I wish Harlan Ellison would just die already...
- Thread starter Tom Hendricks
- Start date
That's just about the stupidest thing I've read in a long, long time.
A
Amaris
Guest
Goliath's right, though. I believe most people simply want the writer to churn out the stories and be grateful anyone pays them to do it. See, once the work has left the writer's hands, then it's free to anyone who can get their hands on it, because the writer's already done the work, now to profit on the fruits of that labor. Since it's a writing, it can be sourced again and again, without ever having to associate with that writer. That makes it easier to simply take and ignore the needs of said writer.
Oh, I don't disagree that he's right. That right now that is the attitude. I just think that's a WRONG attitude. And I think Ellison constantly butts against that entitled attitude.
It's like all the whining fanboys regarding GRR Martin and why doesn't he finish the book, blah blah blah.
Writing is hard work. Art, in general, is hard work. Many writers NEVER see any money. Some do, and their "per hour pay" is probably shit. Look how many writers also have to teach, or have day jobs to make ends meet.
It's a rare thing when a writer can make their living solely on their work. And that's why they should defend it vigorously.
Thank heaven for people like Harlan, then, who aren't afraid to stand up and tell those immoral leaches to pay the writer!
Jan
Absolutely. The Internet has made it very easy to steal and people want to rewrite the concept of ethics so that they're not really stealing, but just taking what creators "owe" them. This is why we need people like Ellison, and why we should support Ellison. Especially those of us who are creators.
A
Amaris
Guest
I figured you agreed too, I was simply commiserating on the state of writing today as much of our new generation sees it. It's imperative that writers like Harlan Ellison stand up for the right to be paid fairly for their work, and yes, being an artist is not easy. It's a shame that most artists never see their hard work pay off, and yes, that's what makes it all the more important that people like Harlan, and anyone who feels the same way as he does, fights back. It's not free labor.
I remember that rant and love it to this day. That may have been the rant that changed my mindset on Harlan Ellison.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of that sense of entitlement. Most writers who submit works for free aren't just doing it for the fun of it (though that is a part), they're investing into themselves and their future, hoping someone will see their talent and eventually pay them to do that work full time.
Ok, I do have to agree with what he says in the video, and I really do have to admire him for standing up for what he sees as his rights, even if he is mistaken at times (like I really think he is with In Time). But when it comes to this kind of admiration, I don't think it really matters if he's right, what matters is that he's not letting people walk all over him.
A
Amaris
Guest
I think that's the biggest thing about it all. Ellison won't let people step on him and take his work without due compensation. If you write something for free, then it should be freely given. If you write something for compensation, you should be compensated for it. It's simple, but something so simple doesn't have much of a gray area, so people find reasons to rationalize not paying the writer for his or her work.
Reading through the previous comments a couple of things come to mind, which someone here might be able to answer.
If a writer comes up with a number of ideas for story elements should he have, what amounts to, a copyright like hold on not just those ideas but every other idea by other writers that seem a bit like them? As that seems to be the case here.
Just how often should a writer be compensated for his work being presented in the visual medium such as television? Those that create much of the narrative, such as the special effects, music, wardrobe and even folks like the stunt men/women and prop department all come out with unique ideas as well. They’re artists, they get paid by the same people as the writer, but only once! They don’t even receive residuals, as far as I know.
If a writer comes up with a number of ideas for story elements should he have, what amounts to, a copyright like hold on not just those ideas but every other idea by other writers that seem a bit like them? As that seems to be the case here.
Just how often should a writer be compensated for his work being presented in the visual medium such as television? Those that create much of the narrative, such as the special effects, music, wardrobe and even folks like the stunt men/women and prop department all come out with unique ideas as well. They’re artists, they get paid by the same people as the writer, but only once! They don’t even receive residuals, as far as I know.
This may be a phrasing issue but it can't be answered properly until it's phrased properly. Ideas *cannot* be copyrighted, only the execution of the ideas. 'A bit' would be up to a court to decide but it would first have to go through a lawyer to determine if it would be worth pursuing. Contrary to popular myth, a person can't pick up the phone and say "Sue!" and a lawyer will just try to do so. In this particular case, a noted reviewer has said that the movie is based on a story by Harlan. Where he got that impression may be key to the suit.
I think you'd need to revisit that idea and research it some more. As an example, I just found out this week (from a professional stunt person) that stunt people *do* get residuals when their stunts end up in a show. Others may also. My opinion is that they should get paid as much and as often as their contract allows. I read once that at one time residuals were only paid for the first three airings of a show. I don't know if that changed as the contracts improved.
Jan
"rewrite the concept of ethics". Ethics which have been made before the Internet. Why would it a bad thing to rewrite them?
As with music and film: if it's good, people will actually pay for it. The rest will be downloaded.
Because right and wrong aren't dependant on technology. Theft is still theft even if it's suddenly easier to do.
Nice theory. Now back it up with hard facts, please. I'll even grant that many who download illegally might intend to purchase something down the line but I'd also bet that the vast majority never do. I'm willing to look at actual data that shows the opposite, however.
Jan
I heartily agree....
It's the same mindset, IMO, as people who borrow books, DVD's, CD's, ect. from others, except in those cases a copy of the media isn't made. In other words, a person doesn't think about the morality of it when doing so.
I agree that most people who download do not intend to buy something. There could be a case made that people who download never intended to purchase, and thus there is no lost sale. However, that cannot be proven.
Perhaps the definition of theft needs to be redefined. The whole idea of intellectual property is way too limiting, and mostly based on the copyright holder's greed, in my opinion. 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? Why does he have to pay another gazillion to get the rights? Or Star Trek. Why is only a small group of people entitled to create new stories and release them to a wide audience? That's a creative bottleneck.
Morality is defined by the majority though. It's okay to borrow something and never buy it, isn't it?
Actually, right now, if you want to make a Star Wars movie, you can. LOTS and LOTS of people have made fan films in the Star Wars universe. Lucas hasn't stopped anyone.
However, what YOU want is to make a gazillion bucks from making a Star Wars movie.
Which you can only do BECAUSE IT'S A STAR WARS movie. You're basically trading on the work of SOMEONE ELSE to make a gazillion bucks. Trading on the Star Wars BRAND. Which you had nothing to do with.
THAT'S why you have to pay. To secure the copyright AND the trademark. Someone else did the work FIRST.
But, again, if you want to make a fan film and not make any money from it, Lucas will allow you too, like he has countless people before.
Now, explain why that argument doesn't apply to King Arthur, or Robin Hood or War of the Worlds, but does apply to Mickey Mouse.
Lucas does that as a courtesy. He's not legally obligated to.