Slashdot Mirror


LoTR Lawsuit Threatens Hobbit Production

eyrieowl writes "J.R.R.'s heirs are suing for royalties on the LoTR films. Apparently they haven't gotten any money due to some creative accounting. Peter Jackson ought to understand...he had to sue the studio for much the same reason. As for The Hobbit? FTFA: 'Tolkien's family and a British charity they head, the Tolkien Trust, seek more than $220 million in compensation...[and]...the option to terminate further rights to the author's work.'"

89 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. Threatening Hobbit Production... by Tetsujin · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know, if I were a Hobbit, I wouldn't let any lawsuit threaten my Hobbit-producing activities...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortunately, you aren't a Hobbit, and this kind of stuff is so common it has it's own name and Wikipedia entry. Look up Hollywood Accounting. It's pretty simple and extremely sleazy. Remember that profits are simply income minus expenses. If you make $100,000 but it costs you $40,000 in expenses, you have $60,000 in profits.

      Most movie earnings are reported in gross sales. Profits are slim, on purpose.

      Let's say you are a Hollywood producer.

      1) Make a deal with somebody to "share the profits" by using their idea.
      2) Produce the movie by hiring sub-contractor "companies" that happen to have you has the CEO. These "companies" are very expensive, and payed based on gross sales.
      3) Movie gets produced, makes record sales.
      4) The "companies" previously hired are payed based on the sales numbers, leaving no money left to call a "profit".
      5) ???
      6) Screwed partner makes nothing because there are no profits to share.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    2. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      ah...good ol uncle adolf. How we miss him.

    3. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kinda makes all their protestations about piracy ring hollow. How dare someone else screw them out of a profit.

    4. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Brought to you by the same people who are so deeply concerned that someone might copy a movie without paying for it. Of course, the whole industry in Hollywood started out dodging Edison's patent royalties.

    5. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think I can fill in ??? on this one. From the stories I've heard, expenses from completely different projects can get charged to your film, reducing the profit even farther.

    6. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by Gutierrez · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Always ask for a piece of the gross, not the net. The net is fantasy.", Freakazoid to Bo-Ron, Next Time, Phone Ahead

      Saturday morning cartoons really were educational television.

    7. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And this is apparently one of them:

      "The heirs also question expenses, according to Eskenazi, including an advance payment to an unnamed principal in the âoeLord of the Ringsâ films for an unrelated project, and a $1 million completion bond charged against gross receipts for each of the three films, even though a bond was issued only on âoeThe Fellowship of the Ring.â The studio also deducted a distribution fee for the home-video market, she said. "

    8. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by billius · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed. To quote Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski, "Basically, by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits." That's how you avoid paying someone who has made you $1 billion.

    9. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was looking at the other side of the coin where the very laws Hollywood bought are what made them have to deal with the estate. So when Hollywood whines, they're whining because they got their way. Soon enough they'll whine for another extension followed by whining about having to pay someone else for an idea that would otherwise be public domain.

      At least the Tolkien estate keeps it's story consistent.

      I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for either side, but I can't help a little snicker at Hollywood's expense since they did it to themselves.

  2. Damn leeches by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These books should be public domain by now.
    God damn extended copyright might kill another production.

    Ob. quote:

      "Is that a Hobbit over there?"

    "No, it's a hobo and a rabbit, but they're making a hobbit."

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Damn leeches by MindKata · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "extended copyright might kill another production"

      No, its the greedy, self serving, money grabbing, Narcissistic, control freaks who so often seek powerful jobs in big companies like Time Warner who are to blame (as usual). Their Narcissistic self interest at the expense of others forces people to finally take action against this kind of unfair treatment. They have tried for years to get some kind of fairness out of Time Warner.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    2. Re:Damn leeches by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they didn't have extended copyright, they wouldn't have needed a contract to begin with. That's what he's saying.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:Damn leeches by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      Agreed, it should have been in the public domain when I bought my copy of the trilogy in 1970.

      They're building one of those "Habitat Houses" down the street from me, and I wondered to my daughter if all the workers had tattoos of hobbits on them.

      "Why?" she asked.

      "Hobbit tat for humanity".

      Ok, I'll get my coat...

    4. Re:Damn leeches by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. They'd be even more free to screw people on the movie profits as they've already done! It's hilarious to see so many people on here actually defending a studio has screwed people who have worked on these films out of money and is a prominent RIAA member. The hypocrisy of this thread is astounding.

    5. Re:Damn leeches by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These books should be public domain by now.
      God damn extended copyright might kill another production.

      I agree the books should be in the public domain. But let's be honest here -- it's the usual movie production studio douchebaggery that is going to kill this production, not copyright. You know damn well they aren't thinking "Gee if only there were reasonable terms for copyright we wouldn't have to deal with the estate!" No, they are fully on board with life + infinite arithmetic progression copyright terms, they just want to twist the rules so they're the only ones who benefit. They've made their bed, and now they are trying to weasel their way out of sleeping in it.

      Well, fuck them I say. I'd rather everyone who was contractually owed money for those movies gets it even if in my ideal universe they wouldn't be owed anything, rather than let the fuckers responsible for the current situation get away with this shit.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Damn leeches by megamerican · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet, I'm sure you saw all 3 LOTR movies in the theater at least once as you'll probably see the Hobbit (not to mention other movies made by that studio) which will allow them to continue their screwing over of people who may or may not deserve a cut in the money.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    7. Re:Damn leeches by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These books should be public domain by now.
      God damn extended copyright might kill another production.

      In this case, I'd say it's not just copyright laws. Hollywood accounting is in my eyes more clearly douchebaggery than using the broken copyright system. It might be absurd that the estate maintains a copyright what should be public domain, but it's even more absurd for New Line Cinema to claim the Lord of the Rings movies didn't make a boatload of money.

    8. Re:Damn leeches by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What work did the Christopher and Priscilla Tolkien do on this film exactly?

    9. Re:Damn leeches by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. They'd be even more free to screw people on the movie profits as they've already done! It's hilarious to see so many people on here actually defending a studio has screwed people who have worked on these films out of money and is a prominent RIAA member. The hypocrisy of this thread is astounding.

      My sympathy fails for the heirs of rights to content produced so long ago.

      The heirs seeking money didn't actually DO anything to earn it. Peter Jackson made a movie. The studios made it available, etc. These parties took action, so compensation seems reasonable. Did the heirs take any action at all that contributed to the product or the potential for it to exist?

    10. Re:Damn leeches by Thuktun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These books should be public domain by now.
      God damn extended copyright might kill another production.

      (before film is made) "Darned copyrights are keeping us from making a film!"
      (after the film is made) "People are violating our film's copyright and should be punished!"

    11. Re:Damn leeches by Laglorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd say the hypocrisy of RIAA is astounding.

      The reason for reducing the copyright times are just because it would enable derivative works. Kind of how Disney took "Cinderella" or other stories in the public domain and made money and new stories out of them.

      The hypocrisy comes in when they refuse to ever give stuff back to the public domain.

      The people being screwed in this case isn't the heirs to Tolkien it's us. They shouldn't get any money after so many years. They are the true "leeches". That doesn't help or develops our civilization or culture.

    12. Re:Damn leeches by TeXMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These books should be public domain by now. God damn extended copyright might kill another production.

      The irony being that the movie companies are the big $$$ behind the ridiculous copyright extensions that are preventing them from not having to go through the JRR descendants to make movies.

      I guess the next copyright legislature will make book copyright shorter than music or movie copyright.

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    13. Re:Damn leeches by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because there would be NO ONE to screw if not for artificially long copyright periods.

      The man is dead. He's been dead since 1973. You know... 36 years. The last book was published in 1955. 54 years.

      Copyrights are not going to incent him to write any more books.

      Copyrights as currently implemented primarily benefit corporations. Not human beings who are dead long before the copyrights run out.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    14. Re:Damn leeches by e9th · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd forgotten about that. The interesting story is here.

    15. Re:Damn leeches by Bemopolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Under what bizarro universe does the public have more right to an author's work than the author (or their estate)?

      The one where the rights of private property and public good are balanced. The one where the rights of personal works and public culture coexist. Also, the one established in the FUCKING CONSTITUTION, where Congress is given the duty (emphasis mine) "[t]o 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" .

      Notice also that it explicitly says authors and inventors, and not the estates thereof, but that is a side issue. What is important is that the time be Limited. Unless you want to get a shovel and go excavate Ugg the fucking Caveman and pay him back royalties for your use of fire and the wheel. Pelts only.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    16. Re:Damn leeches by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It still amazes me how respondents in this forum think that there is some level on which it's acceptable to STEAL.

      I don't, which is why I'm arguing that the studio needs to pay the estate the money that they are owed.

      Under what bizarro universe does the public have more right to an author's work than the author (or their estate)?

      In the bizarro universe where the purpose of copyrights was to promote the arts and thus enrich our culture, and its protections were for a limited time only with the express purpose of enriching the public domain. So, basically, the bizarre universe of the United States prior the year 1976.

      For two hundred years, copyright served the purpose I describe and not the one you describe. This notion that an author's work is supposed to provide a life-long revenue stream for their children and their children's children is a recent invention, and contrary to the purpose of copyright, which is to encourage more works to be written. What has Christopher Tolkien done other than package up his dad's work? Maybe if he was operating under the same laws that his dad did when he wrote his books, then he'd have had to produce something of his own.

      Sorry, I just don't buy that argument under any circumstance.

      Okay, but the only reason author's have any right to an unnatural monopoly is because we, the people, agreed to compromise with them. The argument was the one that ruled the day from the authoring of our Constitution through to the Sonny Bono Copyright Act.

      The discussion here seems centered on whether the studio should get the spoils or the public.

      What a silly thing to say in a reply to my post where I argued that the "spoils" should go to the estate as contractually required. I think copyright law should be changed to match its original purpose, but that doesn't mean I think the movie studios, the very ones who lobbied for these ridiculous copyright laws, should be exempt from them! So basically it sounds like you missed my whole point. And I'm not the only one making this point. So pay more attention to the discussion, maybe?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:Damn leeches by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wouldn't say defending. I would be perfectly happy to have EITHER the extended forever copyright abolished OR the studio execs tossed in the clink. The simple fact is that they are demanding to have their cake and then cheating (by doing everything they claim others wrongly do to them) in order to try to eat it too.

      In fact, I don't think the studio should have had to contract with the estate at all. However, I also believe that many of their works should now be public domain. Given the way they've bought twisted IP laws, I have no sympathy for them however. I hope they end up having to cough up treble damages and more. Perhaps they should be penalized at the same ratio as a p2p file sharer is.

    18. Re:Damn leeches by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, is that strictly true? Children of Huron was published a good deal more recently than that. In fact, IIRC, four times as many books have been published by JRRT since he died than when he was alive. Not to mention the audio tapes (which include JRRT reading from his work and singing Elvish poetry that doesn't otherwise survive).

      This is all new material. Yes, technically it was all written before JRRT died, but not one scrap of it would have been released if there was no incentive by either Christopher Tolkien OR (more importantly) the publishing house to publish it.

      This new material included such gems as The Silmarilian, one of the all-time greatest works of JRRT, and the one he put the most effort into. That was never published in his lifetime. Not because it was no good, but because the publisher didn't realize the market for High Fantasy was as extensive as it proved to be. The other material, likewise, was often not held back by the author, it was held back by the publishers.

      I'm not saying extended copyrights are always good, but there ARE special circumstances where they are valuable.

      Another example would be the repair and restoration of crates upon crates of Hemmingway material that was left, abandoned, in his house after his death. Most of it is damaged by fungus and rot, but it is salvageable. The costs for the repairs are all being covered by the value of the material being salvaged.

      These are exceptional circumstances, you won't find anything remotely similar in the majority of cases, but the exceptions SHOULD be covered by law no less than the general rule.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    19. Re:Damn leeches by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Chris did a goodly amount of work recompiling the whole Middle Earth saga from notes, he tried to fill in unfinished stories of his father. He did try to clarify inconsistencies, add stories, and overall maintain the work that was left behind.

      No, he wasn't responsible for the work that these movies is based on directly... But he did become the de facto caretaker of the fictional setting.

    20. Re:Damn leeches by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fourteen years, renewable once, from date of first publication would cover everything you complain about.

      BTW, the Silmarillion was not delayed until Tolkien's death due to lack of demand. Ballantine (who sold LOTR in the US) would have loved to publish it while Tolkien was still alive. Tolkien didn't authorize it. Lin Carter (in charge of Ballantine's fantasy fiction line at the time) told me (a long time ago, at a science fiction con), that he thought Tolkien simply didn't want to stop fiddling with it and changing the form, that he thought Tolkien really didn't have anything else he wanted to do.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:Damn leeches by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He wrote those books in the forties. If he would have written them in 1840 the copyright would have expired by 1860. Why should Tolkien have a longer copyright period than Mark Twain?

    22. Re:Damn leeches by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course the criminal movie business would just wait for stories to expire copyright, and make a mint off of them afterwards.

      Like Disney and the Brothers Grimm?

    23. Re:Damn leeches by eleuthero · · Score: 2, Informative

      and not only that, but a number of elements in the histories are fleshed out in the visualization of the movie... it is obvious from watching them that they did not limit themselves to the LOtR only.

    24. Re:Damn leeches by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but if the copyright wasn't so onerous the studios could make the movie, and so could I,oor you, or anyone.

      Sure, but in the meantime, I'm not going to let the studios off the hook for the stupid law they themselves are responsible for.

      And they got what the contract said.

      Are you sure? That's what the studio says, but they said the same thing about Peter Jackson and Stan Lee and it wasn't true.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    25. Re:Damn leeches by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're building one of those "Habitat Houses" down the street from me, and I wondered to my daughter if all the workers had tattoos of hobbits on them.

      "Why?" she asked.

      "Hobbit tat for humanity".

      David "Dangermouse" Morgan-Mar, is that you?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    26. Re:Damn leeches by Zerth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because copyright isn't a right. It is a license society gives IP creators as a "consideration" to induce them to create because society finds it a valuable trade.

      If copyright ends, you didn't lose it, the society took it back. Culture belongs to society, you just get use of it.

      And the carpenter's home is his only as long as he pays property taxes. Stop paying those taxes and he'll either have to add on wheels and leave or lose it, in much less time than copyright lasts, to cover missed payments for use of the land.

      Be glad artists were generally broke back in the day, unlike land-owners. If IP was as valuable as land back then, you'd be paying X% of the "assesed" value of everything you created and the IRS would be rummaging in your trash for scribbled-on napkins to tax(IP is copyrighted on creation, remember).

      Instead of banking on royalties, perhaps you should start asking for payments up front and buying an annuity, if you want to provide for your unborn great-great-great-grandkids.

    27. Re:Damn leeches by rohan972 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Inheritence is bullshit. It just perpetuates a lazy aristocracy. I've told my parents to die broke, and I will do the same.

      Yes, because your parents accumulating enough wealth to make you independent of social security and banks is a terrible idea.

      Personally, I'd like our society to have a greatly reduced dependence on borrowing. I think a person living normally ought to have a reasonable chance to go through life without significant debt. The only ways I've thought of this being possible are if houses become very cheap or if it becomes common for people to inherit their accommodation.

      If I manage to leave such an inheritance to my children (a house or unit each) I don't think I would be perpetuating a lazy aristocracy. Mind you, I already have a house and my parents aren't dead, but I've had some lucky breaks. Unless my children can save the cash for a house themselves, they will be dependent on a landlord, a bank or the government to be able to get accommodation. So they will either get it from people who want (reasonably) to profit from them, from people who raise the money by taxation, or from me. Surely the best thing for society is for them to get it from me since I am willing (no need for tax) and do not require profits for helping my children (more efficient than banks/landlords).

  3. Bad news all around by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...on the one hand, the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.

    OTOH, the next of kin should not be in the picture here. These are works
    that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons. The
    worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any of
    the greedy schmucks. The fact that a charity is involved is just a nice
    red herring to confuse things.

    Imagine if the Bard's estate could screw around with people like this.

    That's the direction we are headed.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    1. Re:Bad news all around by Tetsujin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Imagine if the Bard's estate could screw around with people like this.

      Oh, man... the implications... I bet none of the Bard's Tale games would have ever been released!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    2. Re:Bad news all around by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Once you're dead, your work should hit the public domain. Copyright was not enacted so your works could be locked up forever, it was enacted so you could reap the rewards of your creativity when you needed it, like, you know, when you're alive.

    3. Re:Bad news all around by rilian4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      A bit of an exaggeration but correct in essentials. Author's life plus 15 years to take care of any family left behind in the event of the author's death was the original duration of US copyright. The problem was that a loophole was left allowing Congress the power to modify it. Fast forward 200+ years to now and you can see what has happened. Disney is a big example. Walter Elias Disney died in 1966. Under the original terms, copyrights to all his works would have expired in 1981 but here we are in 2009 and currently looking at something like 2017 or 2020 before they theoretically expire.

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    4. Re:Bad news all around by Krinsath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I generally agree with that, I understand that having the works immediately available in the public domain could very well place undue hardship on the creator's family should the death be sudden and unexpected. "Normal" people have life insurance policies generally tuned to their income to provide for that, but in the case of a a professional "creator" of works, quantifying that income can be tricky, and I don't think the loss of rights should be immediate to the family of the creator if one exists.

      Also, my utter lack of faith in humanity says that particularly unscrupulous individuals would "arrange" things so that an author who didn't want to sell the rights to their work would have the creator killed and poof! Public domain now for me to create my crappy movie and destroy the work. While I wish I could believe that people would never sink so low, this IS an article about movie studios trying to claim a major film trilogy made NO money at all. If they thought they could get away with it and make money, I don't doubt that some of them would do it.

      I can see a 20 year period after death being reasonable as any children they had should be grown capable of self-support by then and the incentive of making a derivative work of something 20 years old will often lose its allure unless it's a seminal work of culture in which case that's EXACTLY the compact society has made with the creator...we get the stuff back to inspire the next generation of creators. The current system we have is simply abusive of society as a whole though.

    5. Re:Bad news all around by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup, just like every slave owner was perfectly within his rights to beat his slaves to death.

      Wow, you are comparing efforts to enforce copyright to efforts to track down a sentient human being and force him back into servitude at gunpoint? I think you need some perspective.

      (At least you didn't Godwin yourself though ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Bad news all around by ifdef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe a lot of slashdotters aren't old enough to have kids, but it seems to me that providing for one's widow and/or children is one of the things that an author would likely be concerned about, and probably even consider to be a "need".

      Nobody is talking about locking up works "forever". This is about books that were written and published long after Mickey Mouse made his first appearance, and Mickey is still copyrighted (which seems to be stretching it a bit TOO far in my opinion).

    7. Re:Bad news all around by Emb3rz · · Score: 3, Informative

      I sincerely hope that it is not commonly held opinion that the Bible is "written about him [Adam]." He is the first human that the Bible describes, and mention is made of him also in the Christian Greek scriptures, but the Bible is about much more than simply Adam.

    8. Re:Bad news all around by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2

      You already do, but since everyone is a descendant of Adam, and there are far more people than Bible purchases, you're getting paid a fraction of a cent (rounded down to the nearest cent, of course).

      (Nitpick: If I write a book about George Bush, Bush's children do not get royalties for that work. My children, however, would. Thus, Adam's children wouldn't get royalties for Genesis, but Moses' children would...)

    9. Re:Bad news all around by nickruiz · · Score: 2

      Perhaps this is a Sackville-Baggins situation in the Tolkien household.

    10. Re:Bad news all around by vertinox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe a lot of slashdotters aren't old enough to have kids, but it seems to me that providing for one's widow and/or children is one of the things that an author would likely be concerned about, and probably even consider to be a "need".

      Author's can buy life insurance like the rest of us.

      Do plumbers demand royalties for toilets they fixed for their children after they die? Nope.

      Same difference.

      Just because you write books or make music, doesn't give you anymore rights than all the cubicle slaves and factory workers of the world.

      You want something to give your children after you pass one... Buy some land, buy stocks, and get insurance. It is what everyone else has to do.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    11. Re:Bad news all around by ifdef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not a very good analogy.

      Plumbers get paid for fixing the toilets at the time they fix them. And if the plumber dies before you pay your bill, you don't automatically get to forget the charges. Should the plumber have to buy insurance to cover that case? You might have life insurance to cover the fact that you won't be earning any more after you're dead, but do you buy insurance to cover your last paycheck because your employer won't have to pay it after you're dead?

      So, yes, it is the "same difference".

    12. Re:Bad news all around by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's no way to avoid this sort of comparison. If I cited any example of a bad law that should not be enforced, and it was just as serious as our bad copyright laws, most people would have no opinion on that law. and of the few who did, roughly half of the people would argue that it was a good law (especially here). Just try it. Is tougher sentencing for crack cocaine than regular cocaine about proportional to copyright law? How about occasional abuse of eminent domain clauses? Raising the drinking age to 21 and including members of the armed forces on post? You have to compare the abysmal but quite limited injustice that is current copyright law to something more serious, something that affected hundreds of millions and literally cost lives, broke governments, or caused wars, or you can't make a critical comparison at all.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    13. Re:Bad news all around by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Any author can already put the money they make during a fixed term into a trust for their heirs, or otherwise leave it to them in their will or make many other arrangements to get it to them, just like a person running a business or working for wages can leave money. So it's not just like any other property, it's a special, additional way to provide for a family after death, added on to all the rest everyone including authors can use.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    14. Re:Bad news all around by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Once you're dead, your work should hit the public domain.

      Scene: Hollywood, California, 1972. Francis Ford Coppola sits in front of a fireplace, stroking a cat. Two underlings are in attendance.

      • Coppola: So where were we...? Oh yeah, that "Godfather" book - are we ready to start shooting the movie?
      • Underling #2: Don Coppola, I'm sorry to say that Mario Puzo still has not agreed to give us the rights, even after your latest, most generous, offer.
      • Coppola: What were we budgeting to make the movie? Four million? Five million?
      • Underling #1: Six and a half million, Don Coppola.
      • Coppola: And the projected profits?
      • Underling #1: 245 million.
      • (Coppola pulls out a gun and shoots Underling #1.)
      • Coppola: And the projected profits?
      • Underling #2: (gulps) 245 million, Don Coppola!
      • Coppola: Very good, you learn quickly. Here's 5 million dollars. Find Stan "The Popgun" Phlegmy, let him know that I want Puzo "released into the public domain" by Friday. We start filming at 7:00 am Monday morning.
      • Underling #2: Yes, Don Coppola. It shall be done, Don Coppola.
      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
  4. Thought experiment by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is going to sound wacky, but I really just want to think it through.

    What if we made the kind of fraud that's apparently exercised by music and movie studio accountants, punishable by death?

    How would that play out in society and culture?

    1. Re:Thought experiment by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It wouldn't work.

      A jury is not going to want to punish you unless you are "one of the little people".

      PR flacks will make sure that the white collar criminals maintain a well manicured reputation.

      Ultimately, the little guy will end up the one on the hook for the new draconian punishment. ...something sounds familiar here.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Thought experiment by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't have to make it "punishable by death," just flipping make it ILLEGAL! I'm so tired of hearing about a-hole musician managers like Klein ripping off artists and swindling them out of song rights, talent agents taking their pounds of flesh from artists and athletes, and trusted personal financial advisors diverting funds from their clients to their own coffers. Just make it clearly ILLEGAL. Draw strong outlines around what compensation these people are allowed to make while in the service of their clients. Create template contracts that uninitiated people can use to protect themselves. As it stands, you need a lawyer and an accountant to make sure your lawyer and accountant aren't fucking you!

      I think we're talking about two different things. You're arguing about unfair contracts. What the article is talking about (I believe) is out-and-out fraud regarding how much money is earned for a given movie.

    3. Re:Thought experiment by YourExperiment · · Score: 2

      I think we're talking about two different things. You're arguing about unfair contracts. What the article is talking about (I believe) is out-and-out fraud regarding how much money is earned for a given movie.

      Not quite. This is essentially fraud on a moral level, but legally it's nothing more than an unfair contract. Look up Hollywood Accounting.

  5. They crossed up their net and gross reciepts... by dfenstrate · · Score: 5, Informative

    Looks like the deal was done maybe 40 years ago:

    Under the contract, New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts, after deducting 2.6 times the production costs, plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount, according to Eskenazi. (from TFA)

    Nowadays it seems as though even the average slashdotter knows you take a portion of gross, because nothing involving MPAA or RIAA related-companies ever clears a 'net profit' (wink wink).

    It looks like Tolkien & co where less saavy 40 years ago, and essentially signed up to get screwed. I hope the movies were profitable enough that they can still clear some money for the family, but 2.6 times production costs of those movies is a hell of a lot, and 'advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount'- especially if that amount was a 1969 dollar amount, and not a percent-well, they could really end up with a contractually dictated 'nothing.'

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:They crossed up their net and gross reciepts... by Foolicious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It looks like Tolkien & co where less saavy 40 years ago, and essentially signed up to get screwed.

      Less savvy or just not very forward thinking in terms of technology.

      [nerd-speak]

      Tolkien pretty much gave away the movie rights because he (and whom else ever in his camp) never thought you could even make a movie out the LOTR. Would you have wanted to see a film adaptation using early 1970's film technology? Not as fun to watch if the Balrog looks Godzilla and the Nazgûl like some kind of Medieval Mothras, not to mention Treebeard looking worse than he even did in the films, or primitive miniatures making the cities of Middle Earth look like something made of Lego(s).

      Technology may have been Saruman's downfall, but it allowed for a pretty cool set of movies.

      [/nerd-speak]

      --
      Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
    2. Re:They crossed up their net and gross reciepts... by dwye · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Tolkien clearly, obviously, lifted a lot of his LOTR trilogy from Wagner's opera Ring of the Nibelungs.

      No, he stole from the same sources that Wagner's sources used to compose the Nibelungenlied and the Volsung Sagas, even going back to old Finnish epics.

      Admittedly, LoTR could have been made using animation much earlier, as it WAS (look the two movies up on IMDB). The animated versions don't come close to the film adaptation, though.

  6. but but the MPAA is for the artists? by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The MPAA is fighting to make sure the artists and copyright holders get what they are owed? Did they forget or is it just a bunch of BS and you should not feel bad about piracy and ignore them?

    1. Re:but but the MPAA is for the artists? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The MPAA is fighting to make sure the artists and copyright holders get what they are owed? Did they forget or is it just a bunch of BS and you should not feel bad about piracy and ignore them?

      When they say "artists" they mean their accountants.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:but but the MPAA is for the artists? by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Funny

      Have to hand it to them... they're pretty creative ;)

  7. Dragon magazine... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dragon Magazine had a cartoon bit about this ... apparently they weren't even allowed to use the word "ring" anymore...

    "Hey, someone get the phone - its been circular metal band-ing off the hook!"

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  8. Re:Read this elsewhere by Niris · · Score: 5, Funny

    You, good sir, are the first Troll in a thread about the Hobbit. Expect to be turned to stone.

  9. This is common in Hollywood by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to the studios, Spider-Man, Return of the Jedi and Forrest Gump all lost money and therefore no royalty on net income needs to be paid.

    These people are simply criminals, and deserve to be locked up as such. However Hollywood is famous for making large political contributions, and their boys are in power at the moment. (not that the "other" party did anything about it either)

    1. Re:This is common in Hollywood by swb · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree that its criminal, but anyone who deals with this knows that you MAKE SURE you negotiate for "above the line" or "pre-expense" percentages of gross, guaranteed $x of the initial gross BEFORE expenses and marketing, as well as pre-production "commitment" fees of about half of what you want to make on the entire project. The latter is most important as it says nothing can even begin production until you get paid.

      However it would be really funny to see a few people get charged with felonies for fraud and share a cell with Bernie Madoff.

    2. re:this is common in hollywood by ed.han · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what i don't understand about all of this: how do the studios make any money whatsoever with accounting of that sort? how does this survive any kind of auditing process?

    3. Re:this is common in hollywood by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hypothetical: 95% of gross goes to subcontractors (run by studios). 5% (as guaranteed amount, i.e. 2 million) goes to people involved. That takes care of everything the movie grosses. There's no money left as profit, so anything based on net profit gets nothing.

  10. I'd normally side with the family, but... by shawnmchorse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it weren't for the deal that J.R.R. made with Saul Zaentz way back when, we wouldn't have any of the Lord of the Rings movies in the first place. Nor the Lord of the Rings Online game (which I happen to play). Nor any number of other things that may have first turned people on to Tolkien, including the old pen and paper Middle Earth RPG system.

    Christopher Tolkien has had control over the rights to things like The Silmarillion, and is notoriously limited in what he'll allow people to do in relation to it. I'd hate to think of what would happen (or more to the point, not happen) if he were able to somehow get back control over The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings also.

    1. Re:I'd normally side with the family, but... by wytcld · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Silmarillion? And what do you propose to do with that?

      As for turning people on to Tolkien, everyone I know who reads sci-fi/fantasy read those books back when we were kids, before any of the derivative stuff was out. The books are sufficient and wonderful in themselves. And they had no trouble finding deeply-appreciative readers on their own strength.

      On the other hand, I'm sure the movies are fine. They were done at the right time, when cgi was finally good enough. Still, should I show my son the movies when he's old enough? Or should see that he reads the books first? Doesn't this stuff work better when its your own visions stimulated by the full force of Tolkien's linguistic art, rather than just duping your visions from Hollywood?

      Other than Blade Runner, the Wizard of Oz and the first Star Wars, Hollywood has never shown me a movie equal to the visual potential of the best sci-fi/fantasy books. It might be best to keep them away from our fine literature all together. Let them hire original scriptwriters. Keep the value of literature for literature.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  11. Something Good Could Come of It by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...on the one hand, the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.

    Remember that these "greedy schmucks" are the ones lobbying and influencing the law. You, I, the Slashdot community, we do not. But we are tax paying constituents. The only time we influence this is when we vote--and let's face it, it's not a voting issue.

    When Sonny Bono and Walt Disney effectively controlled the government into changing these laws, they were done selfishly. Nowhere were we represented. To say that Senator Bono acted with only his constituents in mind is a joke.

    So suddenly the double edged sword is coming back to cut one of the prime promoters today of these laws. Historically these term limits of enforceable copyright have only gotten longer. And their implications for the internet and digital media has been more than encumbering. I'm not saying these laws don't help the big companies and artists make more money. I'm only saying that it's getting to a ridiculous point. Time Warner/New Line Cinema might take it so hard from the Tolkien family that they realize their lost future profits 50 years from now is a small price to pay compared to all the material they could have in public domain to make movies and derivative works from.

    Lastly, was anyone ever wondering why there was no Lord of the Rings movies officially for so long? It's because the Tolkein family was just looking for someone to get screwed by. They probably saw through all the other scams.

    Hopefully this is a wake up call to those who have extended copyright for far too long. It will only start hurting themselves and actually inhibiting/endangering their profession.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  12. Re:Then explain this by nebaz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Christopher Tolkien published the Silmarillion, after JRRT's death, among several other books, including the History of Middle Earth. Sure, strictly speaking it was all JRRT source material, but there has been a wealth of information out there, produced by these guys.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  13. Ob. Futurama by DarthVain · · Score: 4, Funny

    Leegola: What else can we slay? Is that a hobbit over there?
    Titanius Anglesmith: No, that's a hobo and a rabbit. But they're making a hobbit.

    1. Re:Ob. Futurama by DinDaddy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm a rabbo, you insensitive clod!

  14. Re:Then explain this by Tr3vin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Uh, The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin. There are tons of notes and papers the Tolkien kept while writing his stories. Many of these offer insight into the world of Middle Earth, and would not have been easily accessible if it wasn't for the work of his son. Christopher Tolkien has spent a great deal of time going through his father's work, assembling notes from various sources to try to provide a more detailed history of Middle Earth. While the heirs aren't responsible for the original tale, they have done there share of work to get the story behind the story out and available to the public. Without the background, creating a movie like LotR would be much more difficult. The entire mythos was not well documented within the confines of the books. There were a lot of details that don't fit nicely within story form that were important to the movie. One of the biggest examples is the Elvish language. Much of the language has been put together from his original notes, which have been assembled by Christopher over the years.

    This is definitely not a case were the children are sitting around trying to bum money off of their parent's work. I am very thankful for their contributions. Without their work, my knowledge of Tolkien would probably be limited to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

  15. Re:Read this elsewhere by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

    See sig below.

    Apparently J.R.R. Tolkien warned us in advance of the actions his heirs would take WRT copyright.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  16. Well, one more advertising saying "Pirate it all" by jbssm · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And these thieves still want me to buy the DVD.

    When is someone posting the extended version of LoTR box in 720p at PirateBay please?

  17. Obligatory by hobbit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

    --
    "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
  18. Re:Then explain this by bonze · · Score: 2, Informative

    From Wikipedia: "Tolkien never expected his stories to become popular, but by sheer accident a book he had written some years before for his own children, called The Hobbit, came in 1936 to the attention of Susan Dagnall, an employee of the London publishing firm George Allen & Unwin, who persuaded him to submit it for publication." So: no heirs: no hobbits: no precious for Time Warner to covet.

  19. Re:Then explain this by jnaujok · · Score: 4, Informative

    The contract was signed by J.R.R. Tolkien in 1969. Copyright doesn't even enter into the argument. New Line, Time Warner, and MGM are all bound by the original contract, signed by J.R.R. Tolkien. As the Inheritor of his estate, Chris Tokien has the right, along with the Tolkien Trust, to enforce the terms of the contract through civil action.

    I hate to make this sound angry, but it has nothing to do with Chris Tolkien, other than he's the one who inherited the money. J.R.R. Tolkien sold a product for a specific fee, partly up front, and partly to be paid later. The studio is now using fraudulent accounting techniques to avoid paying the "later" part. If J.R.R. Tolkien were still alive, he would be the one suing. Hes not, but the contract is still binding, so his estate is suing.

    Copyright doesn't even show up in this equation. Nor does whether his heirs added anything to the mythos (which he has through his clean up and publishing of all the remaining Tolkien works and notes.)

    This is just simple, every day, contract law.

    Disclaimer: IANAL, and this is my opinions, based on reading TFA.

    --
    Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
  20. Does anyone own their own ideas anymore? by isa-kuruption · · Score: 2, Interesting

    LoTR was a great work by someone who really spent time and effort writing the book. Does he (or even his family) not deserve to reap the rewards of his efforts that we are all enjoying? Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS. Communism?

    On a separate but related note.... if Hollywood studios came up with their OWN IDEAS instead of just using comics / books / other movies as a basis for new scripts, they WOULD NOT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS. Screenwriters need to start coming up with original ideas, not just remakes of movies from the 50s or childrens cartoons from the 80s.

  21. Eminent Domain for Copyrights / Patents by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 2, Funny

    We need Eminent Domain for intangible properties as well. With that the government can nationalize the rights to LoTR and ensure seamless production of 'The Hobbit' films. The government can request to the Supreme Court that this lawsuit is considered "hindrance to the advancement of humanities" and therefore should grant eminent domain rights.

  22. The agreement was made 40 years ago. by Noren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The rights were sold 40 years ago, per the article. At the time, the Tolkien estate did not exist- the author himself was alive to negotiate the conditions under which his works would be used. So, it is your opinion that Tolkien was 'naive' to not have spelled out in detail who would be entitled to what percentage of the DVD sales revenue when he negotiated the deal in 1969?

    If anything, it looks like he did pretty well for an agreement made in 1969 by trying to require a percentage of the gross, but he did permit certain expenses to be deducted which were then gamed by Hollywood accounting.

  23. Re:Then explain this by jd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Christopher also did a fair bit of editing, cleaning-up and polishing, so he did actually have some creative input. I'd also include the audio tapes, which include an otherwise unknown piece of Elvish poetry being sung by JRRT, as contributing to our knowledge.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  24. Prince, Michelle Shocked by plopez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Courtney Love, Joni Mitchell the list goes on.

    Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol, a stroke of genius because the contract he was under said he could use his own name if he jumped ship. He became "the artist formerly known as Prince".

    Courtney Love got hosed and wrote about how a band with a platinum album could end up scraping by on whatever a record company threw them.
    http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

    Joni Mitchell got hosed, and put an article about it up on the web.
    (can't find the link)

    Michelle Shocked couldn't record an album for 10 years due to a bad contract.

    Beck accepted the lowest contract offer he got because it gave him the most control.

    It's not just the movie companies.

    Book publishers too. God help you if you accept an advance or or go on a book tour. The charge backs can be horrific. Don't ever let them buy you anything. They'll overcharge you for any and all services. the limo to the airport or the venue might seem nice, but they will charge you back for it.

    The opening night gala for the movie opening, book openings. Etc.

    The word "pimps" comes to mind.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  25. Re:Read this elsewhere by orta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Set that graph to 10years and you can see the tech bubble pop :)

    --
    my band is more brutal techno punk than yours
  26. Simple economics by Brain-Fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Under what bizarro universe does the public have more right to an author's work than the author (or their estate)?

    Please understand that when the government enforces a private monopoly, the taxpayers incur direct costs. The "private monopoly" in this case is the author's sole distribution right over his work. The enforcement of that right means that real tax dollars get spent on investigations into copyright infringement violations, as well as the imposition of legal consequences.

    So, that means that if you are an author, the rest of us (even those who do not buy copies of your work) are paying out-of-pocket to enforce your monopoly on your behalf.

    What do we get in return for this? The privilege of being able to pay even more money if we want to experience your work? Do you really think this is balanced?

    The reason why copyright law has a term limit is to try and strike this (otherwise missing) balance. In return for spending our money to protect your private monopoly for a period of years, we eventually get your work for free, in the public domain. Thus, you have your incentive to create secured (in the form of a protected period of sole distribution rights), and we get a ROI on all the tax money we spent to give you that (specifically, the work for free, eventually).

    The problem that frustrates many posters on Slashdot is that the term of copyright is now so long that it is no longer balanced. In response to this perceived injustice, many people feel justified in dishonoring the private monopoly, and obtaining the work for free.

    Whether or not they actually are justified is a debate in which I am presently remaining silent (though I won't deny an obvious bias). However, I will state that the current copyright law is not at all balanced, and the public good is getting the losing end of the deal. There is clearly an injustice being perpetuated by copyright holders and lobbies at the present time.

    As an aside, copyright infringement is illegal and (arguably) immoral. However, it is not theft. Theft is generally defined in terms of the harm done to the victim, rather than the benefit to the perpetrator. Finding an un-owned object and claiming it for one's self is not theft, even though one got something without paying for it. However, depriving the rightful owner of access to his property is theft, and that wording is often used in legal proceedings involving theft.

    In the case of copyright infringement, the rightful owner still has full access and full control over his own work. You have a duplicate of the work, but since you haven't deprived the owner of the work, you have not "stolen" it. You have merely copied it.

    To use the ever-popular car analogy...if I see your car on your driveway, and I build myself a separate car just like it....you still have your car. I have not stolen it. Though my copy of it might still be illegal.

    But don't take my word for it. The supreme court already ruled that copyright infringement is not theft. Read all about it.

  27. Re:Good by Doug52392 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, the live-action roleplaying community is pretty cool. And since most LARPing is done outside, it's a great way for otherwise basement-dwelling nerds to get outside and enjoy the sun...

    Which is more that can be said for those vampire Otherkin communities created by those shitty teen vampire romance novels (especially Twilight). Those people are batshit insane. There's even been rumors going around that a prominent Boston prep school is inhabited by "vampires" to the point where the police had to get involved.