DC bought them, the rumor is mainly for their coloring. And DC buying Wildstorm is how Moore ended up working for DC again since Moore had a deal in place with Wildstorm.
No, Image is still around. Nothing notable business wise from them in a while. Many of the original creators have stoped doing their own work (Erik Larsen the main exception), but the company is still putting out books regularly.
The irony is that while most of the founders stopped doing work, many have other people working for them under contracts that are not all that much better than the contracts the founders rebelled against.
One of Todd McFarlane's companies recently declared bankruptcy but, like many big companies, the main creditors for that company were other McFarlane subsidiaries...
Basically, Moore has had a beef with DC since back in the day when Watchmen originally came out and DC tried to claim that some merch they made were promotional items and therefore they didn't need to pay royalties on it. At that point Morre declared he would never work for DC again. Moore is a person that holds grudges for any percieved slight. He won't even talk to some of his former colaborators (notably Steve Bissette (sp?)) because he thinks they wronged him.
Now, a few years ago Moore came up with the idea for the ABC line of comics and talked to publisher Wildstorm about it. Then, Wildstorm was suddenly bought out by DC.
Because at least some of the people he was working with, and perhaps himself, were doing pretty poorly financially, Moore decided to sell the rights to the ABC characters to Wildstorm (If they sold the rights, they got more money up front but if they kept the rights they got less up front, but potentially more in the long run. Well, when you need money, you will go for the quick rewards.). Well, since DC bought Wildstorm that meant that DC owned those characters.
So Moore was in a bind. Did he bail on the ABC deal and maintain his word that he would never work for DC again, leaving all the artists, colorists, and letterers in the lurch, or did he stick by his friends and compromise his principles in the name of helping his friends. He chose to continue with the projects and work for DC (through a shelter company I think. The comics don't say DC on them anywhere and I even heard that the checks they get don't say DC on them).
As the article states, however, things weren't all smooth sailing between him and DC this time around. Recently, Moore has decided to stop doing mainstream comics, which means that the ABC line is more or less over. This gives him the ability to move on.
Now, for reasons I'm not entirely clear on, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics, while still published under the ABC banner, were still owned by Moore and O'Neil, which means they could take that title to another publisher whenever they wanted. With all this in mind, it is not surprising that Moore and O'Neil took the League elsewhere. Moore fulfilled his moral obligation to his friends, now he can fulfill his moral obligations to himself and never work for DC again.
I have long been lusting for a really light, low-powered laptop I could carry around and write with. I'm thinking something with the power and screen of my old 233mhz laptop, but with in a thinner form factor. I paid something like $2000 for the thing back in 98, and it still works for writing papers and internet, but is too bulky to lug around. I don't need a super clear screen, with a fast harddrive and cdburner. Just give me something lightweight that has a fairly normal sized keyboard, can edit text documents and get online.
Call me crazy but ever since Mead started printing "Mead" down in the lower righthand corner of each sheet of paper, I quit buying their paper. I'm not a subscriber to Adbusters or anything, but why do we need to have the company logo on each sheet of their paper???
OK, so athletes are good at sports and academics are good at academic things. What does an atractive woman have to do with videogames? I think that is the question that things like the "booth Babe Hall of Shame" is trying to ask.
Not to get into a big flame war or anything, but yes, I looked at the pictures. Big deal. If you are worried about property values, then maybe you should live somewhere where there aren't neighbors. For my money, nothing would lower property value more than an nosey neighbor. If I were living next to the guy who made that webpage I would do everything I could to make his life miserable.
I don't know what university you go to, but at mine they have research databases that, while not as userfriendly as scholar.google.com, are ok to use and 90% of the time return the articles in pdf form.
Here's another article about DVNR Screwups with more examples of the problems poor restoration can cause.
Re:I'm not a Californian
on
Tinfoil Hat House
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What a busy body. Except for the parties, I don't know what this guy is complaining about. He complains about the neighbor's mailbox (it's a frickin' mail box, get over it) and then when the neighbor redoes it, all he can do is complain "he can't put the flag down!" Oh no! "There's a statue on it!" whoopie. And what's the deal with "stolen 2x4's" and "stolen bricks?" How the hell does he know if the neighbor stole the stuff or not? Where the hell would you steal that many bricks anyway?
Most of the stuff the guy is complaining about is in the back yard. Maybe if he wasn't so busy looking in teh neighbor's back yard, this stuff wouldn't bother him. I wonder why that guy decided to move? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that his neigbor is an asshole, would it???
If only there were a text browser, or a way to turn off images... For a large percentage of things that people use computers for at the library, they don't really need images to be turned on. Sure people could still surf for erotic stories, but then no one but the person in front of the computer would be able to read it. If someone needs to use images, they go to a special computer by the circulation desk or somewhere where the screen will be easilly visible to those in charge.
Even if there is no invasion of privacy, then why are they spending this money on new equipment instead of other projects like books, videos or cd? Why is a library spending money on fancy technology?
So does that mean that there WILL be an IE specific html code that WILL create new tabs when you click on a link? Or does it mean that there WON'T be such a thing? I'm not a developer, so I'm not entirely sure how to interpret that statement.
If there is code that will create a link in a new tab, undoubtably there will be a way to make it happen automatically whether Microsoft wants it to or not.
I too am not impressed with google's desktop search. I find copernic's to be much more usefull. I haven't tried out the msn or yahoo ones, but google's desktop search is definitly nothing to write home about.
I'm predicting right now that IE7's new tabbed browsing feature will come complete with IE only HTML code for webpages to open links in new tabs. Which, of course, means that it is only a matter of time before we have pop-up tabs!!!
Both the Xbox 360 and now Revolution are making a big deal about "you can use it vertically or horizontally!" wow! big deal. Is that really a selling point? Does anyone really care about that? Why are they both making that a selling point?
You are aware that narely all of Disney's feature length cartoons are based on works that are in the public domain, right? Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Peter Pan (which is still copyrighted in England). When's teh last time Disney released something besides merchandice with Mickey Mouse on it? The fact is, no matter how great the original Disney characters are, a great deal of the success of the company comes from taking a, "good original concept that catches the popular imagination," and "mak[ing] an absolute mint off it." If it weren't for public domain, the Disney corporation would not be nearly as successful as it has been.
This is the ballsy irony of the Disney situation. By getting copyright extended, they are working so very hard to prevent the very situation that created their success in the first place.
I hope the MPAA shuts down these evil bittorrent sites where I go to find episodes of the new Dr. Who and Call For Help 2.0. My downloading those two shows is depriving the MPAA of so much money.
Except neither show is available in the USA, where I live.
So the MPAA wants to prevent me from stealing shows that I can't watch any other way? What a bunch of jerks.
But the point of the article is that the author could have claimed that the other book was quoting too much of his material and was going to hurt the sales of his own book. This is what the second book's publisher was afraid of. The writer of the critical book already had his own publisher say, "We aren't going to publish unless you get permission." And so the very fact that the publisher was afraid of getting sued was what motivated the article in the first place. Therfore, since the publisher was already afraid to publish it, had the author of the first book refused permission, then it is very likely that the second author's book would never have seen print. Regardless of the legalities of it, the vagueness of the Fair Use doctrine was enough to make a publisher afraid to publish. If the case had gone to court, then it probalby would have been ruled fair use, but the point is that the corporation wasn't going to let it get that far. It was probably much cheaper not to publish the low selling, academic book in the first place than publish it, pay lawyers and be cleared of any charges.
Let's face it, Disney is NEVER going to let the copyright on Mickey Mouse expire. They are going to throw every dollar they have in bribing --err, I mean lobbying -- the government into extending copyright laws forever.
With that in mind, I think a solution would be something like 15 or 20 years and then after that if you want to keep the copyright, you just need to file for an extension. While it would be nice to have Mickey Mouse in the public domain, that doesn't seem likely, but what this does is let all the abandoned works to go into public domain. There are lots of books, movies, music, etc. that are still in copyright, but no one really cares about them and the original copyright might have disappeared. As it stands, it is still illegal to copy those things.
For example, right now IU has a huge collection of educational films from post WWII to the early 80's. Lots of universities used to have similar collectsion back in the 50's and 60's but most got rid of them with the onset of VHS. For whatever reason IU still has them. However, partly because of copyright limitations (and partly because of bugetary reasons), they sit in storage. Now, is there anyone that could argue that making a copy of some 60's educational film is really going to hurt someone's profit? Or even digitizing it and putting it on archive.org? But they can't do that because the material, as out of date and forgotten about as it is, is still copyrighted. That's just stupid.
If my system of renewing copyright were in place, and there were a system to make sure that the renewer had a legitimate claim to the work and wasn't just a speculator, then Mickey Mouse could be in copyright forever, but more marginal things would be allowed to fall into public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
If memory recalls there were buttons or something like that. Even though they were selling htem, DC somehow claimed they were promotional items.
DC bought them, the rumor is mainly for their coloring. And DC buying Wildstorm is how Moore ended up working for DC again since Moore had a deal in place with Wildstorm.
I guess that would be debtor, not creditors? I may be a comic book geek, but I ain't no lawyer!
No, Image is still around. Nothing notable business wise from them in a while. Many of the original creators have stoped doing their own work (Erik Larsen the main exception), but the company is still putting out books regularly.
The irony is that while most of the founders stopped doing work, many have other people working for them under contracts that are not all that much better than the contracts the founders rebelled against.
One of Todd McFarlane's companies recently declared bankruptcy but, like many big companies, the main creditors for that company were other McFarlane subsidiaries...
Basically, Moore has had a beef with DC since back in the day when Watchmen originally came out and DC tried to claim that some merch they made were promotional items and therefore they didn't need to pay royalties on it. At that point Morre declared he would never work for DC again. Moore is a person that holds grudges for any percieved slight. He won't even talk to some of his former colaborators (notably Steve Bissette (sp?)) because he thinks they wronged him.
Now, a few years ago Moore came up with the idea for the ABC line of comics and talked to publisher Wildstorm about it. Then, Wildstorm was suddenly bought out by DC.
Because at least some of the people he was working with, and perhaps himself, were doing pretty poorly financially, Moore decided to sell the rights to the ABC characters to Wildstorm (If they sold the rights, they got more money up front but if they kept the rights they got less up front, but potentially more in the long run. Well, when you need money, you will go for the quick rewards.). Well, since DC bought Wildstorm that meant that DC owned those characters.
So Moore was in a bind. Did he bail on the ABC deal and maintain his word that he would never work for DC again, leaving all the artists, colorists, and letterers in the lurch, or did he stick by his friends and compromise his principles in the name of helping his friends. He chose to continue with the projects and work for DC (through a shelter company I think. The comics don't say DC on them anywhere and I even heard that the checks they get don't say DC on them).
As the article states, however, things weren't all smooth sailing between him and DC this time around. Recently, Moore has decided to stop doing mainstream comics, which means that the ABC line is more or less over. This gives him the ability to move on.
Now, for reasons I'm not entirely clear on, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics, while still published under the ABC banner, were still owned by Moore and O'Neil, which means they could take that title to another publisher whenever they wanted. With all this in mind, it is not surprising that Moore and O'Neil took the League elsewhere. Moore fulfilled his moral obligation to his friends, now he can fulfill his moral obligations to himself and never work for DC again.
I have long been lusting for a really light, low-powered laptop I could carry around and write with. I'm thinking something with the power and screen of my old 233mhz laptop, but with in a thinner form factor. I paid something like $2000 for the thing back in 98, and it still works for writing papers and internet, but is too bulky to lug around. I don't need a super clear screen, with a fast harddrive and cdburner. Just give me something lightweight that has a fairly normal sized keyboard, can edit text documents and get online.
Call me crazy but ever since Mead started printing "Mead" down in the lower righthand corner of each sheet of paper, I quit buying their paper. I'm not a subscriber to Adbusters or anything, but why do we need to have the company logo on each sheet of their paper???
OK, so athletes are good at sports and academics are good at academic things. What does an atractive woman have to do with videogames?
I think that is the question that things like the "booth Babe Hall of Shame" is trying to ask.
Not to get into a big flame war or anything, but yes, I looked at the pictures. Big deal. If you are worried about property values, then maybe you should live somewhere where there aren't neighbors.
For my money, nothing would lower property value more than an nosey neighbor.
If I were living next to the guy who made that webpage I would do everything I could to make his life miserable.
I don't know what university you go to, but at mine they have research databases that, while not as userfriendly as scholar.google.com, are ok to use and 90% of the time return the articles in pdf form.
Here's another article about DVNR Screwups with more examples of the problems poor restoration can cause.
What a busy body. Except for the parties, I don't know what this guy is complaining about. He complains about the neighbor's mailbox (it's a frickin' mail box, get over it) and then when the neighbor redoes it, all he can do is complain "he can't put the flag down!" Oh no! "There's a statue on it!" whoopie. And what's the deal with "stolen 2x4's" and "stolen bricks?" How the hell does he know if the neighbor stole the stuff or not? Where the hell would you steal that many bricks anyway?
Most of the stuff the guy is complaining about is in the back yard. Maybe if he wasn't so busy looking in teh neighbor's back yard, this stuff wouldn't bother him. I wonder why that guy decided to move? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that his neigbor is an asshole, would it???
While not as big as these, David Johnston has some of his own HL2 Panoramas that I think are a little better.
And if only people had paid attention in school they might know the difference between "there" and "their."
If only there were a text browser, or a way to turn off images...
For a large percentage of things that people use computers for at the library, they don't really need images to be turned on. Sure people could still surf for erotic stories, but then no one but the person in front of the computer would be able to read it.
If someone needs to use images, they go to a special computer by the circulation desk or somewhere where the screen will be easilly visible to those in charge.
Even if there is no invasion of privacy, then why are they spending this money on new equipment instead of other projects like books, videos or cd? Why is a library spending money on fancy technology?
I haven't seen it mentioned but FirefoxforOpera is a blog dedicated to making firefox more like opera.
So does that mean that there WILL be an IE specific html code that WILL create new tabs when you click on a link? Or does it mean that there WON'T be such a thing? I'm not a developer, so I'm not entirely sure how to interpret that statement.
If there is code that will create a link in a new tab, undoubtably there will be a way to make it happen automatically whether Microsoft wants it to or not.
I too am not impressed with google's desktop search. I find copernic's to be much more usefull. I haven't tried out the msn or yahoo ones, but google's desktop search is definitly nothing to write home about.
I'm predicting right now that IE7's new tabbed browsing feature will come complete with IE only HTML code for webpages to open links in new tabs. Which, of course, means that it is only a matter of time before we have pop-up tabs!!!
Both the Xbox 360 and now Revolution are making a big deal about "you can use it vertically or horizontally!" wow! big deal. Is that really a selling point? Does anyone really care about that? Why are they both making that a selling point?
You are aware that narely all of Disney's feature length cartoons are based on works that are in the public domain, right? Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Peter Pan (which is still copyrighted in England).
When's teh last time Disney released something besides merchandice with Mickey Mouse on it?
The fact is, no matter how great the original Disney characters are, a great deal of the success of the company comes from taking a, "good original concept that catches the popular imagination," and "mak[ing] an absolute mint off it." If it weren't for public domain, the Disney corporation would not be nearly as successful as it has been.
This is the ballsy irony of the Disney situation. By getting copyright extended, they are working so very hard to prevent the very situation that created their success in the first place.
I hope the MPAA shuts down these evil bittorrent sites where I go to find episodes of the new Dr. Who and Call For Help 2.0. My downloading those two shows is depriving the MPAA of so much money.
Except neither show is available in the USA, where I live.
So the MPAA wants to prevent me from stealing shows that I can't watch any other way? What a bunch of jerks.
But the point of the article is that the author could have claimed that the other book was quoting too much of his material and was going to hurt the sales of his own book. This is what the second book's publisher was afraid of. The writer of the critical book already had his own publisher say, "We aren't going to publish unless you get permission." And so the very fact that the publisher was afraid of getting sued was what motivated the article in the first place. Therfore, since the publisher was already afraid to publish it, had the author of the first book refused permission, then it is very likely that the second author's book would never have seen print. Regardless of the legalities of it, the vagueness of the Fair Use doctrine was enough to make a publisher afraid to publish. If the case had gone to court, then it probalby would have been ruled fair use, but the point is that the corporation wasn't going to let it get that far. It was probably much cheaper not to publish the low selling, academic book in the first place than publish it, pay lawyers and be cleared of any charges.
Let's face it, Disney is NEVER going to let the copyright on Mickey Mouse expire. They are going to throw every dollar they have in bribing --err, I mean lobbying -- the government into extending copyright laws forever.
With that in mind, I think a solution would be something like 15 or 20 years and then after that if you want to keep the copyright, you just need to file for an extension. While it would be nice to have Mickey Mouse in the public domain, that doesn't seem likely, but what this does is let all the abandoned works to go into public domain. There are lots of books, movies, music, etc. that are still in copyright, but no one really cares about them and the original copyright might have disappeared. As it stands, it is still illegal to copy those things.
For example, right now IU has a huge collection of educational films from post WWII to the early 80's. Lots of universities used to have similar collectsion back in the 50's and 60's but most got rid of them with the onset of VHS. For whatever reason IU still has them. However, partly because of copyright limitations (and partly because of bugetary reasons), they sit in storage. Now, is there anyone that could argue that making a copy of some 60's educational film is really going to hurt someone's profit? Or even digitizing it and putting it on archive.org? But they can't do that because the material, as out of date and forgotten about as it is, is still copyrighted. That's just stupid.
If my system of renewing copyright were in place, and there were a system to make sure that the renewer had a legitimate claim to the work and wasn't just a speculator, then Mickey Mouse could be in copyright forever, but more marginal things would be allowed to fall into public domain.