I appreciate your take that the individual should take responsibility for his or her own welfare. I think most writers would agree. Entertainment contracts, I believe, tend to be so complicated that as a group they want to ensure a certain baseline that lawyers can expect before they delve into the rest. It's not that individual writers don't negotiate for more, they do. And they have lawyers and agents who sift through all that stuff to get the best deal. This overall negotiation isn't about figuring out the most that writers can get, it's about re-tooling the minimum fair wages for a piece of work.
I work as an independent contractor and, like you, negotiate contracts individually, though often there's not much negotiating from my part. As I tend to work for Non-profit theatres, their initial offer is generally what they can afford to pay me.
Some day I hope to join the United Scenic Artists, the union for my profession. They won't be bargaining every contract for me, but membership would give me guaranteed minimums on every design at theatres included in their collective bargaining agreement. And, more importantly, access to group health insurance.
I think you're right that people need to step up in terms of personal responsibility, but I think that can happen in conjunction with union activities.
Some television writers are on staff, others are freelance: WGA covers them all.
A motion picture screen writer is generally freelance, and has very few screenplays that actually become movies; they'll write for years to come up with a story that a studio will even think about investing in, much less turn into a film.
If he or she an unknown screenwriter, the studio might buy a script for $40,000 (or less) then go on to make millions. It seems to me that if the studio continues to make money off that property for decades, the author who invested 3 years of his/her life into it deserves a bit more that one year of middle class income.
I think your comment that there is a "butt-load" more writing to do on a story than a screenplay, while perhaps accurate from your point of view, is phrased in an inflammatory way that simplifies the truth.
Screenwriting and playwriting are inherently collaborative arts; what is on the written page is not the finished product, but it is a finished product. The changes made during shooting or rehearsals are akin, I feel, to the work of a series of editors, but in no way diminish the screenwriter's initial work or contribution.
The final movie may differ considerably from the initial screenplay, but the first writer most likely worked just as hard as you do on a story, through dozens of drafts, to get something tight enough to become a movie. There's a certain amount of letting go, however, once it passes out of the creator's hands. Other people may tamper with the writing, may change it to something that doesn't reflect at all what someone originally wrote.
Directors of plays, while keeping the essential text, can sometimes change the meaning entirely through staging.
These are things that writers for the stage and screen accept as givens. If they wanted total control, they would write novels or stories as you do. But simply because it's a collaborative art does not mean that writers are not entitled to fair compensation for their contribution.
When I first saw this headline, I thought it was a contemporary update of the classic radio show I Was a Communist for the FBI. 78 epsiodes (and also a movie) of cold war paranoia
So I personally will not RTFA until it has been adapted into a radio drama with hilariously over the top voice acting.
What held me back from the postmodern assessment is that in it's story telling mode Voyager is fairly traditional. In certain ways it's sticking the old ragtag band of compatriots thrown together by circumstances into space, along with a straightforward homeward bound plot device. When I think of postmodernism in artistic expression, one of the hallmarks for me is a tendency toward meta-narrative. And while Voyager, I think, went down that road once or twice, it's certainly not a mainstay of the series.
But your analysis is well taken. So, I suppose Voyager could be said to express a postmodern world view through conventional dramatic technique.
This is the most time I've spent thinking about my least favorite of the ST franchise in quite a while. I may have to watch a few episodes now.
Your comment is pretty insightful as to the series-game relationship.
Still, I think that you're unfairly ignoring the ST: 25th Anniversary Game; was that not also an unqualified success? Or must we qualify it because it's from '91?
Also, in what sense do you mean when you call Voyager "postmodern"? I don't see it.
But maybe I'm being blinded by the fact that Janeway is an idiot.
At the time of its release, I was absolutely blown away by the Star Trek: 25th Anniversary Game. In an era of classic adventure gameplay, it combined the story telling and feel of TOS with some exciting space combat moments.
But thinking about that game's date of publication makes me feel my age a bit.
I generally support shorter copyrights, but I think that 15 years is a little too short for most cases. For playwrights, for example, it may take a number of years for a script to gain steam. If a play is only being produced in small theatres, once or twice every few years... Well, with 15 year copyright, said writer may only make $5,000 from something that took him/her years to create.
50 years gives a bit more leeway for adequate royalties to trickle in.
There's actually a little bit more privacy protection here than people have mentioned as yet: his attorneys get to sort through the e-mail before it's submitted to the court.
...withholding only those documents that are shielded from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, or those which are truly protected by a legitimate privacy interest.
So if there are things unrelated to this particular case, as well as conversations with his attorneys, that he really doesn't want the courts to know about, there's at least some protection there.
I do find it a little odd that I can't find any papers listing him as author on xxx.lanl.gov . Or any evidence of previous research by him in this field on Google.
Still, he is associated with Stanford, and that's a pretty good school, I hear.
Your point about Pure Science is well taken, but in these realms of theoretical physics, pure objective reasoning is sometimes obscured. When competing theories have enough evidence (or lack thereof) to be equally valid, a personal aesthetic often sets in.
In one of my Astro classes back in the day, there was a grad student obsessed with MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, convinced that it's right. I, on the other hand, think that MOND is a load of hooey. Yes, it explains certain observations, but it simply doesn't feel right to me (and a majority of others). I'd rather believe in dark matter/energy than accept what MOND does to sensible physics. Still, it's possible that the MOND guys will pull a rabbit out of a hat, and the majority of us will end up looking foolish. And even if they don't pull it off, at least they're contributing to the conversation.
I think that scientists exploring alternative answers (which often manifest as pet theories) bring us closer to the truth as unworkable theories fall away.
But I haven't actually made the time to read this particular guy's stuff (Firefox crashed when I clicked on the pdf...twenty tabs was too many, perhaps) so I'm just speaking generally here.
I personally find it exciting when we're able to revise our theories based upon new information. It means that we have new information, and that's always a good thing.
Recall that Astrophysics is still a relatively young science. As we acquire new observational tools, we find ourselves with more and better data. And so assumptions are adjusted.
For me, money isn't an end, but a means to an end.
I'm a theatre artist. I can expect to make poverty level wages for the next couple years as I build my design portfolio. I'll have to take whatever projects come my way, even if they're of questionable quality, so I can make enough money to, say, buy food. Pay rent. All those little things.
If I were able to uncover an investment scheme of some kind to ensure that I'll have a living wage no matter how "uncommercial" I am in my work, I would jump at it.
With a million dollars, I would be able to fund new plays, new works, bring theatre to nontraditional audiences.
I could use proceeds from a million dollar windfall to fund (in small part) scientific research that interests me, even though I've gone a different way in my professional life.
The nature of capitalism dictates that most pursuits are tied to funding, for better or worse.
Hey... I don't care what your username is, I didn't attack your grammar: I asked that you get a name right. Those aren't the rules for a doctoral thesis, they're the rules of intelligible discourse.
While we're talking about it, I do care about spelling. I believe that a bevy of misspelled words can undermine an otherwise sound argument. A lot of people don't feel that way. So be it.
I'm sorry I missed your Southpark reference. Context truly is everything; with the incorrect name, I figured it to be a poorly phrased attack of some sort rather than a pop culture thing. My bad.
Please see the first section of my parent comment for the insightful bit... I believe it's there, and stated in a "grown up" fashion.
(As a side note, I used to belong to an improv troop founded on the principle that "Your Mom" jokes will never get old, so that comment doesn't really wound me. But I know what you mean.)
I think the news for nerds appeal is more this: look at this ridiculous use of technology. Look how far digital effects have come that the possibility of subtly manipulating every frame in which the lead actor appears (for a trivial reason) is accepted.
Granted I read both this story and the debunking of the story ages ago, so it certainly didn't appear on/. in a timely fashion.
I understand that you have a strong opinion about this, but there are certainly far better ways to make your point. The instant you used the phrase, "Christopher Reeds fetus brain sucking stem cell cheerleading" I lost any respect for you I might have ever had.
Even if you're going to be insulting and ridiculous, at least get the late actor's name right.
I have to admit, I've only played around with Leprechaun boards, never run a show on one. A rep from On Location Lighting told me about the Win 95 thing, so I suppose I should've added a disclaimer. My bad.
I don't think that your statemnet "PC-based lighting control is in the severe minority" is entirely accurate. As evidence I point out that the Strand 550i runs a Pentium II and the embedded OS is Dos. ETC boards are similarly dos based. That seems to me to be a fair chunk of the nonconcert industry... they're dedicated light boards, true, but they have the guts of a PC.
[and in the venue of more specifically concert oriented consoles, the now venerable Leprachaun LP-* runs Win 95 (truly frightening, I know)].
The thing the orignal question is pursuing is if there's lighting control software that would run on a linux instead... after all, the control software from the boards I mention could really run on any pc. And this is certainly a viable question if one wants some form of WYSIWIG control.
I'm also curious about the size of venue at which you use the Omega console to which you link. It certainly seems a workable board, but in my perusal of the manual I didn't see any mention of Group functionality, which can be really useful. Plus, I would think that a console of 120 submasters would be more confusing than anything else... that's what submaster pages are for, if you really need them. I would think that cueing a show with that many subs would take forever. And I wouldn't even want to think about using that board with automated fixtures... If working with a small light rig, in a traditional theatrical setting, give me an ETC Express any day.
Well, I think they're more likely to just add all recieved addresses to their catalogue.
After e-mailing various republican lawmakers to express my own differing views on certain issues, I found myself subscribed to the Republican National Commitee mailing list.
One of the things that clinches Pluto's status as a planet for me (besides the fact that I saw Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of pluto speak when I was little) is that it's tough to categorize as a Kuiper belt object for one simple reason: it appears to be made out of different stuff. The albedo of Pluto suggests a different composition than all the wacky little things flying around past its orbit. I'm curious to see a report on what they think Quaoar is made of before a definitive declaration is made....
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate your take that the individual should take responsibility for his or her own welfare. I think most writers would agree. Entertainment contracts, I believe, tend to be so complicated that as a group they want to ensure a certain baseline that lawyers can expect before they delve into the rest. It's not that individual writers don't negotiate for more, they do. And they have lawyers and agents who sift through all that stuff to get the best deal. This overall negotiation isn't about figuring out the most that writers can get, it's about re-tooling the minimum fair wages for a piece of work.
I work as an independent contractor and, like you, negotiate contracts individually, though often there's not much negotiating from my part. As I tend to work for Non-profit theatres, their initial offer is generally what they can afford to pay me.
Some day I hope to join the United Scenic Artists, the union for my profession. They won't be bargaining every contract for me, but membership would give me guaranteed minimums on every design at theatres included in their collective bargaining agreement. And, more importantly, access to group health insurance.
I think you're right that people need to step up in terms of personal responsibility, but I think that can happen in conjunction with union activities.
But often they're not negotiating from a position of strength: the writer needs to eat, the stakes aren't as high for the studio.
And this why we have unions, to give individuals more power when dealing with larger, better funded entities.
Collective bargaining sets precedent so that individuals don't have to reinvent the wheel every time a contract is signed.
Some television writers are on staff, others are freelance: WGA covers them all.
A motion picture screen writer is generally freelance, and has very few screenplays that actually become movies; they'll write for years to come up with a story that a studio will even think about investing in, much less turn into a film.
If he or she an unknown screenwriter, the studio might buy a script for $40,000 (or less) then go on to make millions. It seems to me that if the studio continues to make money off that property for decades, the author who invested 3 years of his/her life into it deserves a bit more that one year of middle class income.
Not entirely true that IATSE only strikes against individual productions: see this fall's IATSE strike against Broadway.
I think your comment that there is a "butt-load" more writing to do on a story than a screenplay, while perhaps accurate from your point of view, is phrased in an inflammatory way that simplifies the truth.
Screenwriting and playwriting are inherently collaborative arts; what is on the written page is not the finished product, but it is a finished product. The changes made during shooting or rehearsals are akin, I feel, to the work of a series of editors, but in no way diminish the screenwriter's initial work or contribution.
The final movie may differ considerably from the initial screenplay, but the first writer most likely worked just as hard as you do on a story, through dozens of drafts, to get something tight enough to become a movie. There's a certain amount of letting go, however, once it passes out of the creator's hands. Other people may tamper with the writing, may change it to something that doesn't reflect at all what someone originally wrote.
Directors of plays, while keeping the essential text, can sometimes change the meaning entirely through staging.
These are things that writers for the stage and screen accept as givens. If they wanted total control, they would write novels or stories as you do. But simply because it's a collaborative art does not mean that writers are not entitled to fair compensation for their contribution.
We've all got to make a living.
When I first saw this headline, I thought it was a contemporary update of the classic radio show I Was a Communist for the FBI . 78 epsiodes (and also a movie) of cold war paranoia
So I personally will not RTFA until it has been adapted into a radio drama with hilariously over the top voice acting.
Ah, so.
What held me back from the postmodern assessment is that in it's story telling mode Voyager is fairly traditional. In certain ways it's sticking the old ragtag band of compatriots thrown together by circumstances into space, along with a straightforward homeward bound plot device. When I think of postmodernism in artistic expression, one of the hallmarks for me is a tendency toward meta-narrative. And while Voyager, I think, went down that road once or twice, it's certainly not a mainstay of the series.
But your analysis is well taken. So, I suppose Voyager could be said to express a postmodern world view through conventional dramatic technique.
This is the most time I've spent thinking about my least favorite of the ST franchise in quite a while. I may have to watch a few episodes now.
Your comment is pretty insightful as to the series-game relationship.
Still, I think that you're unfairly ignoring the ST: 25th Anniversary Game; was that not also an unqualified success? Or must we qualify it because it's from '91?
Also, in what sense do you mean when you call Voyager "postmodern"? I don't see it.
But maybe I'm being blinded by the fact that Janeway is an idiot.
At the time of its release, I was absolutely blown away by the Star Trek: 25th Anniversary Game. In an era of classic adventure gameplay, it combined the story telling and feel of TOS with some exciting space combat moments.
But thinking about that game's date of publication makes me feel my age a bit.
I generally support shorter copyrights, but I think that 15 years is a little too short for most cases. For playwrights, for example, it may take a number of years for a script to gain steam. If a play is only being produced in small theatres, once or twice every few years... Well, with 15 year copyright, said writer may only make $5,000 from something that took him/her years to create.
50 years gives a bit more leeway for adequate royalties to trickle in.
From the article: "Originally, he wanted to build a hyperbolic chamber," [His mother] said, adding that she promptly said no.
Now that would have been the best science project ever.
Unless she meant to say hyperbaric chamber. Which is way less interesting.
So if there are things unrelated to this particular case, as well as conversations with his attorneys, that he really doesn't want the courts to know about, there's at least some protection there.
I do find it a little odd that I can't find any papers listing him as author on xxx.lanl.gov . Or any evidence of previous research by him in this field on Google.
Still, he is associated with Stanford, and that's a pretty good school, I hear.
Your point about Pure Science is well taken, but in these realms of theoretical physics, pure objective reasoning is sometimes obscured. When competing theories have enough evidence (or lack thereof) to be equally valid, a personal aesthetic often sets in.
In one of my Astro classes back in the day, there was a grad student obsessed with MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, convinced that it's right. I, on the other hand, think that MOND is a load of hooey. Yes, it explains certain observations, but it simply doesn't feel right to me (and a majority of others). I'd rather believe in dark matter/energy than accept what MOND does to sensible physics. Still, it's possible that the MOND guys will pull a rabbit out of a hat, and the majority of us will end up looking foolish. And even if they don't pull it off, at least they're contributing to the conversation.
I think that scientists exploring alternative answers (which often manifest as pet theories) bring us closer to the truth as unworkable theories fall away.
But I haven't actually made the time to read this particular guy's stuff (Firefox crashed when I clicked on the pdf...twenty tabs was too many, perhaps) so I'm just speaking generally here.
Via Stanford's people search, voila, his position with the University:
Name: Alexander Franklin Mayer
Web Page: http://www.stanford.edu/people/afmayer
Organization: University
Relationship: Affiliate
Department: Physics
Perhaps they don't disagree because they're too busy pondering scientific conundra to grant a response to your silly remarks. ;-)
Or maybe some Cosmetologists wandered into the wrong building...
I personally find it exciting when we're able to revise our theories based upon new information. It means that we have new information, and that's always a good thing.
Recall that Astrophysics is still a relatively young science. As we acquire new observational tools, we find ourselves with more and better data. And so assumptions are adjusted.
It's not flip-flopping. It's learning.
It was just you, but now I see it too.
In fact, I can't stop seeing it that way.
Thanks!
For me, money isn't an end, but a means to an end.
I'm a theatre artist. I can expect to make poverty level wages for the next couple years as I build my design portfolio. I'll have to take whatever projects come my way, even if they're of questionable quality, so I can make enough money to, say, buy food. Pay rent. All those little things.
If I were able to uncover an investment scheme of some kind to ensure that I'll have a living wage no matter how "uncommercial" I am in my work, I would jump at it.
With a million dollars, I would be able to fund new plays, new works, bring theatre to nontraditional audiences.
I could use proceeds from a million dollar windfall to fund (in small part) scientific research that interests me, even though I've gone a different way in my professional life.
The nature of capitalism dictates that most pursuits are tied to funding, for better or worse.
Hey... I don't care what your username is, I didn't attack your grammar: I asked that you get a name right. Those aren't the rules for a doctoral thesis, they're the rules of intelligible discourse.
While we're talking about it, I do care about spelling. I believe that a bevy of misspelled words can undermine an otherwise sound argument. A lot of people don't feel that way. So be it.
I'm sorry I missed your Southpark reference. Context truly is everything; with the incorrect name, I figured it to be a poorly phrased attack of some sort rather than a pop culture thing. My bad.
Please see the first section of my parent comment for the insightful bit... I believe it's there, and stated in a "grown up" fashion.
(As a side note, I used to belong to an improv troop founded on the principle that "Your Mom" jokes will never get old, so that comment doesn't really wound me. But I know what you mean.)
Let's not fight anymore.
I think the news for nerds appeal is more this: look at this ridiculous use of technology. Look how far digital effects have come that the possibility of subtly manipulating every frame in which the lead actor appears (for a trivial reason) is accepted.
/. in a timely fashion.
Granted I read both this story and the debunking of the story ages ago, so it certainly didn't appear on
I understand that you have a strong opinion about this, but there are certainly far better ways to make your point. The instant you used the phrase, "Christopher Reeds fetus brain sucking stem cell cheerleading" I lost any respect for you I might have ever had.
Even if you're going to be insulting and ridiculous, at least get the late actor's name right.
I have to admit, I've only played around with Leprechaun boards, never run a show on one. A rep from On Location Lighting told me about the Win 95 thing, so I suppose I should've added a disclaimer. My bad.
I don't think that your statemnet "PC-based lighting control is in the severe minority" is entirely accurate. As evidence I point out that the Strand 550i runs a Pentium II and the embedded OS is Dos. ETC boards are similarly dos based. That seems to me to be a fair chunk of the nonconcert industry... they're dedicated light boards, true, but they have the guts of a PC.
[and in the venue of more specifically concert oriented consoles, the now venerable Leprachaun LP-* runs Win 95 (truly frightening, I know)].
The thing the orignal question is pursuing is if there's lighting control software that would run on a linux instead... after all, the control software from the boards I mention could really run on any pc. And this is certainly a viable question if one wants some form of WYSIWIG control.
I'm also curious about the size of venue at which you use the Omega console to which you link. It certainly seems a workable board, but in my perusal of the manual I didn't see any mention of Group functionality, which can be really useful. Plus, I would think that a console of 120 submasters would be more confusing than anything else... that's what submaster pages are for, if you really need them. I would think that cueing a show with that many subs would take forever. And I wouldn't even want to think about using that board with automated fixtures... If working with a small light rig, in a traditional theatrical setting, give me an ETC Express any day.
There's the Internet Underground Music Archive. The site has had a bit of a troubled past of it's own, but it seems like it has some staying power.
-Wombat
Well, I think they're more likely to just add all recieved addresses to their catalogue.
After e-mailing various republican lawmakers to express my own differing views on certain issues, I found myself subscribed to the Republican National Commitee mailing list.
Now I get lots of big, chunky GOP spam.
One of the things that clinches Pluto's status as a planet for me (besides the fact that I saw Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of pluto speak when I was little) is that it's tough to categorize as a Kuiper belt object for one simple reason: it appears to be made out of different stuff. The albedo of Pluto suggests a different composition than all the wacky little things flying around past its orbit. I'm curious to see a report on what they think Quaoar is made of before a definitive declaration is made....
-Wombat