Slashdot Mirror
The Lawsuit of the Rings
securitas writes "The New York Times' Ross Johnson reports that Lord of the Rings trilogy director, Peter Jackson, is suing New Line Cinemas for underpaying him by as much as $100 millon. The lawsuit filed Feb. 28 alleges that New Line committed fraud. Jackson 'reportedly receives about 20 percent of the gross revenue realized by New Line for the trilogy, minus expenses such as taxes.' Jackson's lawyer confirmed that of the more than $4 billion that New Line collected from revenues, merchandise and licensing, Jackson has received 'almost $200 million to date from New Line for the trilogy.' If the opening line doesn't make you want to read the article, I don't know what will: 'What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?'"
From TFA:
Well, that's a silly question...between 'professional courtesy' and 'conflict of interest', no lawyer would ever take the case against the evil empire.... ^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I guess this doesn't look good for PJ to make The Hobbit with New Line.
Well, the movie wouldn't have been as good, though we probably would have seen more riots on TV, with the police whacking/tear gassing geeks dressed up as elves and hobbits. It certainly would have made the evening news more entertaining anyway.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
...He would have lost the case because Sauron would be able to afford better lawyers.
Truely cripped...
Everyone knows Sauron has the best lawyers in the land.
At least he was smart enough to get a percentage of the gross. The author of Forest Gump was promised a percentage of the profit. The studio claimed that there was no profit. Some of the most creative people in Hollywood are the accountants.
[Insert pithy quote here]
"Justice IS Tenacious" - a new inscription from our collection of lawyer rings. The tradition of giving lawyers rings upon admittance to the Bar began in England in the early 1400's. These simple bands were inscribed in Latin around the outside with a verse that referred to a legal ideal. Our's reads "Justice Tenax" (Justice is Tenacious). The original of this ring can be found in the collection of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, London. Ring is cast in sterling silver or in 14 kt. gold and completely hand finished and hand polished. Gold rings available with an antique finish if requested. Gift box included. Lawyer Of The Rings
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
It has nothing to do with whether or not he *needs* the money. If it's in his contract he's entitled to it, period.
How many folks out there would appreciate their employers under-paying them because "they had already been paid enough", or some such non-sense?
So let me get this straight.... he doesn't deserve what the contract you signed with him says because he can already choke all the worlds hippos with his cash?
There's a lesson to be learned from this. Always check your pay stub. You never know when your employer is going to short you $100 million.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
"Nassty New Line Cinemas...we hates them!"
"I told you they were tricksy...I told you they were false..."
^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I suppose that he did confront some empire or another on his way, but yeah, it doesn't really make any sense. I'd have expected a reputable newspaper like NYT to check the facts before publishing such nonsense.
-
We have been trolled.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
You would prefer that the money all stayed with the noble and virtuous New Line Cinemas, to help cover their costs in pursuing world peace?
Please. They signed a contract giving him 20% (of gross), and now he wants them to make good. The fact that it's a _lot_ more money than they thought it would be shouldn't really factor into it...
I had a lot of respect for him. I used to see him as Peter Jackson, Cinematic Artist. Now I see him as Peter Jackson, Greedcock.
Would you be happier if NewLine got to keep the money?!? The money belongs to someone. I say give it to the guy who created it.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Would you be happy if your paycheck got cut by a third?
An extra $100 million is like a new scholarship or cancer foundation or something...
hmmm... how many scholarship/cancer foundations can you start with $100 million?
Maybe he was shorted like 4-6 SCF's!
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
What the hell. The company says they are going to pay you X amount of dollars. Company pays you X - 100,000,000 dollars. You get pissed, because you wrote a contract stating how much you would get. How is he greedy for getting what he signed up for? Is he suing for extra, more than was what promised? No, he wants what they said they've give him. Does your company say they'll pay you $60K a year, then only give you $10K and say oh well... and you being full of integrity, decide oh well, they can keep it, I don't want to be a greedcock.
On the one hand, Newline is MPAA and pulling this kind of stunt is just what you'd expect from them. On the other hand, they did bet the farm on Peter Jackson, and they were the ones who tossed out his original all-in-one movie and said, "let's make a three-parter." I think we all agree that was a blessed moment.
So kinda don't know how to come down on this one.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?
Possession is 9/10 of the law. Even had Frodo been able to get a restraining order in time, even a +5 vorpal restraining order ain't gunna stop a pack of Nazgul from performing an early morning BATF raid at Bag End.
Real life example: Someone I know(tm), had a large (~$30,000) amount taken by the IRS over a disputed tax account. Just taken, as in dissappeared from bank accounts. Someone at the IRS actually said verbatim, "Yeah we're probably wrong, but we have your money. Now try and get it back."
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
I think this lawyer from New Line sums it up pretty well....
"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
Jackson was quoted as saying "yessss. my precioussss 100 million dollarsss." and then proceeded to devour a live sea bass.
Who do you root for, the rich man or the rich company? If they really screwed him like he claims, he should sue them out of principal. Why does it always have to be greed? Hell, it was the other sides greed that caused them to do it in the first place.
A contract violation is a contract violation.
If an actor is shorted and receives $50k instead of $75 is it fine for them to sue?
Except in that case, the lawyers fees would probably negate any value in suing.
Also when you start to reach the level of wealth that Jackson has, the only valuable thing to do with it is to start donating to charity. Jackson might be a money-hungry whore, but i'm certain he'll make better use of the cash than new line cinema.
Says one of New Line Cinema's lawyers FTA:
"..there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
Why does it matter if he already has tons of money? How is that an argument to not give him what you owe him? You can rip him off because he's rich already?
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
'What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?'"
Both he and his lawyer would be dead. A judgment is just a piece of paper unless you have the power to enforce it.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
I had a lot of respect for him. I used to see him as Peter Jackson, Cinematic Artist. Now I see him as Peter Jackson, Greedcock. The same thing has happened with many musicians. They become famous, and forget their artistic roots in favor of money. It is a sad day in the cinematic community.
What a load of garbage. He agreed to do the picture for $x. He was given $y. He wants his $x back.
Is it greedy, if I agree to work for someone for $50, and when I get paid $45 I complain?
IT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT!
In the article, the lawyer for "the bastards", as I will call the studio, claims that he's already been given lots of money.
So? What has that got to do with anything? Nothing! The studio has also been given lots of money! I guess, by their logic, that all "copyright theft" is now legit? After all, they have already made lots of money...
???
What a mentally retarded line from a lawyer.
Personally I'm hoping its not just about the money. Essentially what New Line did was give away merchandizing rights to its sub-companies instead of selling them at fair market value. While I don't think Peter Jackson really needs MORE money, honestly many companies are doing this exact thing to screw over their artist. So I say horray for Jackson for confronting this scheme of the Movie Industry head on. Sadly there is no way of knowing his intentions for this though.
Well, it's not about how much money he has, but how much he legally contracted for with New Line Cinemas. The real problem is that this sort of thing goes on all the time, such as with musicians getting bilked out of some of the money they are owed for royalties. Peter Jackson simply has enough money to be able to effectively sue for what he is owed. Your ordinary musician usually can't even see the books to see how much they are really owed, let alone be able to effectively sue for back royalties.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I mean who do you hope wins?
The guy that claims he is getting ripped off after he got paid 200 million dollars?
Or the company that made four billion?
My question is how much money did the Tolkien family get?
How about we take all of it except for say $400,000 and use it to build some schools? I am not usually in the screw the rich club but this is just annoying.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
From TFA:
"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
I think that statement falls under the Ad Hominem fallacy category.
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
this lawyer said. "New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
It doesn't matter if new line gave him $1 or $1 billion. If it is not what his contract says he gets then it doesn't matter if it is too much money. Shouldn't a lawyer be keenly aware of that.
As for what he should get. It seems that he is complaining that the rights to the toys he made were sold below market value to a sister company of newline. If he wanted to get revenue from the toys he should have added a clause in his contract. On the one hand I am disgusted at newline trying to hide money, on the other I don't feel all that bad for Peter Jackson not getting $100M in toy sales.
Just another example of huge conglomerates not serving the country's best interest anymore. Time to start revoking some corporate charters if you ask me!
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Your right... the money should be given out to the poor starving shareholders.
Won't someone please think of the shareholders?
"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him." Sure it's a lot of money. But his contract was for more. I like how they think they have paid him enough and NOT what his contract was for. And then turn around and say it's piggishness
yea, it really sucks when people get the compensation they deserve for producing great works! the nerve of that man! movie producers deserve all the money in the world. all that work they have to do surely justifies the stranglehold they have on the creative medium known as movies.
if you read the article (which it appears you neglected to, surprise surprise) Mr. Jackson claims that new line basically sold away the merchandise rights without taking bids, which would have resulted in millions of more dollars being made. a poor business decision no doubt, since it resulted in significantly lower profits.
the writeup itself is also flawed, as the NYT is using an anonymous quote from one of the parties involved, ostensibly the defense, which is against its own policies regarding anonymous quotes.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
If you lost respect for a man because he wants to get what he's entitled too, then I say you couldn't have had much respect for him in the first place.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Crow T. Trollbot
I'm gonna go with Tom Bombadil since he would just overwhelm the defense with lively song and dance. Oh and the article says Hobbits are common in Middle Earth when in reality they aren't as common as many as the other races.... (Geek Out)
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
Lawsuits in Hollywood are hardly personal. PJ may be taking it personally, but the corperate zombies at a Hollywood studio only look at making more money.
This lawsuit will get taken care of then it will pave the way for The Hobbit if NewLine thinks they can make even more money. Money money money. It may even get resolved by promising PJ that he can produce/direct The Hobbit and take an even bigger stake in the profits...or something.
It's all red tape and shady book-keeping anyway. Arthur Anderson and the accounting they did for Enron were amatuers compared to Hollywood accountants.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Funny how Peter Jackson is acting "piggish"according to the defense attorney quoted in TFA, considering he actually did justice to the story, satisfied the world that it could be done right, and made LOTR the success it is.
Without the 'pig', the studio could very well have had half the profit to fight about. IMHO, here's another likely scenario: Studio picks wrong director, films don't live up to expectations, no Oscars, less hype, less $$$$.
They're just trying to screw him over like they do everyone else according to the article, apparently it's SOP and they like to settle out of court so their sleazy accounting practices aren't revealed. Oink.
While it's pretty hard to feel sorry for a guy who just made $200M, it's even harder to feel sorry for the production company that pulled down $4B and doesn't want to make good on the terms of the contract they signed.
:-)
Besides, I only want $1M, and nobody feels sorry for me
It doesn't take creative accounting to make zero profit. MANY MANY small businesses are run like this so as to minimize the tax impact.
My point is that it's not just Hollywood. It is a preferred method for many people all across America.
Now, having said that, negotiating for a cut of the net profit is just a bad idea. For anything. By doing so, you give the payor the opportunity to let his costs get out of control without any negative consequences.
Gee "mentally retarded" and "lawyer" in the same sentence. Who would have thought? :-p
Seriously, though, some of the dumbest things I have ever heard have come from having to deal with lawyers. The old tactic of throwing everything you can out there and seeing what sticks leads to vast amounts of idiotic shit being thrown about.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
The same could be said for music artists who get "bad" music contracts.
:D~
Oh wait wait here comes the negative mods. Someone mod it insightful so i can be an Insightful troll
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
... he ONLY got 200 million? He got so fucked. Poor guy. *cough*.
Shadus
Hobbiton: Wealthy hobbit Frodo Baggins today filed a lawsuit against the Dark Lord Sauron claiming damages from an army of orcs, as well as personal injury from the so-called "One Ring."
The charges brought up against Sauron include: The invasion of Rohan and Gondor via orcs, trolls, and evil men; the scouring of the Shire; the corruption of Saruman the White and the subsequent turning of Isengard into a fortress of evil; and, last but certainly not least, the use of a Ring of Power to twist the mind of the young hobbit.
Frodo's legal counsel, one Tom Bombadil, believes that the prosecution has a very good chance of winning. "La de da," Mr. Bombadil sang, "all of my elves are very happy and joyous! And we love singing too! La la la..." At that, this reporter proceded to stab him several times with a nearby broadsword.
In court today, the defense for Mr. Sauron called forth one Smeagol, more commonly known as Gollum. When asked whether Mr. Baggins could be trusted, Gollum commented, "They STOLES it from us! Filthy, tricksy hobbitses! They STOLES my preciousssss!" Sauron's defense then proceded to testify that, due to the fact that Mr. Baggins' father was, in fact, recruited as a "burglar" by the late Thorin Oakenshield, and the fact that he did indeed steal the ring from Mr. Gollum, Frodo's entire testimony concerning the ring was suspect. Frodo's counsel did not offer a rebuttal.
Sauron's lawyers declined to comment on any of the charges being brought up before them, except with a very cryptic, "One Countersuit to rule them all..."
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Its called marketing, I mean seriously, none of you actually beleive they lose money doing it? I mean they are BUYING services from a subsidiary of their own freaking company. Thats why half the "Box Office Bombs" actually end up making money for these assholes, they never spent the money to begin with, they just transfered it around.
The day companies like New Line legitimatly dont cook the books and underpay directors and writers etc, is the day the earth will be consumed by 500,000 mile tall aliens as a snack.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?
Hmm, who would have been cast?
Frodo: Joe Pesci
Sam: Chris Farley
Merry: Adam Sandler
Pippin: Ben Stiller
Gimli: The Pat character from SNL
Legolas: Calista Flockheart (Ally McBeal)
Gandalf: Jack Nicholson
Aragorn: Antonio Banderas
Boromir: Ahnold
Elrond: Christopher Walken
Saruman: Crispin Glover
Arwyn: never happen, because this was a hokey non-character to begin with...
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121636
Marvel used a similar strategy to deny Stan Lee payment for several movies based on his comic-book characters. They lost.
If it wasn't Peter Jackson, people would be raising all sorts of "greedy pig" ruckus.
Doubt it. Because even as greedy a pig as the director might seem for making well into nine digits and still wanting more, the studios are EVEN GREEDIER PIGS for trying to keep the director's money for themselves.
If there's no Little Guy to root for in this case, there's at least still The Smaller of Two Giants.
Aye. I mean, sure, he doesn't need the money. Period. If he thinks he needs it, then I'm sorry, he's fucking stupid. But I'll tell you somebody who needs it even less: corporate fuckers trying to screw someone over just because they think they can. Maybe Pete will donate it to charity or something. Maybe he'll buy a gold toilet. I'd still rather see him get it than some money grubbing whores who obviously can't be trusted*.
*Provided the evidence "proves" as such.
...when he refused to send me the $4.80 in blank DVD+Rs I needed to burn the extended edition series and pay for my ISP. Doesn't he know data wants to be free? That greedy bastard expects a contract to mean something? How dare he want to feed himself and his family? How dare he want a contract to mean something?
I seem to remember most characters in Middle Earth didn't recognise what hobbits were at all. Hobbits don't travel much and so outside of the Shire they were bascially unknown. I'm not even a Tolkien geek and I know this.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Sauron's legal team would have just held the case in litigation for years and years, eventually bankrupting the Fellowship from the legal fees. Either that, or Sauron would have bought out Middle Earth, and discontinued support.
I'm almost positive this is where Microsoft got their business practices.
"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
I like how the author of the article uses anonymous sources to slam PJ without any merit. PJ not only made 1.5 Billion for New Line he finally made New Line a major player and he deserves every penny due.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
there are no lawyers (and no solicitors,
The Nazgul on his horse came at the hobbit farmer. They were about slap him with a death subpeona if he didn't fess up to where the hobbits were. Thats total lawyer tactics "Tell us what we want to know, or we will take your life from you."
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
that's a damn good deal, what where those new line people thinking when they signed it?
I wonder who took the initiative for this cut. Clearly somebody didn't think the movie would do well.
Go hug some trees.
I do not endorce or condone piracy, but if the movie houses hoard the cash from the big shots, imagine what happens to the average joe camera man, producer, artist, CG programmer, etc. How does buying the flick "help the little guys" ? Transversly, how does DLing a flick hurt them?
AIUI the essence of his suit is that the company gave merchandising etc. deals to members of the same conglomerate when they could have made more money on the film by opening them up for competition. If he wins we should see more contracts being opened up for everyone to bid on, and possibly more separation of the big media conglomerates.
I am trolling
$200m is a lot of capital that could be reinvested in WETA digital and the like. I suppose the "moral" question comes down to:
Who will make better use of the funds: Peter Jackson, or New Line? I'm biased towards the former, although in at least one case, a brilliant filmmaker got rich off merchandizing rights, and then proceeded to make a series of flawed movies. Pixar, ILM, THX, and Skywalker Sound partially make up for this...
I love the quote where they say they gave Jackson "enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it wasn't enough". They try to make him sound greedy, to cover up the fact that he's basically suing them for... being greedy.
It has nothing to do with the RIAA needing the money. If it's in the law they're entitled to it, period.
This seems to be a good place to ask this question:
What do they do with all the money?
There is a limit to the number of houses, cars, computers,... you, as a person/family, can use at any given time. And I would guess a few hundred million dollars should be able to buy you that easily.
Linux is not Windows
It seems to me that there is a big problem with media integration today. The big media empires are interested in merchandising an idea to death. They take a popular (and sometimes unpopular) story and transform it into every medium possible: books, movies, TV shows, music, Musicals, toys, icecapades, etc. Just look at what disney does to its movies. You will see it spun-off in every possible way within their own company to make money (Disney Channel, RadioDisney, Disney Books, etc.)
And while I don't really have a problem with this, I just fear that it ultimately creates a dirth of new ideas that take off because the large media empires favor existing popular concepts rather than take a chance on something new. This coupled with media consolidation is a bad thing, as it means the outlets for new and creative ideas are few and far between.
Of the studios screwing over the artists that make them money as they lobby congress for harsher laws to "protect" the artists.
...and ignoring that there may well be a big breach of contract here, ask yourself this, "would it be okay if a corporation used open source code in a product and released 75% of the source? Would that be enough?"
I think now you see that it is a matter of the contract, the fine print, etc., and not some inane knee-jerk response of "he got enough".
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Seriously, these lawsuits are getting way out of hand. We need to get back to basics and have sword duels, like back in the days of jolly old Middle Earth.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Don't forget that means New Line has closer to a billion. Really sounds like they need it...
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Goatse in Burma-Shave thing.
Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
Well, they certainly didn't come out of thin air, but neither did they come out of Tolkien's head. Most of them (save for the hobbits and the orcs) came from Nordic mythology. Sacred-texts.com has a list (and texts) of many of his sources.
---
Oh goodness grace!
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
If it's in his contract he's entitled to it, period.
I RTFA and it is a little weak on detail, but it appears that PJ got what he was entitled to.
The article seems to be saying that New Line sold off merchandising rights to companies within the Time Warner family rather than sell to the highest bidder.
The suit contends that NL would have made more money, and therefore PJ would have recieved a higher cut, if the merchandising rights were sold on the open market.
For everyone who posted that a contract is a contract, it would seem that if NL never promised to sell to the highest bidder, then NL met all the terms of the contract and PJ got what he deserved.
How many folks out there would appreciate their employers under-paying them because "they had already been paid enough", or some such non-sense?
I wonder if I could sue our sales department for not generating enough revenue?
It's likely that it doesn't matter if PJ get 100M more or not. Don't tell me he's fighting for the little guys before or after him, but it's all about control isn't it?
The sad truth is that how the world operates does not allow 100 PJ who are only 1% as rich (still very rich), but only 1 PJ who's 100 times richer.
Can you believe this quote by the lawyer. Note, "New Line already gave him enough money.." this implies:
1. New Line can retroactively decide what you get.
2. this vertical integration is techically an interesting idea where every department justifies its existence by "charging" other departments for providing a service they are already paid to do.
3. a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Warner obviously wants to make buckets of money, and wants to make more, who doesn't?
4. It is now not unusual for actors/directors etc to take a pay cut or not get paid at all, for a percentage of the profits.
I'd rather have a balrog chasing me than a lawyer. :|
Anyone up for some communism?
Little old ladies spill orc-draught on their laps and sue McDurthang's.
Constant environmental-impact lawsuits from Fangorn every time someone does as much as mow their lawn or trim a bush.
Pippin sues "The Prancing Pony" for lodging payment, saying "Nazgul stabbing my pillows in the night was a traumatic lodging experience".
Sam, didn't you know that Shelob was the last of an endangered species? PETA is now suing you!
Unfair labor practice suits by Fellowship hobbits who were denied their "elevensies" breaks during journey.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It seems that most things like this eventually end up settled out of court with the settlement sealed so the world doesn't know the details.
One of Hollywoods biggest tricks is to say that no matter how much a movie took in at the box office, that it made no money. I seem to remember the author of "Forest Gump" suing the studio that made the movie with Tom Hanks since they (at one time but I have no idea what the eventual outcome was) claimed that the movie made no money. And so since there were no profits he was entitled to no money since his deal was for a percentage of the "profits".
What do you mean? Lawyers sue the US government all the time.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Actually the term eye-candy is a way of implying that the feature is unescessary or even useless but fun. On the contrary, Exposé in osX isn't eye-candy, it's well designed and beautifull to watch but its very usefull, very very, I need my window to slide and minimize in real-time if I am to spot the one I'm seeking amidst all the other, I want the movie to continue playing, I'm just not that use to see it and a single frame doesn't convey the info of a moving picture when watching a movie, therefore if I'm to switch amongst a few running media I need the feature. the minimize effect (Genie) is also very usefull, you just can't miss where your window went and so on...
:))
Even stuff like pleasing colors and throbbing buttons are usefull, surrounded by a blue line just doesn't get your attention as much as a pulsing button.
What I mean is that even if it's not necessary for the software to perform its function it's necessary for the human to perform the software functions, or at least, it helps.
Eye-candy is a bad name, feedback-based interface is more appropriate. Sry for the bad english feedback-based might not be beautifull but you get the idea of what it meant, one day my english will be refined enough to actually give it a nice name
This kind of thing happens all the time. It's really rediculous, I mean, if you pay someone $200 million dollars, and hold back another billion, obviously they are going to have the resources to sue you. It would be quite annoying, though. Waiting years to get your personal A380 or whatever you were planning on spending all that money on.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
New Line have committed the $100 million extra they received on rebuilding half of Bhagdad, and they feel it's uncharitable of Peter Jackson to want them to stop their altruistic plans.
...That should pretty much nail the coffin of that ever getting made.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
What a sily question, neither of them can be "really" killed. After a while it just would be boring as hell :D
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
In related news the estate of Tolkien has yet to receive more then .001% of the profits generated from Movies.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I see your point, but I think there's a difference.
The point is that record companies are in an unfair bargaining position. They can offer a take it or leave it contract. Be screwed, or wallow in obscurity. It's not a good choice. And it's not like the musucians can afford top notch legal representation to negotiate decent contracts. The result is a contract that is very one sided.
Peter Jackson and New Line were both well represented and presumably the contract represented an agreement that both parties were equally happy with.
This is about as interesting as a major league sports strike.
Businesses try to maximize profit, even at the extent of screwing partners over. Do I care how many millions PJ made of LOTR? No, but I do like to see contracts enforced, in case I ever get one large enough to care about.
What do they do with all the money?
Ok, it just might be that you never heard, but there are lots of people who produce films with their own money [naturally with the hope of a huge profit at the end]. I'd very much like to see PJ-films, either just directed, or produced or both, etc. Of course I can't have a clue what he would do with the money. Still, if he just buys half of New Zealand, I wouldn't care. Point is, withholding money despite your previous contract, is a Bad Thing and shall be punished.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
When did Frodo take on Lord Vader and the Emperor?
:o)
Maybe he's referring to Disney?
The movie industry has the same clout as the music industry. They can go to no-name talent and give them raw deals, and then they can go to big name talent and offer them golden deals. As for lawsuits - you really do not need money to sue, you just need to prove to your lawyer that you will win a lot of money. If I go to a lawyer and say "Hey take a chance on me, and i will give you 10% of my 100,000$ winning" you can be rest assured you will get one of the best lawyers around including his legal team of 10 other lawyers.
Both organizations, and the people who deal with them, are all looking out for themselves - nothign wrong with that. But in this case, New Line is breaking contract - which is moral and legally wrong.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
There's a growing backlash against the increasing concentration of wealth at the top.
Power to the Peaceful
Let's face it. While the little-big-guys might be getting screwed, the ones that are getting screwed the worst are us. Yes, us, the taxpayers. All that tricky accounting and flagrant disregard for accepted or even legal procedure ends up bypassing the taxman. If the studios actually paid the taxes imagine how much they'd add to tax revenue?
As for lawsuits - you really do not need money to sue, you just need to prove to your lawyer that you will win a lot of money.
It's not about suing. It's about negotiating in the first place. The contract may be unfair, but it's legal enough that no lawyer will take a chance on overturning it.
He's already gotten $200M for doing Lord of the Rings. At this point, it's NOT ABOUT THE MONEY.
He got shafted for $100M by New Line. How much is that for the people who didn't make that kind of money, say only $50k when they should have made $75k? For them, that's a lot of money.
At this point, it's the principle of the matter, forcing New Line to behave itself. The money is largely irrelevant.
The MPAA goes on and on about how P2P is hurting the artists....but they never mention what really goes on. If PJ can't get paid, what hope for the smaller musicians/actors?
No sig today...
Three subpeonas for the Elven-kings under the law, Seven for the Tort-lords with contracts written in stone, Nine for Defendants doomed to pay, One for the Dark Lawyer in his dark firm...
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Irrelevant. The point is who should get the money. Peter Jackson has every right to demand every penny he was promised in the contract. The problem is people will take a look at how much he already has and dismiss him as being greedy. Why not look past our own jealousy and stand up for what is right not what a twisted version of fair is.
I've no personal preference for or against PJ, but the down-and-out is that this is just a case of a guy getting his due. A contract was made, an amount was promise, and therefore he is owed what was agreed upon.
Whether the contract is for $10,000 or $10,000,000 is not of an issue, and it's not greedy to be unsatisfied with less than he was promised. It might be a little less necessary than the guy that needs $10,000 to pay his mortgage/etc, but no less due to him.
Absolutely right. There's no underdog here to root for, but if anyone should get rich off this it should be the person who's personally responsibile for the films being as fantastic as they are.
/syle
As I read it, PJ and New Line signed an agreement which said PJ would get a percentage of gross profit. If I were signing such a contract then I would expect a good faith attempt to maximise profit, because that is beneficial to all.
However, what New Line appears to have done is to deliberately NOT make the maximum profit, they have shuffled money sideways into a sister corporation. In this way they can say "we only made x dollars", where in reality the New Line corp as a whole did far better than that.
For example, imagine that you went to work for some guy & agreed to get paid 20% of what the business grossed, after a year you discover that the business isn't doing so well because the major shareholder takes a huge cut of the profit - and guess what, the major share holder turns out to be married to the boss. Yes, you're getting ripped off.
I say good luck to PJ, I'm pretty sure that he has been ripped off.
Damnit - I wanted my nick to be "WouldIPutMYRealNameOnSlashdot"
Once the studio files all the costs of fighting piracy and loss of revenue due to piracy as a cost, the total revenue will be a negative number!
Jackson owes them money!
You must be a Randite.
Note that the shady thing is NOT that their profits were significantly lowered, but the potential gross generated by the bidding process to determine who has the rights to merchandise was completely eliminated. I doubt Mr. Jackson gets part of the merchandising gross either way, but obviously he gets a percentage of the money paid to buy the rights for such merchandise. The fact that Time Warner is merely shifting its money around means that he will be getting much less than if the rights were sold as an open bid (i.e. with merchandising corporations motivated by the potential profit as a result of the popularity of Mr. Jackson's work). Time Warner will likely require their merchandising divisions to pay only what is necessary to handle production.
Well, not in anyway they haven't been screwed before. This is jejeune--New Line follows what has been the accepted industry practice of crediting revenue from in-house partners to a profit center against which external partners (like Jackson) have gross points. So an in-house distributor pays $x to distribute a film, for example, in an overseas market. If this in-house distributor helps out the bottom line of the vertically integrated partner by charging rates BELOW MARKET that's a GOOD thing for the overall company--the movie gets out without transfering money from Peter (your in-house distribution company) to pay Paul (your in-house equity in the film). Either way, it is YOUR money you are playing with--as an integrated company you do yourself no favors if one part of your business makes its money at the expense at the other. But yeah, Peter Jackson's profit is expanded in direct proportion to the gross revenue that gets credited to him. So he is saying that New LIne, which felt it could handle distribution and other tasks from its own units, should have either had those units pay MORE money into the movie (and his own pocket since he has gross points--point money New Line will never see again) or ensured that distribution companies OUTSIDE New Line payed more money to the advantage of both Jackson and New Line. This is typical big-money maneuvering: the principles of business law involved more interesting than the players involved.
The topic of this is discussion is Peter Jackson and his lawsuit. How about staying on topic?
4 BILLION dollars.
Whoa...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Gross is gross. That's "disgusting."
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
The suit charges that the company used pre-emptive bidding (meaning a process closed to external parties) rather than open bidding for subsidiary rights to such things as "Lord of the Rings" books, DVD's and merchandise. Therefore, New Line received far less than market value for these rights, the suit says.
Most of those rights went to other companies in the New Line family or under the Time Warner corporate umbrella, like Warner Brothers International, Warner Records and Warner Books. So while the deals would not hurt Time Warner's bottom line, they would lower the overall gross revenues related to the film, which is the figure Mr. Jackson's percentage is based on.
I think he's within his rights, because it sure sounds to me like he's being treated unfairly according to the contract he has with New Line. Whether he makes $200M or $300M is immaterial, it's the company thinking they can get away with ripping him off.
And what if $100M (or whatever) is the difference between PJ financing his own films completely independently, away from all this corporate BS?
"Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
While I think New Line was certainly playing dirty, it seems to me that he did receive what was in the contract. There was nothing in his contract to prevent New Line from selling the rights to subsidiaries of Time Warner. Given the detail of these types of contracts, perhaps this could have been prevented within the contract itself by adding something about "..including all profits made from any subsidiaries of Time Warner...".
The idea that New Line sold some rights for under market value, would seem to violate a fiduciary responsibility, if such existed. As someone else pointed out, could I sue my employer for not charging enough for our services?
A modern day witchhunt.
Tell you what, how about I start churning out copies of the LOTR trilogy, Magnolia and others? Because after all, you've made plenty of money out them.
You talk about how "piracy" deprives the people who make the movies out of money, and then do this?
I can't believe the hypocrisy of this case. If there's a genuine dispute over a contract, fair enough, but arguing that someone's made enough is disgusting.
It seems Peter Jackson has sued New Line before for lost revenue from merchandising, video and computer games releases. This was back in March 2005.
Are there others? What is the status of the March lawsuit?
The one "ring" to permeate this story: greed.
Considering how many times this exact same type of lawsuit has happened, you'd think that the studios would clearly state how the merch / syndication / cable / broadcast rights would be doled out. Duchovny sued Fox for the exact same reasons and (IIRC) Alan Alda sued over MASH.
...is my ticket purchase tax-deductible?
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
The lawyer makes it sound as if New Line was some kind of magnanimous benefactor, "giving" Jackson money because he was a great filmmaker and an all-around good guy.
I wonder if we can not freely start copying and sharing our LoTR DVDs, since we have already "given" New Line enough money to rebuild Baghdah, New York, London, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo (by this lawyer's math - if 300 or 400 million are enough to rebuilt Baghdad, imagine what 4 billion can't do).
That was a tremendously funny post but I had to make a correction.
Sauron's defense then proceded to testify that, due to the fact that Mr. Baggins' father was, in fact, recruited as a "burglar" by the late Thorin Oakenshield.
Bilbo Baggins is Frodo Baggin's uncle, not father!!!
Would have been hysterical had that not been botched.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
A little defensive, aren't you? Of course it's a problem in contract law. Of course, it is the letter of the contract that will have the most effect of Jackson's legal maneuvers. But that does not mean that the contract is just, or moral in and of itself-- although some moral philosophers, notably Rand, have conflated the two.
Since I don't have access to the contracts, and am unlikely to secure such access in the future, I thought myself free to speculate on the "moral question," rather than the "legal question." And so I did, reasoning that the dispute is not between a more deserving hospital or charity and Jackson, but between New Line and Jackson.
No children's hospitals are involved, although if one really wanted to, they could cheer on whoever faced the largest tax liability...
We're doin' it for a SHITLOADA money!!!
--Lone Star
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
I thought the same thing at first - then I realized that I don't have a contract with Gates to pay him anything. There's your difference.
But let's look at this...
Jackson was paid "enough to rebuild Baghdad"
That amount was less than what he was contracted to get. (20%)
So how many Baghdads could New Line rebuild? How many Baghdads could New Line rebuild with the money that they withheld from Jackson?
So who is being greedy here?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
His previous directing credits included The Frighteners, Heavenly Creatures and Bad Taste. And he gets a 3 film mega-budget movie to direct?
Have you seen pictures from his King Kong blog? The man is wasting away!
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
a lot of people rightly believe that nobody is 'entitled' to obscene wealth
By knowing how to read and write and having access to a computer capable of posting that comment, you have put yourself in the top 2% in the world. From the viewpoint of 95% below you, you are obscenely rich.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Using your logic the studio could have simply sold the entire movie to a company with in the Time Warner family of companies for a dollar and he would have received .20 cents.
Did Time Warner delibrately sell off the merchandising rights to a family company in an attempt to hide revenue?
If open market bids would have been higher than the sale they made, then yes they likely did try and hide the money.
This is of course in bad faith of the contact, however depending on what's in the contact may be perfectly legal.
I agree with you about wealth concentrating in a few hands, and I also agree it's not a good thing.
But for a large corporation to decry paying an individual for the amount they contracted for -- one can hardly say this has anything to do with social equality. It's about corporate greed and profiteering.
Personally, I think those several billion dollars would have not been generated were it not for his (and his companie's) work.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The article seems to be saying that New Line sold off merchandising rights to companies within the Time Warner family rather than sell to the highest bidder.
The suit contends that NL made more money, and therefore PJ would have recieved a higher cut, if the merchandising rights were sold on the open market.
Not exactly. According to this article at Slate, the issue is that the "pre-emptive bidding" process used to sell the rights within Time Warner allowed New Line to suppress the total amount of money they made on the films. It appears that Peter Jackson contends that they shortchanged him and were able to hide it by using this method of selling the rights.
And what happens to the money that they withold from Peter Jackson? Does it go to feed the poor?
The people running the studio are even more obscenely rich than Peter Jackson. If they agreed to a contract they should honor it, and he's perfectly right to sue if they don't.
And more importantly, the studios are screwing a lot of other people who aren't already rich. If they lose this case they might be less likely to pull the same scam against someone who will really be hurt by it.
Did anyone see the segments he recorded for the AFI Lifetime Achievement Tribute to George Lucas? Peter Jackson really slimmed down. Quite a remarkable difference to how he looked while making LOTR and his appearances at the Oscars. Congrats to him.
Now if Lindsey Lohan would just put back on the weight she lost...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
I root for neither the rich greedcock artists nor the rich greedcock executives. Greed is flowing on both sides, and greed is the antithesis of art. Art is meant to be enjoyed, not bickered over financially.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Well, the first thing they could do with all of the money is donate it to the International Red Cross. They would use it to help the tsunami victims, or help those women and children in Iraq (and soon Iran) who had their arms and legs blown off by US weaponry. And then there are various cancer foundations that could use the funding to help put an end of cancer. Those are far more noble uses than greedcocks buying more cars or mansions.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I know it's a strange concept, but a lot of people rightly believe that nobody is 'entitled' to obscene wealth -- it's a privilege society tolerates as long there's enough leftovers to go around.
1.) If a contract states you are entitled to a sum of money, there is nothing "right" about people disregarding that contract. If you deem wealth "obscene," that's your own personal judgment call. Personally, I'd love to be obscenely wealth--not only would I have earned it through a lifetime of hard work, but I would put a lot of it towards philanthropy. This is what Slashdot's hated, "obscenely wealthy" nemesis Bill Gates does.
2.) If you worked for that wealth, yes, you ARE entitled to it. End of story.
3.) Uh, wealth isn't a "privilege society tolerates." It's money you earn that is yours. You know, that whole ownership thing. The issue is how you earn it, but in this case it's irrelevant and is a whole different discussion. You're suggesting that you don't really own your money; society does.
There's a growing backlash against the increasing concentration of wealth at the top.
Yeah, it's the same tired college dorm-room "down with the rich" antics that have been around for generations and generations. Nothing new. What's most amusing is that these pseudo-socialists who want to distribute everybody's income are often funded by giant, rich organizations like George Soros--multi-millionaires who live wealthy lives away from the rest of us.
I imagine you're one of those types who uses the word "greed" in every other sentence. Working in exchange for money is probably greedy in your eyes. Have fun with that in the real world.
Poor PJ, his crumbs are so big, why he badtalk us?
The article is short on details. Without the exact wording of the signed contracts all we have here is an imperfect conversation.
I'm not surprised though, that this type of tactic is being used on purpose all of the time.
eTrade SUCKS
Slashdot has some serious double standards.
/.
Actually, it's not as much a double standard as it is some misconception on your part. We (as slashdot users) are not the borg. Please do not lump me in with the majority of users. That's not even to be trollish, I'm just sick of stereotypical geek values being assumed to be mine by the public.
most of you guys have no problem at all taking from the rich and justifying it because they're rich
That's pretty much a universal way of thinking and certainly is not limited to
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Remember kids, when you pirate movies the artists loose money, because of piracy Peter Jackson has lost $100m... oh wait...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Sorry, my fact-checking department is in the Hamptons :-)
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Gee I'm sorry for saying you have double standards. I figured the second part of what I had to say would make it clear that I wasn't trying to lump you together with everybody else. I guess I should have said "Most of Slashdot" AND "most of you guys" oh well to late now.
/.
That's pretty much a universal way of thinking and certainly is not limited to
Next time I'll juse refer to the most of the entire planet to make things more simple.
Lots more links on this sordid background here
Apart from that, isn't it too precious to hear a lawyer complaining about "piggishness".
you had me at #!
LOTR was a flop at the box office cause if movie pirates Like you and me. Now PJ will have to beg on the street for food. We should be ashamed of ourselves
Just another crappy blog
I have a vision too, and I don't need millions of fucking dollars to put it to work
It's not that he has vision, it's that he's able to make his vision reality. That doesn't necessarily mean that he *ought* to get that much money, but it does mean that he *can*.
Lots of people have vision. Few ever make that vision happen, and that's what seperates the haves from the have-nots.
You know most of those movies could have been done in a year or two in CG
If I'm not mistaken, it took a year or two of CG *on top* of the actual acting.
Really, let's see you produce ten minutes of film of the quality that the LOtR films were. If you can't, then shut up, and quit whining. If you can, you'll have a very lucrative future ahead of you. Remember, it's not the vision, it's making it happen.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Greetings Fellow Students! Want to be up to date with the latest news on science, society, business, ethics and law? Check out the nationally renowned journal - The Triple Helix! We are a relatively new student journal that has already become a hit at America's finest institutions, including Cornell, UPenn and UC Berkeley. The Triple Helix uniquely bridges three fields of study - Science, Society and Law to give you a holistic perspective and understanding of past and current events. To quench your curiosity and stimulate a few brain cells, check out http://www.thetriplehelix.org/. You won't be disappointed!
The point is, Jackson should get whatever the deal had stipulated. It doesn't matter if it's gobs and gobs of money. If they had a deal, then New Line should pay up.
Health Insurance Quotes
From the article:"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
Wow, that statement demonstrates astonishing hypocrisy. He's essentially arguing that as long as someone gets a lot of money, they aren't owed anything more, regardless of contract. As if the contract really said "20%, or as much as we feel is enough".
Well, I am happy to apply this logic across the board. Newline got enough money in my opinion. So I feel it's a bit piggish for them to suggest anyone in the whole world should fork over more money to watch any of the films they've released.
You heard it straight from the Newline lawyer: ignore the law and download at wi
ll.
Cheers.
"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him." Meanwhile Newline (and it's subsidiaries) got enough money out of it to rebuild _EVERY_ third world country. Sphincter say what ?
Hollywood gets a huge amount of representation for not a lot of taxation - consider the weird US copyright laws which started from the wet dreams of Hollywood executives and are spreading worldwide.
I am so sick and f'ing tired of cutesy headlines, references, etc in what should be dead-pan serious news articles.
Just because it's about a movie doesn't make this any less serious, or worthy of a serious look.
Argh. Enough. ENOUGH. To all the writers out there I say: you aren't cute. You aren't funny. It's not even witty. It's not worth the ink. Or the paper.
As usual no one bothered to RTFA and immediately started taking swings at a variety of straw men. Obviously Peter Jackson's contract wasn't that bad; he got $200 million, which isn't exactly chump change. The problem is that New Line is one of these media conglomerates, and gave itself all kinds of sweetheart deals on licensing, merchandising, etc. This reduced the total reported profits because NL didn't get competitive prices for these deals. This is a growing problem with vertically integrated media conglomerates.
I don't think Peter Jackson really needs the extra money. But this particular accounting trick does sound pretty slimy. If precedent is set then the media conglomerates might think twice before they screw less well known directors out of their fair share.
Peter Jackson will spend the money:
On personal goods and or services, maybe real estate, etc.. something to enrich his life... maybe even charity.
Studio will spend the money:
Purchasing your rights from filthy filthy congress creaturesesss
I spent some cash on seeing the movies... I know where I want it to go.
His previous directing credits included The Frighteners, Heavenly Creatures and Bad Taste. And he gets a 3 film mega-budget movie to direct?
Because he had the rights to make LOTR. If Newline wanted LOTR, they had to work with Jackson.
Doubt it. Because even as greedy a pig as the director might seem for making well into nine digits and still wanting more, the studios are EVEN GREEDIER PIGS for trying to keep the director's money for themselves.
Exactly. This is what bugs me about people who bitch about how greedy baseball players are whenever a salary dispute comes up, completely ignoring the massive greed of the owners.
The opening line definetily does not make me want to read the rest of the article. Since when is the Kingdom of Mordor an evil empire?
Seems like someone confused the Lord of the Rings with Star Wars
It's only a model.
How much money has his estate (presumably, family and charity he might have willed his future revenues to?). Afterall, it doesn't matter what Peter Jackson did with the movie. Tolkien is the creative force of the "movie" without him: no movie, no toys, no DVD, no royalties for you Jackson and company!
Net is zero. Or less than zero.
What planet are you on, moron? The Democrats have always been the biggest water carriers for the entertainment industry, and have always received the lion's share of political donations from Hollywood fat cats (78% in 2002.)
Psychiatrists call it 'projection' when you accuse others of the same faults you have. I call it typical leftist ignorance and hypocrisy.
You stupid little children think George Bush is the black hole from whence all evil flows. I guess your tiny little minds can't wrap around the fact that a "progressive" politician could be as supine and venal a lackey for big business as any Republican.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
I think both Jackson and New Line are being greedy, yes NL is being greedier. But is what they did illegal, to me it doesnt sound like it would be illegal just very shady and definetly not moral but probably not illegal because laws arent always based on morals. Also since Jackson is such a great director and is very creative I think it would be great to see what he could do with more money, if he can keep creating great products then he should recieve more money.
I'm thinking he could afford to fix The Two Towers.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
"You're suggesting that you don't really own your money; society does."
Well, in a certain sense, this is true.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---