I got very angry when they started charging. First, because they did not grandfather-in old domains, which I think the community as a whole could have fought, and won, had anyone really cared.
But then, I was angry because they pussy footed around with the price. They should have made the price on the order of ten grand a year. Then alternatives would have been deveolped. But they had to go with price levels that seemed reasonable. Damn them.
>A "Tea Party" will be called for when ICANN imposes >the tax across the board, but then absolves Verisign > from it.
It's a twisted stretch, but this touches on my feelings about dish-satellite-tv.
See, I'm a geek, and I run in geek circles. Presumably as a result, I have never, ever, known anyone who actually paid a subscription for what they received on their satellite receiver. I lack whatever combination of free time and pertinacity is required to make free satellite TV happen, but because others are getting it for free, I cannot bring myself to subscribe. I'd lose on two fronts:
1. I'd be picking of the slack for what I assume are millions of freeloaders 2. I'd be paying far more ($500/year!) than the going rate ($0 plus some initial overhead.)
It's not in my nature to do either of these. So I do without. Satellite company loses twice -- once for allowing freeloaders, and once because of my response to the perception that freeloading is the norm.
"The problem is, paying to renew a copyright takes some action (sending in the fee)"
What do you mean by that? Copyright, once established, extends for the life of the author plus 75 years. After that, it cannot be renewed. That's sort of the whole point. The author, and his heirs (but NOT Ms. LeGuin's heirs!), get a monopoly, then society as a whole gets to keep it forever.
"It's gratifying to know that your desire to care for your grandparents is a function of how much capital you expect to recieve for their death."
If I watched them *racing the clock* to make sure that *everything* was liquidated before they died, just so that the children would get nothing, then yeah.
I've seen this phenomenon in families, and no, I wouldn't play that game. I certainly would cut off family members who put their own interests ahead of the family. Yes indeed.
I'm embarrassingly close to that age, and I do indeed have a lawyer who is consulted on any contracts of any merit. And I do read every word of anything I sign.
"like here's a milion dollars, and I get the rights to your composition for any movie that begins production in the next 3 years?"
And I make sure there's a rider that stipulates specific damages against a requirement that it is not used under specific conditions that are objectionable -- whatever legalese is needed to prevent you from using it in a pro-nazi, pro-terrorist, or pron-ography film. Fair enough?
Maybe I wouldn't walk away from your million dollar offer, anyway, but for the sake of argument, I probably would amend whatever contract you waved in my face. And I realize I might be pulling a Gary Kildall by sticking to my principles. So be it.
(For the record, I'd actually be delighted to make your porn soundtrack, and my royalties would be much less than the hypothetical amount in your message:-) Do you want "smooth jazz" or "dark ambient?"
"This women is has a huge following, if she started the ULG publishing house, and only published her books, she could still sell a hell of a lot of books, and her costs would be less..no publisher commision."
Considering her age, she might not be looking at any long-term considerations.
Hell, if I can still go to the bathroom by myself at age 72, I'll be happy:-)
But you can bet your shirt I'll read any contract to the letter before signing, and I sure as hell won't be assinging the rights for any of my compositions over to anyone. I have the double luxury of knowing that I'll never make a penny off my music, and also the comfort of knowing that nobody is interested in my music anyway;-)
But if I were more successful, it would make me *more* inclined to stick to my principles, not *less*.
She should have thrown the film offer back in their faces, and complained that it didn't go nearly far enough in specific language to protect the integrity of her work. Hindsight 20/20? I don't think so. Carelessness. An artist should consider the integrity of his or her work, first, foremost, and always.
"So, in short... They are her rights, dude. Authors don't have a moral obligation to do anything"
I'm not arguing this, but if I were one of her grandchildren, this sort of thing would mean the difference between her living in an old folks home, or in a wing I've built on my house for her...
>> Nobody is forcefully divested of their copyrights.
>Nope, they are just de-facto censored.
Barriers to entry into specific mass-markets is not the same thing as censorship. You have a right to retain copyright on your creative work. You may choose to trade that for the privilege of having your work presented to a wider audience.
This is a different part of the biz, but for under ten grand, I can show you how to produce your album, while keeping all distribution rights, and get it before an audience of a few thousand people. But if you want more of an audience, like, *millions* of people, then you'll certainly have to deal with people who have the resources to make that happen.
I cannot say the same for video. If you want a TV show made from your work, you have a tough sell. There are terms you can walk away from, and terms you can accept.
Ursula accepted certain terms, but she never bargained for the outright *libel* which is the actual basis for her conflict.
>Maybe you are one of those ultra-capitalist eople
I'd put my principles before any other motivation.
>Wait until someone approached you with an offer >which would allow you have full control over any >movie or tv series which may not ever materialise > or relinquish all control in return for some >money right now ?
At Urusla's age, I would consult with my children and grandchildren as to whether they would prefer that I make a quick buck, or whether they would like to retain the copyrights which will be protected at least 75 years after my death.
I didn't mean to imply I thought she was whining. Just that her complaint seems to be based on *libel*, as the producers improperly attributed certain quotes to her, which have possibly damaged her reputation. That's really what she's upset about, and it has almost nothing to do with the works.
After RTFA, I'm convinced the only thing she is truly upset about was the libelous claim that quoted her as making statements that she never made. Which is quite entirely separate from the copyright/artistic control issue it's being conflated with.
Libel is libel. If she has damages, she has standing to sue.
"Publishing houses own all the copyrights, authors don't have any."
Baloney.
Nobody is forcefully divested of their copyrights. The moment you choose to surrender them, they become someone else's property.
It is a matter of opinion whether the legal system is "fair", but if you sign away your rights, for whatever valuable consideration is granted in return, it's not really a question of fairness.
You have to decide whether you want to write works and hold on to them as if they are property, or whether you want your works to be distributed, and for the latter, you have to decide whether you want your works distributed to dozens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.
It's really only the last case that's a problem.
And, yeah, if you want something like ABC or the Sci-Fi Channel or Disney, you're going to be a little fish negotiating with a big fish.
Now, if this is the result of some contract that was signed in 1965, she still had 40 years to buy back the paper.
But, it does not sound like she is all that upset about anything except the libelous attributions of quotes to her, being things she did not say. That has nothing to do with copyright, and is an infringement of an individual right.
"You seem very unsympathetic to some screwed over by our intellectual property system."
I'm not really, because I do understand the reality how people get screwed. I truly do.
However, I don't buy the notion that anyone is being unfairly divested of their property. Those rights are not being abridged.
The fact that the producers made libelous comments claiming that the author made statements which she did not make, has nothing at all to do with intellectual property or copyright. If she was damaged by these comments, she has standing to sue -- those rights were not abridged either.
LeGuin sold her TV rights instead of putting them in her will for her grandchildren. That's a pretty shiddy thing for a 72 year old woman to do if you ask me.
"Simply the fact that one can make a movie based on and using the title of a copy-written work without consulting the author, is proof that our system is horribly broken."
It's all about using borrowed money. If you dind't have to do that, you could retain absolute control.
Almost all of these complaints come back to that root: using borrowed money. It's not just about the entertainment industry.
There is nothing wrong with copyright law. There are problems that lead to a situation where an author can be persuaded to relinquish his or her rights, and sometimes that does indeed have a connection to things like distribution monopolies, and so on, but at the end of the day, it is the author's hand that signs the contract to relinquish her rights.
LeGuin was hardball enough to get a mainstream publisher in the 1950s to publish the work of a female author in a genre completely dominated by men, with controversial themse at a time when that was not always acceptable. She got soft later in life, and let her guard down for the Sci-Fi channel. But I don't think anyone other than the author herself bears the slightest responsibility for this. She could have insisted on stipulated details in the contract she signed. She might not have had the clout to keep her attitude from breaking the deal, but that's the price, isn't it?
She isn't starving. She lives in a dream house in Portland, and to all appearances seems to be pretty comfortable for a 72 year old lady. She could have retained these rights for the sake of her grandchildren, you know. They'd have been good for another 75 years after her death, which hasn't happened yet.
Now I think the marketing folks crossed a line, and probably even committed a crime, when they attributed quotes to her that she had not said, but that's a separate issue. As for the selling-out of TV rights to her most significant works, she herself bears all the responsibility and none goes to the Sci-Fi channel. Basically, she sold a piece of her grandkids' future for a short term gain, a little extra folding money at the twilight years of her life. I find that pathetic. I compare it to an old lady in my home town who signed a timber contract to have a couple of thousand acres of woodlands clearcut and strip mined -- at the age of 87!
Well, you could have the foresight to draw up the contract yourself, (having your skilled legal team do it, of course), which anticipates Hollywood, and specifically enumerates damages for things like "casting Pink Poodle as leading character..."
Stephen King manages to get it right, why can't Ursula? Was she broke, or merely foolish?
"...not giving them an input on how the story changes usually does bring out the worst in the final product."
The author bears the lion's share of the responsibility, when she signs the paper that relinquishes her rights to the material.
As a matter of fact, I will go as far as to say the author bears the COMPLETE responsibility, because ONLY the author, or her heirs for *75* years after her death, may relinquish this control!
Now, if you want to get into the financial considerations that lead someone to surrender rights, or if you want to talk about the standard operating procedure for the film and tv industries, that's fine, but it does not shift the responsibility away from the author, when she picks up the pen and signs the paper.
Harsh realities of the entertainment business can lead people to make decisions that are not in thier best long-term interests, for a short term gain. But the decision always rests in the hand of the author, which signs the contract.
>Didnt they do a redo of "Lathe of Heaven"? similar >to the one done back in the late 60's or early 70s
I missed it, I guess. The original was pretty bad, but not really counter to the spirit of the novel. I'd like to see Left Hand of Darkness in an animated treatment.
I really liked Sci-Fi's Dune and Children, although the pacing in Children is pretty bad.
I only see Sci-Fi channel stuff when it comes out on DVD, since my cable provider puts it on the expensive digital cable only -- and it's pretty much the only interesting thing about their digital cable. It's far less expensive to just buy their DVDs when they release them, than to subscribe to the expensive, and expensive, digital cable for these occasional worthwhile specials.
Did I mention that Cox digital cable was expensive?
I don't see where she gets off comparing the SciFi channel's treatment to changing the LOTR ending.
I also don't understand, financial considerations aside, what would posess an artist to relinquish so much artistic control over their material, that such complaints ever need to be raised. With Tolkein or Heinlein, it makes sense that they might not be respected by a screenplay writer -- but this author is alive.
Does Stephen King have this problem?
You can't have your cake and eat it too, Ursula.
If you surrender your rights to control of your work, you pay the price.
It's quite hard to find. Grocery stores don't sell it (good thing, since tin is toxic, and becomes more toxic if it oxydizes). Hardware stores don't sell it. Tin roofs are made of plastic or steel these days. Tin cans are made of steel or aluminum. Tin foil is made of aluminum.
Shame, really. I miss the bluish tint of tin. You never see tin anymore. It used to be much more common.
Slashdot Mirror
I got very angry when they started charging. First, because they did not grandfather-in old domains, which I think the community as a whole could have fought, and won, had anyone really cared.
But then, I was angry because they pussy footed around with the price. They should have made the price on the order of ten grand a year. Then alternatives would have been deveolped. But they had to go with price levels that seemed reasonable. Damn them.
"Throw a frog into a pot of boiling water and he'll jump out but throw him in warm water, slowly turn up the heat and he'll boil to death."
The hypothesis does not stand up to even the most perfunctory experimental investigation.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.ht
>So how exactly does this cause anyone real grief?
When ICANN is done collecting this money, they will use it do to something even uglier.
>A "Tea Party" will be called for when ICANN imposes
>the tax across the board, but then absolves Verisign
> from it.
It's a twisted stretch, but this touches on my feelings about dish-satellite-tv.
See, I'm a geek, and I run in geek circles. Presumably as a result, I have never, ever, known anyone who actually paid a subscription for what they received on their satellite receiver. I lack whatever combination of free time and pertinacity is required to make free satellite TV happen, but because others are getting it for free, I cannot bring myself to subscribe. I'd lose on two fronts:
1. I'd be picking of the slack for what I assume are millions of freeloaders
2. I'd be paying far more ($500/year!) than the going rate ($0 plus some initial overhead.)
It's not in my nature to do either of these. So I do without. Satellite company loses twice -- once for allowing freeloaders, and once because of my response to the perception that freeloading is the norm.
"The problem is, paying to renew a copyright takes some action (sending in the fee)"
What do you mean by that? Copyright, once established, extends for the life of the author plus 75 years. After that, it cannot be renewed. That's sort of the whole point. The author, and his heirs (but NOT Ms. LeGuin's heirs!), get a monopoly, then society as a whole gets to keep it forever.
"It's gratifying to know that your desire to care for your grandparents is a function of how much capital you expect to recieve for their death."
If I watched them *racing the clock* to make sure that *everything* was liquidated before they died, just so that the children would get nothing, then yeah.
I've seen this phenomenon in families, and no, I wouldn't play that game. I certainly would cut off family members who put their own interests ahead of the family. Yes indeed.
>I hope you get a lawyers as well
I'm embarrassingly close to that age, and I do indeed have a lawyer who is consulted on any contracts of any merit. And I do read every word of anything I sign.
"like here's a milion dollars, and I get the rights to your composition for any movie that begins production in the next 3 years?"
And I make sure there's a rider that stipulates specific damages against a requirement that it is not used under specific conditions that are objectionable -- whatever legalese is needed to prevent you from using it in a pro-nazi, pro-terrorist, or pron-ography film. Fair enough?
Maybe I wouldn't walk away from your million dollar offer, anyway, but for the sake of argument, I probably would amend whatever contract you waved in my face. And I realize I might be pulling a Gary Kildall by sticking to my principles. So be it.
(For the record, I'd actually be delighted to make your porn soundtrack, and my royalties would be much less than the hypothetical amount in your message
"This women is has a huge following, if she started the ULG publishing house, and only published her books, she could still sell a hell of a lot of books, and her costs would be less..no publisher commision."
Considering her age, she might not be looking at any long-term considerations.
Hell, if I can still go to the bathroom by myself at age 72, I'll be happy
But you can bet your shirt I'll read any contract to the letter before signing, and I sure as hell won't be assinging the rights for any of my compositions over to anyone. I have the double luxury of knowing that I'll never make a penny off my music, and also the comfort of knowing that nobody is interested in my music anyway
But if I were more successful, it would make me *more* inclined to stick to my principles, not *less*.
She should have thrown the film offer back in their faces, and complained that it didn't go nearly far enough in specific language to protect the integrity of her work. Hindsight 20/20? I don't think so. Carelessness. An artist should consider the integrity of his or her work, first, foremost, and always.
"So, in short... They are her rights, dude. Authors don't have a moral obligation to do anything"
I'm not arguing this, but if I were one of her grandchildren, this sort of thing would mean the difference between her living in an old folks home, or in a wing I've built on my house for her...
>"In New York, Only Older Officers Pack the Old .38"
They are experienced enough to know that wheel guns
don't stovepipe.
>> Nobody is forcefully divested of their copyrights.
>Nope, they are just de-facto censored.
Barriers to entry into specific mass-markets is not the same thing as censorship. You have a right to retain copyright on your creative work. You may choose to trade that for the privilege of having your work presented to a wider audience.
This is a different part of the biz, but for under ten grand, I can show you how to produce your album, while keeping all distribution rights, and get it before an audience of a few thousand people. But if you want more of an audience, like, *millions* of people, then you'll certainly have to deal with people who have the resources to make that happen.
I cannot say the same for video. If you want a TV show made from your work, you have a tough sell. There are terms you can walk away from, and terms you can accept.
Ursula accepted certain terms, but she never bargained for the outright *libel* which is the actual basis for her conflict.
>Maybe you are one of those ultra-capitalist eople
I'm much closer to "Marxist" actually.
> Let me guess you are independently wealthy
Ursula K. LeGuin never missed a meal. Don't even act like you're going to paint her as a starving artist.
She was born into downright *aristocracy.*
>What would you do ?
I'd put my principles before any other motivation.
>Wait until someone approached you with an offer
>which would allow you have full control over any
>movie or tv series which may not ever materialise
> or relinquish all control in return for some
>money right now ?
At Urusla's age, I would consult with my children and grandchildren as to whether they would prefer that I make a quick buck, or whether they would like to retain the copyrights which will be protected at least 75 years after my death.
I didn't mean to imply I thought she was whining. Just that her complaint seems to be based on *libel*, as the producers improperly attributed certain quotes to her, which have possibly damaged her reputation. That's really what she's upset about, and it has almost nothing to do with the works.
"I hoped they were making no unnecessary changes in the plot or to the characters"
That translates to:
"I lacked the foresight required to anticipate this problem, and chose not to insist on specific language in the contract that would prevent it."
Dealbreaker? Maybe. But the producers wouldn't have gotten the Earthsea franchise any other way, except by the hand of LeGuin, or her heirs.
Not only that, she sold out her grandkid's inheritance to the lowest bidder, it looks like.
"Read her blog and it's clear she sold out and hoped for the best. If you are going to whore for the suits don't bitch about the out come."
Her complaint appears to indicate libel, not copyright infringement or undue abridgement of artistic direction.
After RTFA, I'm convinced the only thing she is truly upset about was the libelous claim that quoted her as making statements that she never made. Which is quite entirely separate from the copyright/artistic control issue it's being conflated with.
Libel is libel. If she has damages, she has standing to sue.
"Publishing houses own all the copyrights, authors don't have any."
Baloney.
Nobody is forcefully divested of their copyrights.
The moment you choose to surrender them, they become someone else's property.
It is a matter of opinion whether the legal system is "fair", but if you sign away your rights, for whatever valuable consideration is granted in return, it's not really a question of fairness.
You have to decide whether you want to write works and hold on to them as if they are property, or whether you want your works to be distributed, and for the latter, you have to decide whether you want your works distributed to dozens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.
It's really only the last case that's a problem.
And, yeah, if you want something like ABC or the Sci-Fi Channel or Disney, you're going to be a little fish negotiating with a big fish.
Now, if this is the result of some contract that was signed in 1965, she still had 40 years to buy back the paper.
But, it does not sound like she is all that upset about anything except the libelous attributions of quotes to her, being things she did not say. That has nothing to do with copyright, and is an infringement of an individual right.
"You seem very unsympathetic to some screwed over by our intellectual property system."
I'm not really, because I do understand the reality how people get screwed. I truly do.
However, I don't buy the notion that anyone is being unfairly divested of their property. Those rights are not being abridged.
The fact that the producers made libelous comments claiming that the author made statements which she did not make, has nothing at all to do with intellectual property or copyright. If she was damaged by these comments, she has standing to sue -- those rights were not abridged either.
LeGuin sold her TV rights instead of putting them in her will for her grandchildren. That's a pretty shiddy thing for a 72 year old woman to do if you ask me.
>Did anybody see the Dune mini-series
I thought it went a long way toward undoing the evil David Lynch debacle.
It did not seem false to Frank Herbert at all. Liberties were taken, but not in any way that I took offense to.
"Simply the fact that one can make a movie based on and using the title of a copy-written work without consulting the author, is proof that our system is horribly broken."
It's all about using borrowed money. If you dind't have to do that, you could retain absolute control.
Almost all of these complaints come back to that root: using borrowed money. It's not just about the entertainment industry.
There is nothing wrong with copyright law. There are problems that lead to a situation where an author can be persuaded to relinquish his or her rights, and sometimes that does indeed have a connection to things like distribution monopolies, and so on, but at the end of the day, it is the author's hand that signs the contract to relinquish her rights.
LeGuin was hardball enough to get a mainstream publisher in the 1950s to publish the work of a female author in a genre completely dominated by men, with controversial themse at a time when that was not always acceptable. She got soft later in life, and let her guard down for the Sci-Fi channel. But I don't think anyone other than the author herself bears the slightest responsibility for this. She could have insisted on stipulated details in the contract she signed. She might not have had the clout to keep her attitude from breaking the deal, but that's the price, isn't it?
She isn't starving. She lives in a dream house in Portland, and to all appearances seems to be pretty comfortable for a 72 year old lady. She could have retained these rights for the sake of her grandchildren, you know. They'd have been good for another 75 years after her death, which hasn't happened yet.
Now I think the marketing folks crossed a line, and probably even committed a crime, when they attributed quotes to her that she had not said, but that's a separate issue. As for the selling-out of TV rights to her most significant works, she herself bears all the responsibility and none goes to the Sci-Fi channel. Basically, she sold a piece of her grandkids' future for a short term gain, a little extra folding money at the twilight years of her life. I find that pathetic. I compare it to an old lady in my home town who signed a timber contract to have a couple of thousand acres of woodlands clearcut and strip mined -- at the age of 87!
Après moi, le déluge!
Well, you could have the foresight to draw up the contract yourself, (having your skilled legal team do it, of course), which anticipates Hollywood, and specifically enumerates damages for things like "casting Pink Poodle as leading character..."
Stephen King manages to get it right, why can't Ursula? Was she broke, or merely foolish?
"...not giving them an input on how the story changes usually does bring out the worst in the final product."
The author bears the lion's share of the responsibility, when she signs the paper that relinquishes her rights to the material.
As a matter of fact, I will go as far as to say the author bears the COMPLETE responsibility, because ONLY the author, or her heirs for *75* years after her death, may relinquish this control!
Now, if you want to get into the financial considerations that lead someone to surrender rights, or if you want to talk about the standard operating procedure for the film and tv industries, that's fine, but it does not shift the responsibility away from the author, when she picks up the pen and signs the paper.
Harsh realities of the entertainment business can lead people to make decisions that are not in thier best long-term interests, for a short term gain. But the decision always rests in the hand of the author, which signs the contract.
>Didnt they do a redo of "Lathe of Heaven"? similar
>to the one done back in the late 60's or early 70s
I missed it, I guess. The original was pretty bad, but not really counter to the spirit of the novel. I'd like to see Left Hand of Darkness in an animated treatment.
I really liked Sci-Fi's Dune and Children, although the pacing in Children is pretty bad.
I only see Sci-Fi channel stuff when it comes out on DVD, since my cable provider puts it on the expensive digital cable only -- and it's pretty much the only interesting thing about their digital cable. It's far less expensive to just buy their DVDs when they release them, than to subscribe to the expensive, and expensive, digital cable for these occasional worthwhile specials.
Did I mention that Cox digital cable was expensive?
I don't see where she gets off comparing the SciFi channel's treatment to changing the LOTR ending.
I also don't understand, financial considerations aside, what would posess an artist to relinquish so much artistic control over their material, that such complaints ever need to be raised. With Tolkein or Heinlein, it makes sense that they might not be respected by a screenplay writer -- but this author is alive.
Does Stephen King have this problem?
You can't have your cake and eat it too, Ursula.
If you surrender your rights to control of your work, you pay the price.
[tinfoil_hat]
Have you looked into actually obtaining tinfoil?
It's quite hard to find. Grocery stores don't sell it (good thing, since tin is toxic, and becomes more toxic if it oxydizes). Hardware stores don't sell it. Tin roofs are made of plastic or steel these days. Tin cans are made of steel or aluminum. Tin foil is made of aluminum.
Shame, really. I miss the bluish tint of tin. You never see tin anymore. It used to be much more common.