Text 28, 188 rader
Skriven 2004-12-28 16:20:04 av Kay Shapero (1:102/524.0)
Ärende: [4 of 4] JMS posts to moderated b5 newsgroup
====================================================
given time.  The average WGA member earns less per year than the average grade
school teacher, and if they're lucky they get maybe 2 assignments per year.
The top writers who earn consistently six figures constitute only 2% of the
entire membership of the Guild.  The rest struggle to get by, and to contniue
to create the stories they tell.  To that end, every dime is essential, as it
is to most people.

Perhaps the most crucial aspect of their work is residuals.  Residuals aren't a
bonus, they aren't a gift, they're *deferred compensation* no different than
the royalties an author gets from his books (as noted above).  If you were to
take away those residuals, well over the majority of working freelance writers
(and actors and directors) would be financially unable to continue to work full
time at their profession, and would have to get other jobs or leave the
business entirely.

Every time an episode of television airs, those responsible for it get a small
residual.  And I do mean small.  But it adds up in time.  I'm not talking about
the major studios, or networks, or the advertisers...I'm talking about the guy
who sold 3 scripts that year, made maybe $30,000 for the entire year BEFORE
taxes, and knows that the two or three grand in extra income from residuals of
his prior work will mean he can have a decent Christmas this year.

This individual -- and the actors, directors, others -- get nothing from
internet downloads.  And the more prevalent this becomes, the more fragile
becomes the life of artists, and there may come a point -- and I am not
exaggerating here -- where a lot of people can no longer afford to keep working
at their preferred profession because this makes the economics no longer
feasible.

"Well, they should keep at it anyway," some might say, "if they have to suffer
a little, that's their choice."

Is their suffering preferable to somebody having to actually buy a DVD?  Is
their suffering or financial deterioration acceptable because the result --
putting their art on the net -- makes it more *convenient* for others?

There's this overwhelming sense of entitlement you see these days, where if you
WANT something then by god you're entitled to HAVE it, damn the consequences
for somebody else, and this is just one aspect of it.

This recently went to court with Harlan Ellison's case against AOL -- which was
finally settled out by AOL and new law further created to magnify this position
-- that those who upload short stories and novels onto the nets without
permission are commiting a crime.  And if the role of the TV writer is
especially parlous, the fiscal position of prose writers is even MORE fragile.

So it seems to me an odd statement to say, "Boy, I really love this show, the
writing, the acting, the directing, so much that I'm going to steal from the
people who made it and hurt their income and possibly destroy their ability to
tell more such stories in future, THAT'S how much of a fan I am."

Yes, the prevalence of downloads does cut into reruns, and ratings, which in
today's highly fractionalized TV marketplace could spell the difference between
renewal or cancellation, because the advertisers look at the bottom line
numbers, and if they drop past a certain point, yes, the show goes away.  And
yes, internet uploads of episodes will cut into that fragile calculation.  And
yes, you may end up killing the very show you say you enjoy.

But even before you get to those computations, the act itself is simply wrong,
for all the reasons stated above.

The problem is that people don't like to be corrected, don't like to be told
that they're doing something wrong.  They are defensive, and arrogant, and
pushy, and they feel that the world should give them anything they want because
they want it, period, and if anybody else has a problem with that, it's THEIR
problem.

The technical term for these people is deadbeats.  The kind of guys who come to
stay at your house for a weekend, end up staying for a month, eating your food
without paying for it, using your car without sharing gas costs, and get pissed
off when you ask that they share the burden.

Me, I don't associate with guys like that.

Your mileage may vary.

 jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:04:15 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: And so it begins???
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>> Florida scientists have grown a rat brain in a petri dish and taught it to
>> fly a fighter plane.

And it's nearly finished selecting the new members of its cabinet....

 jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:11:03 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: To JMS
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>I belive you're mistaken.  The excesses of the
>Crusades, the Inquisition etc. etc. are NOT things based on true Church
>teaching.
>
>Look only to the Gospels themselves as a guide.  The Church's
>'tolerance' for other religions is right there in black and white.

So in other words, as long as it's written down in a book you don't actually
have to do what it says.  All you have to do is read about it or know it's
there.

I refer you to James 2:14-26.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not
have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute
of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and
filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body,
what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is
dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your
faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe
that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe; and tremble! But
do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not
Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the
altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works
faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham
believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called
the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by
faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she
received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without
the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."


>As I've said before, many abuse the teachings of the Church, just as
>many abuse and exploit the letter of _any_ law.  That doesn't make it
>right, and that doesn't negate the authority of the teachings.
>

Then how about this, from the book of Matthew. chapter 7:

   17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
   18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
   19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire.
   20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Your point seems to be that the acts of the church, or its representatives, is
irrelevant to the teachings.  But the teachings you cite say otherwise.

If anything, it makes the offense worse.  If you break the speed limit once,
and get a ticket, without knowing the limit, that's one thing.  But if you
*know* the law, and go out of your way to break it, then that's even worse.

>They are as they are, and have been so for quite some time, regardless
>of circumstance or history.

So you're therefore in favor of not suffering a witch to live?  Of the
standards set for selling ones daughter into slavery?  How about the one that
says women should not speak in church?  Or the stipulations that if a man grows
his hair long, or disagrees with his father, that he should be put to death?

Because either you follow your thesis and say that these are still correct,
which is a bit scary and tells us quite a bit...or you admit that times have
changed, and times changing affect how one follows scripture, in which case you
reject your thesis.


 jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
------------------------------------------------------------


--- MsgPost v1.01
 * Origin: StormGate Aerie.. all alone in the net... (1:102/524)