets without changing anything, it's like he hires the carpenters again, so he's got to compensate them of course.

Do you mean the same design but newly built, or the actual sets used back then?

But all of that can still happen if you get the rights to something in the modern system. Sure you have to pay for the rights, but I believe the majority of the money will still go to the person who made the new movie, if the new person isn't heavily involved. And if you can afford to make the kind of movie you seem to be talking about making, then the chances are that you will be able to afford to buy the rights, and if you can't afford the rights then chances are that you won't have the money to make a big movie.

Now what about if you use a preexisting public domain character, but it's your own unique version, like DC Comics, Marvel Comics, and Hercules: The Legendary Journeys all having their own version of Ares (yeah, I know it's random, but I've been getting into all three of those, and I noticed they all have their own versions of the gods in them), could someone tell a story with an Ares who is exactly like one of those three, but has no connection to any of their universe?

But if I buy the rights today, nobody else can have them at the same time. It always goes to the highest bidder, and the rest loses out.

 

[JarodRussell]

Let's see it from the other side. There have been a couple of cases where the copyright holders just took the work a fan did away and made money from that. And as of now, it's their right "because it belongs to them". Which it shouldn't, because they didn't do the work.

There was some guy who built a Star Destroyer and uploaded it to the net. Then LucasArts simply took that and used it for a game trailer, and the guy got nothing even though he did all the work. He built the damn thing, he's got to be compensated for that. It shouldn't matter that he doesn't have the rights to Star Wars. It should only matter what you did. And in his case: he built the damn thing in maybe 200 hours. That's worth something. But the copyright holder just took it without paying anything. That's not right.

I think Tobias Richter got screwed over a couple of times recently, too.

 

[tighr]

Let's just say its all screwy, and until we live in the world of Star Trek where there's no money in the future, it'll keep happening.

Everything we're arguing about is because of "compensation", i.e. money. In the future, with no money, the only reason anyone will do anything is for the recognition and because it feels good. Also, more things will be created when no one's creativity will be stifled because they're afraid of getting sued.

 

[Jan]

There was some guy who built a Star Destroyer and uploaded it to the net. Then LucasArts simply took that and used it for a game trailer, and the guy got nothing even though he did all the work. He built the damn thing, he's got to be compensated for that. It shouldn't matter that he doesn't have the rights to Star Wars. It should only matter what you did. And in his case: he built the damn thing in maybe 200 hours. That's worth something. But the copyright holder just took it without paying anything. That's not right.

It's perfectly right. If they wanted to do work and get compensated for it, they should have done *original* work. If they did something for love of a property or to hone their skills, they still have no ownership of that property.

Being a fan doesn't bestow any ownership of a property no matter how beloved. And that's one big difference between a pro and an amatuer - pros don't do work until they've got a contract.

Jan