Hmm, I don't know about that case. Of course, if you actively sign your rights away because you don't think they're worth keeping, that's one thing. Getting screwed by intentionally deceptive language and accounting practices that should be criminal is another.
Ever tried to get artistic work published? It's a buyer's market -- you sign what they offer you, or they find some other bright-eyed young genius to produce their marketables.
Contrary to what you may think, the free market does not solve every problem magically on its own.
My point, though, is that with proper spin and a bit of advocacy, Lee has the potential to come out on top in the public eye. Sure, the public has an iffy perception of artists. But this is not so much about Lee as an artist as it is about him as a man who had a great idea. And besides, the public is sympathetic to the "little guy" getting screwed (hell, even Republicans pay lip service to this).
Put it in simple terms: the guy who created Spider-Man didn't get a penny from the movie. Joe Sixpack, on hearing that, is going to feel sympathy for Lee. We all know there was plenty of profit to go around, if it weren't for the fuzzy accounting -- Enron, anyone? Lee could be presented as a folk hero, and Marvel comes out of this sounding like Scrooge. Spider-Man is a cultural icon, and it's icons that move the masses into action, not abstract ideals like rights.
The public cares about Spiderman. That's enough. As I said, this would not happen automatically, but take some massaging to spark public interest. Like anything.
Call me crazy, but this could potentially become a watershed event in entertainment contract law. Whether or not Stan Lee wins, this situation could be massaged into a public outcry for artists' rights. Think about it:
There's a huge amount of visibility -- everyone saw the movie and knows it made shitloads of money.
Lee is a revered and sympathetic personality -- nobody wants to see him get screwed over.
In spite of this, due to the way the contract is worded Marvel is probably correct in their claim that they don't owe him a dime, in the strict legal sense.
End result, Lee loses his money but the public outcry is sufficient to push changes in contract law which provide new protections for artists.
Okay, it might not happen this time around -- media conglomerates are hugely powerful and genuine public outcry is hard to come by and expensive to properly focus into action. But the sort of scenario I'm describing is one of the most plausible ways for change like this to be brought about -- goad the public into outrage with an example of a mediagenic victim being screwed by the bad guys. Look at history -- many important pieces of legislation are tied to individual events which raised an outcry out of proportion to their individual significance.
Yes, it's lame when someone gets screwed like this. But it happens all the time, so when it happens in a highly public way that's better for all of us because it contributes to potential reform.
I had this idea a while ago which was something along the lines of brain SETI@home. It's totally implausible but here goes.
Basically, assume there is some problem X which is NP-hard. Now, NP-hardness says nothing about how difficult a human will find the problem, since human brains work differently. So, possibly, there is some way to phrase X such that humans will be better at solving it than a computer. Now, just find a way to get humans busy solving this problem (or more likely, tiny sub-parts of it). My brilliant idea was that you could make it into a game, so that people would work on the problem, and then sell the rights to contribute problems that need solving.
Yeah, I know, it would never work. But a guy can dream.
I love how headlines always, always have to be in the present tense. The Guardian proclaims:
Indonesia Wildfires Release Carbon
But they're talking about fires that occurred in 1997. The news is still up-to-date, since it's recent analysis that's being reported on, but the headline is just a little ludicrous. It's like if they discovered that the Titanic had hit a rock rather than an iceberg, and reported "Titanic Hits Rock, Sinks!"
I don't see any mention of the power source, unless reading the/. comments sucked that information out of my brain. Anyway, what are they planning to use to power this thing? I would expect this to be a major issue considering the long running time required to drill so far down.
I don't understand what you have a problem with. These drills seem like a very worthwhile scientific tool, and the investment has been miniscule -- $750k wouldn't even rattle in NASA's pocket, diminished as it is.
I mean, don't you think exploring Mars and Europa is part of NASA's mandate? Or are you just trolling?
Man, what world do you people live in? Have you ever tried to get trench permits from a city?
I agree the comment was inane, but I also think it's safe to say that most people have never had occasion to request a trench permit. Doesn't invalidate your point, I just found it an odd thing to ask, as if it's the most ordinary thing in the world, something most people do every day.
$200? What world do you live in. Hell, a freakin' AIBO still costs over $1000 I'm pretty sure, and these inchworms are looking to be around 100kg worth of (significantly more sophisticated, industrial-grade) hardware.
That's a good point, actually -- why are they pushing this as a residence? It seems like it would be much more viable as a commercial property. Probably not a restaurant, though -- everyone knows how terrible airline food is. But I could totally see this as a nightclub or something. Only problem is where to put it -- maybe the zoning restrictions are easier with residential. Plus, it would be hard to find space for it in many commercial settings.
Evolution is a matter of "use it or lose it." Features cost resources, so if you can get by without them then you've got more resources available for other things.
I'm sure you knew that, but it's okay if you forgot because you're so damn sexy.
It's not so much that consumers have so little power. That is a problem, but 99% of the time what matters is consumers' perception of their own powerlessness, which corporations do everything in their power to exaggerate.
Don't just take the hit. Raise a stink. Write your congressman. Write a letter to the editor. Notify the Better Business Bureau. Tell your friends, tell your enemies. It's not just about your cable bill, it's about your rights, and everyone else's.
Re:Uh-huh
on
Micro Tetris
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I bet you thought you were joking about the cancer thing, but check this out.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, I don't know about that case. Of course, if you actively sign your rights away because you don't think they're worth keeping, that's one thing. Getting screwed by intentionally deceptive language and accounting practices that should be criminal is another.
You're right that Marvel has a home-field advantage here. But that's only one factor, it doesn't necessarily decide the issue.
Suppose Lee offered to donate his share to charity, for instance. That would turn things around a bit.
Ever tried to get artistic work published? It's a buyer's market -- you sign what they offer you, or they find some other bright-eyed young genius to produce their marketables.
Contrary to what you may think, the free market does not solve every problem magically on its own.
I'm sure spammers make just as much money for selling invalid addresses.
Godwin's Law, you lose. Thanks a lot.
How about a tax break to ISPs which do have such a policy?
Put it in simple terms: the guy who created Spider-Man didn't get a penny from the movie. Joe Sixpack, on hearing that, is going to feel sympathy for Lee. We all know there was plenty of profit to go around, if it weren't for the fuzzy accounting -- Enron, anyone? Lee could be presented as a folk hero, and Marvel comes out of this sounding like Scrooge. Spider-Man is a cultural icon, and it's icons that move the masses into action, not abstract ideals like rights.
The public cares about Spiderman. That's enough. As I said, this would not happen automatically, but take some massaging to spark public interest. Like anything.
Apart from being excessively cynical, do you actually have a point?
- There's a huge amount of visibility -- everyone saw the movie and knows it made shitloads of money.
- Lee is a revered and sympathetic personality -- nobody wants to see him get screwed over.
- In spite of this, due to the way the contract is worded Marvel is probably correct in their claim that they don't owe him a dime, in the strict legal sense.
End result, Lee loses his money but the public outcry is sufficient to push changes in contract law which provide new protections for artists.Okay, it might not happen this time around -- media conglomerates are hugely powerful and genuine public outcry is hard to come by and expensive to properly focus into action. But the sort of scenario I'm describing is one of the most plausible ways for change like this to be brought about -- goad the public into outrage with an example of a mediagenic victim being screwed by the bad guys. Look at history -- many important pieces of legislation are tied to individual events which raised an outcry out of proportion to their individual significance.
Yes, it's lame when someone gets screwed like this. But it happens all the time, so when it happens in a highly public way that's better for all of us because it contributes to potential reform.
Basically, assume there is some problem X which is NP-hard. Now, NP-hardness says nothing about how difficult a human will find the problem, since human brains work differently. So, possibly, there is some way to phrase X such that humans will be better at solving it than a computer. Now, just find a way to get humans busy solving this problem (or more likely, tiny sub-parts of it). My brilliant idea was that you could make it into a game, so that people would work on the problem, and then sell the rights to contribute problems that need solving.
Yeah, I know, it would never work. But a guy can dream.
Indonesia Wildfires Release Carbon
But they're talking about fires that occurred in 1997. The news is still up-to-date, since it's recent analysis that's being reported on, but the headline is just a little ludicrous. It's like if they discovered that the Titanic had hit a rock rather than an iceberg, and reported "Titanic Hits Rock, Sinks!"
Maybe they should use solar panels?
I mean, don't you think exploring Mars and Europa is part of NASA's mandate? Or are you just trolling?
There was also a /. article within the last two months or so about broadband speeds along the drillpipe itself. Something like that, anyway.
I agree the comment was inane, but I also think it's safe to say that most people have never had occasion to request a trench permit. Doesn't invalidate your point, I just found it an odd thing to ask, as if it's the most ordinary thing in the world, something most people do every day.
$200? What world do you live in. Hell, a freakin' AIBO still costs over $1000 I'm pretty sure, and these inchworms are looking to be around 100kg worth of (significantly more sophisticated, industrial-grade) hardware.
Yes. The difference is that it's not funny if you say it your way.
>rimshot<
That's a good point, actually -- why are they pushing this as a residence? It seems like it would be much more viable as a commercial property. Probably not a restaurant, though -- everyone knows how terrible airline food is. But I could totally see this as a nightclub or something. Only problem is where to put it -- maybe the zoning restrictions are easier with residential. Plus, it would be hard to find space for it in many commercial settings.
Evolution is a matter of "use it or lose it." Features cost resources, so if you can get by without them then you've got more resources available for other things. I'm sure you knew that, but it's okay if you forgot because you're so damn sexy.
Don't just take the hit. Raise a stink. Write your congressman. Write a letter to the editor. Notify the Better Business Bureau. Tell your friends, tell your enemies. It's not just about your cable bill, it's about your rights, and everyone else's.
I bet you thought you were joking about the cancer thing, but check this out.
This is great, but it's even more addictive than the Kill Everyone Project. Though arguably not as worthwhile.
Your contribution is a syntax error? Thanks so much. History is in your debt.