Text 27, 233 rader
Skriven 2004-12-28 16:20:04 av Kay Shapero (1:102/524.0)
Ärende: [3 of 4] JMS posts to moderated b5 newsgroup
====================================================
it...don't you understand that you are hurting the field, hurting jobs...this
isn't theoretical, this is the real, honest to god people who MAKE WHAT YOU SAY
YOU LIKE, asking you to PLEASE not do this.

And your message back to them is: fuck off, I do what I want.

Nice.  Real nice.

 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: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:07:16 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: File Sharing, Sci-Fi TV and the art of motorcycle
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>1.  The laws on media copyright were not authorised by the
>general public.

>Could similar laws to the current ones have been negotiated
>with the general public?

Maybe I missed something, but the last I heard, no laws are"negotiated" with
the general public, and the general public does not "authorize" laws.  The
courts legitimize or authorize, and congress negotiates.

Unless it's a ballot proposition, and there have been very few of those
overall...something like 90% of all the laws on the books are the result of
either legislative bodies or precedent set in courts.

If that's the distinction, it's a false one.

 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: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:10:05 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: "Crusade" DVDs in TNT order
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>I've listened to the commenary and features but I haven't heard anything
>really
>about what happened.  Certainly not anything like the story we were told at
>Hawthorne.  One wonders if they gave in and let JMS talk about what happened
>and then simply edited it out.

Yes, that's exactly what happened.

I sat down to watch the DVD set yesterday, having picked it up at the local
store, and went to the commentary.  I'd put that information at the very start
of my commentary.

Now, understand: what I'd told WB was this....if you want me to do the
commentary, my requirement is that you let me tell what really happened.  If
you want to use the commentary, you have to leve that in.  If you don't want to
have that in, then don't use the commentary at all.  Everybody agreed.

So I started it up...listened...and it was gone.

In its place is a segment taken from the on-camera interview.

This was the one tape they didn't send me for approval, which being busy I
didn't track back, but I was always told there wasn't a problem.  At no time
did ANYONE from WB or New Wave Entertainment tell me that this was being done.

Doing these DVDs was the only way I had to date to get the bad taste of that
experience out of my mouth, the sheer dishonesty and rudeness of it all.

So much for that goal.

The term "furious" doesn't even begin to cover it.  I'm normally a very quiet,
soft spoken kind of guy.

But last night I broke the sound barrier and the dictionary all at the same
time.

Furious.

You have no idea.


 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: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:07:13 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: "Crusade" DVDs in TNT order
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>Do you have a transcript of the original that you can send out to
>whomever will take it (Cinescape, SciFiWire), or better yet (though
>unlikely), the audio?
>
>

No, though it's mainly what I've said online, I just wanted it to be available
to a wider audience, all in one place.

 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: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:50:21 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: File Sharing, Sci-Fi TV and the art of motorcycle
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>Well, not trying to argue - but just follow-up "questions":
>
>1) In Canada, most downloading is so far not-illegal, but "grey".
>

I don't know the Canadian laws well enough to comment intelligently.

>2) There is a large chain of bookstores that encourages people to come
>and sit and read, by putting chairs out all through the store. And
>people do spend hours doing that.

Apples and oranges.  Libraries do that as well.  The few stores I've heard
about who do that have found it encourages sales, because readers have more of
a chance to decide.  So it benefits the writers and publishers.  They don't get
to leave with the books they're reading.

>3) What about downloading vs. VCR use?

Again, apples/oranges.  If you have it on a VCR, it's because it's been
broadcast to you, and you have your copy, and the system is legal.  When you
digitize it and make multiple copies available, then you are no longer keeping
a single record for your archives, you are becoming a distributer without a
license.

>4) What about reform of the current system? (ie: ratings, distribution, etc)
>---

Not only apples/oranges, we've gone out of the produce section
entirely...different matter entirely.

 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 17:03:17 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: File Sharing, Sci-Fi TV and the art of motorcycle
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


>-- where we were discussing (for almost two weeks now) downloading/file
>sharing of tv shows (particularly SF) and the recent open letter from
>the producers of Battlestar Galactica asking people not to download or
>it will result in cancellation for the show.

>....and the issues we raised in *our* debate - summarised thusly:
>
>- whether downloading kills ratings/shows
>- whether downloading helps to promote (or otherwise help) the show
>- effectiveness/disenfranchisement of current ratings methodology
>- downloading vs. VCR use
>- whether downloading kills DVD sales
>- whether downloading is illegal or not
>- whether downloading is immoral or not
>- and finally, the very concept of illegality vs. immorality

>All this to wonder what your full thoughts are on the subject,

You mean, aside from the fact that it's massively illegal?  I mean, to a
certain extent, the task here is to show that it's immoral to steal a car
because one might scrape the paint or affect the business of local repair shops
after it's been cargo-shipped to some distant city.

But okay, I'll bite.

I don't want to get too far into the "it's as if" part of this conversation,
because in no time at all the conversation becomes about the metaphor instead
of the thing itself...but to indulge that for just a moment....

Let's say you're a big fan of Jonathan Carroll (as am I).  You read all his
books.  But instead of buying them, you know where there's a blind spot in your
local bookstore where the mirrors can't catch you, so you just go in, grab his
latest book, shove it in your bag, and leave.  Or, conversely, you borrow a
copy from the library, go to the office where you work and can use the copy
machine for free, photocopy the entire book and keep it.

You CAN do it, sure.  But does that make it right?

There's this sub-section of the internet community who seem to feel that all
information should be free...and thus fail to distinguish between *data* and
*art*.  Not understanding that distinction is pernicious.

The points you raise above are all well and good, but they don't get to the
*point* of it.  Which is this:

The place of the artist in society is more fragile than most people really ever
understand.  To stay with writers for a moment, only because I know that world
a little better -- but with the understanding that this applies to acting and
directing and other disciplines with equal appropriateness -- the average
writer in prose earns about $3,000 to $5,000 per year.  They have to keep one
or two other jobs to sustain them, and that amount is crucial to their being
able to continue to write.

In television, the figures are also not great, despite what the public
perception may be.  Roughly half of the Writers Guild is unemployed at any

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