How does film licensing work, if New Line doesn't finish the film by the time Tolkien enterprises gets the license back are they allowed to publish it still or do they lose all rights to it?
New Line has an "option". If they want to actually make the film, they have to pay (a lot) as specified in their option contract to exercise that option. Once they do that, they have a set time, probably several years, to produce and release the film before these rights expire. Otherwise, the option expires and it seems won't be renewed.
There will be other payments specified at milestones of production: first day of principal photography, final wrap, release, and some profit sharing after that. Sometimes you see a studio rushing a movie into production on a shoestring, releasing it for a few days, then burying it; all to keep control of a property to allow them to remake it later on a big budget -- I believe there was a Spider-Man movie made long ago like that.
any transaction which takes place thousands or millions of times a year is not something which is negotiated on a case-by-case basis. It's impractical
Of course it is. That was my whole point. The post I was replying to advocated this, take issue with him.
If you want access to the major media sources, you've got to play by their rules.
Didn't I say that? Yes, I did. So what is your point again?
That's the "free market" at its best--the owners and creators get to control the things they create.
A) It's not a free market. It's a cartel.
B) Owners and creators are not the same, just thought I'd point that out. What did Rupert Murdoch create?
C) It's quite antithetical to the whole reason copyright and intellectual property law was introduced -- not to enrich media moguls, but to enrich the culture by encouraging creation AND DISSEMINATION of new ideas.
I might buy a phone for $1 and pay it off over 24 months. If I break the lock I am not paying for the phone.
Presumably you signed a contract to pay or subscribe to some service. The contract is still enforcible legally, they just can't hold your phone hostage by locking it up.
Why exactly can't, for example, you and I come to some agreement that, for example, you write some song and I am allowed to listen to it exactly once since this we came to a mutually agreed upon price for which I agreed to listen to it only once?
That's the way we'd do it if you were a wandering minstrel and I was a local lord of the manor, five hundred years ago. So am I supposed to phone Paul McCartney if I want to play Mull of Kintyre?
A few giant media companies control copyright on most of what we listen to or watch. They don't "come to agreements" with us. They use lobbyists to get laws made to legalsie the conditions they want. There is no negotiation, unless you count "take it or leave it".
. I've not had any of the problems you've mentioned from using Word 2007 for the past 2 weeks
Isn't it always the NEXT version of Office that's going to be bug-free? Maybe, after 20 years, they'e got it right? Next: hydrogen fusion is just around the corner.
I wonder how many people in Europe would respond positively to the question: "Karl Marx's theory of class struggle and his economic theories of production were basically correct." I bet the answer would be "a lot".
Yes, look at all the countries in Europe where they've voted in a Communist government... none of them. Europeans have seen Communism at close hand and seen its flaws. But American Bible-thumpers can believe in this idiocy in the face of all evidence. (Note that there are devout people all over the world, but only in America is there a significant "Creationist" belief amongst educated people.)
I did. And its title is "Transmission of material harmful to minors to a minor by electronic device or equipment prohibited". And then "'Transmit' means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail". But the term "electronic mail" is undefined. We may think it's obvious, but the current SMTP, etc., implementation we use isn't the only possible method. I used other systems back in the distant past. And the judge decided that IM fell under this heading. Legal definitions are not the same as engineering definitions.
I thought there was a certain format email messages had to have, and a certain way they were sent and recieve among servers. Isn't that how you define them?
That's how geeks would define it. SMTP, POP, RFCs.... But the law was talking about electronic messages sent to a particular person. That definition includes IMs. I don't see that as much of a stretch myself.
He was asked to leave. Once you're asked to leave and you don't, you're a trespasser. Why is this difficult to understand?
Because it's not what happened. He was already leaving when he was tasered. And the "trespassing" is legalistic bullshit. He was a student at the university; even lacking the all-important piece of plastic, the guards could have satisfied themselves of that in a minute.
According to both University of California policy and state law, he had no inherent "right" to be where he was.
If you disagree, let me know where you live. I'll come over to your residence and refuse to leave.
It was a university library, a place he had paid money to attend. No doubt there is small print on a sign at the doorway to say the university has the right to anally probe anyone who enters their building. Morally though he has the perfect right to be there. To compare his using the library to a stranger trespassing in your home is fatuous.
Fine, call it racial profiling, but when I see an Iranian without a student ID, acting belligerent, carrying a backpack into a crowded place, I hope the police take whatever action is necessary to get him the hell out of there.
Idiotic. If he did happen to be a suicide bomber, as you imply, he would detonate himself the moment the guards approached him. And actually he was American born, and no doubt rather pissed at being anal probed at every opportunity. Have you ever been in a university library? Half the patrons are scruffy, bearded, belligerant and with backpacks.
And I thought the mainland was bad- Taiwan sounds AWFUL.
More so in Bangkok. But in Taiwan I was threatend by a taxi driver with a tire lever. (He cut me off; I thumped his rear bumper, then it got nasty.) And someone else had a gun pulled on him because he didn't get out of the way in a narrow alley.
Let me highlight the most relevant passage: Fatality rates are 20 to 30 times higher in developing countries than in industrialized countries. These are the countries with the "laissez faire" traffic flow as advocated in TFA. I've lived in Thailand and Taiwan; dying in traffic was by far the greatest risk in living there. It all seems fine, even fun, to change lanes at whim, run lights, overtake whenever you want, lean on the horn to clear the way. Until you see some bodies.
I resent the You, as if I was American. I'm not, I'm European, so please stop insulting me. I'm just trying to be realistic here.
Sorry, I should have realised that not all ignorant, arrogant dicks are American. As for "realistic", please; I pointed out a couple of things that would be problematic. And as for using nukes to secure oil, that's insane. Even if you (you not being "you", of course) could cower a government with nukes, oil pipelines and tankers are extremely vulnerable to sabotage. It would only take a small number of fanatical guerrillas to destroy the supply chain. You'd end up in a Mad Max world rather quickly.
And what are the odds that the neighbor atheist is a child molester or else?
You seem to suggest a link between atheism and pedophilia. Interesting slur. Do you have any proof, or are you just lumping together everything "evil"? How about the more fundamental Christian sects (like *some* Mormons) who practice polygamy, child marriage and incest?
the US could: Entirely stop trading with the other countries
Good luck with oil then. You'll get a couple of years by trashing Alaska, then you're back to horse and buggies. Besides, the US is in massive debt to the rest of the world now. The world may choose not to trade for your worthless currency.
About 700,000 people are killed and 10 million are injured every year worldwide in traffic accidents. Deaths from traffic accidents could be the third leading cause of death and disability in the world by 2020 if current trends remain unchanged, according to a 1999 study by the World Health Organization, World Bank and Harvard University.
Fatality rates are 20 to 30 times higher in developing countries than in industrialized countries, the study found.
"It is the poor people who are at the greatest exposure. They are usually in rickety transport and have the least amount of steel around them. They usually have the least amount of knowledge about traffic laws," Salter said....Meanwhile, Cambodia's traffic continues to move, turn and flow in its wild and frightening way. During January [2002], seven more people died in Phnom Penh traffic accidents. In February, police said there were 16 fatalities.
If you notice, the roads have been replaced (once again) by cobbles.
This in itself limits the safe speed any car can travel.
Not so great for cyclists. Bouncing over cobblestones on a bike is teeth-jarringly unpleasant, and much easier to skid. Hopefully they'll keep some narrow, smoother, bike lanes. But the idea of trusting to drivers' good nature seems a little idealistic. It only takes a small number of selfish pricks to make it dangerous and unpleasant for all concerned. I've ridden bikes on the streets in Taiwan and Thailand, where the traffic signs are mostly ignored, and it's carnage; literally. Every day I saw chalk outlines and bloodstains on the roads from collisions. Every intersection was a game of chicken. I did a lot of sidewalk riding despite it being slower than the roads just to save my sanity.
If that was anything to show, i'm sure these laws will operate in the same way, if they get passed. No self-righteous zookeeper or police officer is going to want to fine someone for something so silly.
The problem is that it gives those in authority a club to beat people who annoy them. If you piss off the self righteous cop he'll use it.
How in the heck is a communist party "conservative"
Maintaining "traditional values" is conservative, and after being in power for about 60 years, the Communist Party is extremely traditionl. They're as revolutionary as twe Daughters of the American Revolution are.
China is still communal, they just are starting to realize how bad big government and income redistribution is.
China is very happy with big government. With 1.3 billion people you can hardly not have big government. And you'll be happy to know that income redistribution has been reversed, since the 80s, as capitalism runs rampant and the rich (oddly enough, those with good connections with the Communist Party) get richer and the poor work for a pittance making products to sell in Walmart.
Simple belief in the need to panic is not. The motive for that is political, not scientific.
The problem is that this very easily is used to justify the belief there is no need to panic, and that anyone that says there is has political motives. Just because some extremists are using the issue to push a political agenda doesn't mean everyone who thinks this is a serious problem can be written off so easily. The Royal Society, for instance, is not known as a hotbed of radicalism.
Slashdot Mirror
No, looks more like an orc.
New Line has an "option". If they want to actually make the film, they have to pay (a lot) as specified in their option contract to exercise that option. Once they do that, they have a set time, probably several years, to produce and release the film before these rights expire. Otherwise, the option expires and it seems won't be renewed.
There will be other payments specified at milestones of production: first day of principal photography, final wrap, release, and some profit sharing after that. Sometimes you see a studio rushing a movie into production on a shoestring, releasing it for a few days, then burying it; all to keep control of a property to allow them to remake it later on a big budget -- I believe there was a Spider-Man movie made long ago like that.
Of course it is. That was my whole point. The post I was replying to advocated this, take issue with him.
If you want access to the major media sources, you've got to play by their rules.
Didn't I say that? Yes, I did. So what is your point again?
That's the "free market" at its best--the owners and creators get to control the things they create.
A) It's not a free market. It's a cartel.
B) Owners and creators are not the same, just thought I'd point that out. What did Rupert Murdoch create?
C) It's quite antithetical to the whole reason copyright and intellectual property law was introduced -- not to enrich media moguls, but to enrich the culture by encouraging creation AND DISSEMINATION of new ideas.
Presumably you signed a contract to pay or subscribe to some service. The contract is still enforcible legally, they just can't hold your phone hostage by locking it up.
That's the way we'd do it if you were a wandering minstrel and I was a local lord of the manor, five hundred years ago. So am I supposed to phone Paul McCartney if I want to play Mull of Kintyre?
A few giant media companies control copyright on most of what we listen to or watch. They don't "come to agreements" with us. They use lobbyists to get laws made to legalsie the conditions they want. There is no negotiation, unless you count "take it or leave it".
Isn't it always the NEXT version of Office that's going to be bug-free? Maybe, after 20 years, they'e got it right? Next: hydrogen fusion is just around the corner.
Yes, look at all the countries in Europe where they've voted in a Communist government ... none of them. Europeans have seen Communism at close hand and seen its flaws. But American Bible-thumpers can believe in this idiocy in the face of all evidence. (Note that there are devout people all over the world, but only in America is there a significant "Creationist" belief amongst educated people.)
I did. And its title is "Transmission of material harmful to minors to a minor by electronic device or equipment prohibited". And then "'Transmit' means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail". But the term "electronic mail" is undefined. We may think it's obvious, but the current SMTP, etc., implementation we use isn't the only possible method. I used other systems back in the distant past. And the judge decided that IM fell under this heading. Legal definitions are not the same as engineering definitions.
That's how geeks would define it. SMTP, POP, RFCs.... But the law was talking about electronic messages sent to a particular person. That definition includes IMs. I don't see that as much of a stretch myself.
Because it's not what happened. He was already leaving when he was tasered. And the "trespassing" is legalistic bullshit. He was a student at the university; even lacking the all-important piece of plastic, the guards could have satisfied themselves of that in a minute.
Yes, the Vatican State, back in the MCMLX's.
It was a university library, a place he had paid money to attend. No doubt there is small print on a sign at the doorway to say the university has the right to anally probe anyone who enters their building. Morally though he has the perfect right to be there. To compare his using the library to a stranger trespassing in your home is fatuous.
She wants to use it for banking. Banking sites are often designed for IE and nothing else. Maybe Firefox will work, but that's not guaranteed.
Idiotic. If he did happen to be a suicide bomber, as you imply, he would detonate himself the moment the guards approached him. And actually he was American born, and no doubt rather pissed at being anal probed at every opportunity. Have you ever been in a university library? Half the patrons are scruffy, bearded, belligerant and with backpacks.
More so in Bangkok. But in Taiwan I was threatend by a taxi driver with a tire lever. (He cut me off; I thumped his rear bumper, then it got nasty.) And someone else had a gun pulled on him because he didn't get out of the way in a narrow alley.
Probably not, the US' nukes are probably good for at least 10 years even if the country collapese. So no one will invade. Who would want to? Mexico?
you can see how it could quickly degenerate into nuclear fireballs, fallout, and No More Fun At All for the lot of us
Exactly. So going down that path of trying to pillage the world really makes no sense even in the medium term.
Let me highlight the most relevant passage: Fatality rates are 20 to 30 times higher in developing countries than in industrialized countries. These are the countries with the "laissez faire" traffic flow as advocated in TFA. I've lived in Thailand and Taiwan; dying in traffic was by far the greatest risk in living there. It all seems fine, even fun, to change lanes at whim, run lights, overtake whenever you want, lean on the horn to clear the way. Until you see some bodies.
Sorry, I should have realised that not all ignorant, arrogant dicks are American. As for "realistic", please; I pointed out a couple of things that would be problematic. And as for using nukes to secure oil, that's insane. Even if you (you not being "you", of course) could cower a government with nukes, oil pipelines and tankers are extremely vulnerable to sabotage. It would only take a small number of fanatical guerrillas to destroy the supply chain. You'd end up in a Mad Max world rather quickly.
You seem to suggest a link between atheism and pedophilia. Interesting slur. Do you have any proof, or are you just lumping together everything "evil"? How about the more fundamental Christian sects (like *some* Mormons) who practice polygamy, child marriage and incest?
Good luck with oil then. You'll get a couple of years by trashing Alaska, then you're back to horse and buggies. Besides, the US is in massive debt to the rest of the world now. The world may choose not to trade for your worthless currency.
Cambodia Daily
Not so great for cyclists. Bouncing over cobblestones on a bike is teeth-jarringly unpleasant, and much easier to skid. Hopefully they'll keep some narrow, smoother, bike lanes. But the idea of trusting to drivers' good nature seems a little idealistic. It only takes a small number of selfish pricks to make it dangerous and unpleasant for all concerned. I've ridden bikes on the streets in Taiwan and Thailand, where the traffic signs are mostly ignored, and it's carnage; literally. Every day I saw chalk outlines and bloodstains on the roads from collisions. Every intersection was a game of chicken. I did a lot of sidewalk riding despite it being slower than the roads just to save my sanity.
The problem is that it gives those in authority a club to beat people who annoy them. If you piss off the self righteous cop he'll use it.
Maintaining "traditional values" is conservative, and after being in power for about 60 years, the Communist Party is extremely traditionl. They're as revolutionary as twe Daughters of the American Revolution are.
China is still communal, they just are starting to realize how bad big government and income redistribution is.
China is very happy with big government. With 1.3 billion people you can hardly not have big government. And you'll be happy to know that income redistribution has been reversed, since the 80s, as capitalism runs rampant and the rich (oddly enough, those with good connections with the Communist Party) get richer and the poor work for a pittance making products to sell in Walmart.
The problem is that this very easily is used to justify the belief there is no need to panic, and that anyone that says there is has political motives. Just because some extremists are using the issue to push a political agenda doesn't mean everyone who thinks this is a serious problem can be written off so easily. The Royal Society, for instance, is not known as a hotbed of radicalism.