New Line are a bunch of D-bags

[satori]

Wow, I can't believe this, New Line haven't paid the Tolkein people absolutely any of the contracted money they owe despite making 6 billion dollars. Check this out: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/hobbitnews.php?id=41842

[fashiondr]

First they screw over Peter Jackson, now this. This sort of crap isn't doing them any favours...

[talleyrand]

This is only the most recent case. Movie studios are famous for promising points and than rejiggering the books so the movie didnt make a dime on paper.
Why else do you think the mob used to (because the mob doesnt exist anymore) invest in movies. Lots of cash, bad bookkeeping, and usually no questions asked.

[satori]

This is only the most recent case. Movie studios are famous for promising points and than rejiggering the books so the movie didnt make a dime on paper.
Why else do you think the mob used to (because the mob doesnt exist anymore) invest in movies. Lots of cash, bad bookkeeping, and usually no questions asked.


6 Billion dollars... how do you make 6 billion dollars and with any kind of straight face say that you didn't make any money. Regardless of how they've cooked the books they're still D-bags.

[scoobydiesel]

whoa that is really F'd up.

I sure would like some of that 6 billion...

[heyseuss]

Newline have anything to do with spiderman? Cus they made the same billions, I wonder if they got paid.

[comhcinc]

new line is owned be warner bros.

quite frankly i don't care. they will settle out of court just like they did with peter jackson.

truth of the matter is that LoTR should be in the public domain and these people (who have nothing to do with the creation of the books) shouldn't get a cent.

[satori]

new line is owned be warner bros.

quite frankly i don't care. they will settle out of court just like they did with peter jackson.
They've been trying to settle this out of court for years, to have to take it to court because New Line have cooked the books makes New Line D-bags.


truth of the matter is that LoTR should be in the public domain and these people (who have nothing to do with the creation of the books) shouldn't get a cent.

Why should LOTR be public domain, it wasn't written that long ago and doesn't fall into public domain rules. What are you basing this concept on?

[heyseuss]

truth of the matter is that LoTR should be in the public domain and these people (who have nothing to do with the creation of the books) shouldn't get a cent.

Dude, it was written, like, yesterday almost. Tolkien didn't exactly make a fortune off it (comparitively).

[comhcinc]

They've been trying to settle this out of court for years, to have to take it to court because New Line have cooked the books makes New Line D-bags.
peter jackson has sign on to be the excutive producer of the new hobbit movie(s) with new line.......so really they can't be that bad.


Why should LOTR be public domain, it wasn't written that long ago and doesn't fall into public domain rules. What are you basing this concept on? the books were written over 50 years ago. the author is dead.

if you read my post you know i a big believer in the rights of a copyholder. i don't like filesharing or the like. now having said that i think copyright law is really screwed up. there is no reason for a book this old (with the author dead) to not be in the public domain.

copyright law is suppose to encourage creatively by insuring a method of payment for the creator of work. as the systerm stands it does just the oppisite by allowing companies to sit on works and make profits without creating anything new.

[satori]

peter jackson has sign on to be the excutive producer of the new hobbit movie(s) with new line.......so really they can't be that bad.

He's doing it because he wants to work on it, not because he likes the guys at new line.


the books were written over 50 years ago. the author is dead.

if you read my post you know i a big believer in the rights of a copyholder. i don't like filesharing or the like. now having said that i think copyright law is really screwed up. there is no reason for a book this old (with the author dead) to not be in the public domain.

copyright law is suppose to encourage creatively by insuring a method of payment for the creator of work. as the systerm stands it does just the oppisite by allowing companies to sit on works and make profits without creating anything new.

for someone who is pro copy holder you don't seem to be pro copy holder. Copy protection extends longer than 50 years and also past death. It's there to protect the artist and their family. Have a look here for the rules as they apply to the US and you'll find that Tokein's family is well within their rights to expect to be paid:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html

[masherscf]

new line is owned be warner bros.

quite frankly i don't care. they will settle out of court just like they did with peter jackson.

truth of the matter is that LoTR should be in the public domain and these people (who have nothing to do with the creation of the books) shouldn't get a cent.

This isn't just a the Tolkien Family being greedy. Tolkien left his property in a charitable trust. This was Tolkien's wish. Assets of this trust fund that do charitable work around the work. I guess the beneficiaries of the trust didn't contribute to the work either.

Also, Christopher Tolkien may not have created the writings. But, he gets much of the credit for forging a confused mass of professor's notes into a coherent collection of work in the public sphere and has done so in the last 20 years. It's disingenuous to characterize him as having no part in the work.

The rights for a movie adaptation were sold in 1969 while Tolkien was still alive. Tolkien died in 1973 which was much less than fifty years ago. The grant of rights stipulates a percentage of the gross not the profit. Newline knew this when they bought the rights. And, the money goes to charity.

Newline should work a deal where The Tolkien trust waives there claim in exchange for a tax-deductible donation to the trust.

[comhcinc]

He's doing it because he wants to work on it, not because he likes the guys at new line.
i never said he like the guys. i said that they can't be that bad otherwise he wouldn't be working with them OR they wouldn't let jackson work with them.


for someone who is pro copy holder you don't seem to be pro copy holder. Copy protection extends longer than 50 years and also past death. It's there to protect the artist and their family. Have a look here for the rules as they apply to the US and you'll find that Tokein's family is well within their rights to expect to be paid:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html

that is a good page, but i don't think you took time to read it. it's author agrees with me

Why do copyrights expire, anyway?
Because both copyright and the public domain serve authors and the public. Copyrights give an author a temporary monopoly over distribution of her works, so as to encourage her to write and earn a living by it. The public domain, in turn, is a rich source of material that people can freely read, retell, perform, and distribute, and that authors can use to produce new creative works.

For instance, the tale of Snow White, by being in the public domain, was told and retold in many books, became widely loved throughout European and North American culture. It also has been made available on the Net free of charge. But it also has formed the basis of new, copyrighted works, like Walt Disney's movie "Snow White". Eventually, Disney's movie will in turn enter the public domain, and the images, dialogues and songs of the movie will be freely usable in yet more creative works-- or be freely used by schools and camps to help encourage kids to sing, draw, and eventually create new works in their own right.

The US Constitution recognizes the balance between these interests by giving Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

Originally, in the US these 'limited times' were 14 years for copyrights, optionally renewable for another 14. But the terms have been steadily lengthened over time, until now most copyrights extend far beyond the lifetime of the artist they're meant to encourage to create. This upsets the balance of copyright and the public domain in the promotion of the arts. It also means that works often end up being lost to future generations, since most books drop out of print and then become forgotten or inaccessible long before their copyright runs out. If they were in the public domain, anyone would be free to ``revive'' them easily, especially in today's world of online texts.

Even so, entertainment industry lobbyists are now pushing new bills that would extend copyrights even further. On October 27, 1998, the President signed into law an extension of copyrights on older works to a maximum of 95 years, nearly a full century. Copyright terms for many newer books can run even longer. During the hearing on this bill, Sonny Bono's widow expressed the wish, which she said was also that of MPAA head Jack Valenti, of making copyright terms last effectively forever!

I encourage US citizens to contact their legislators and the President to oppose further erosions of the public domain. For more information, see these URLs:
Opposing Copyright Extension Homepage
Copyright's Commons

[satori]

you skipped over the important part that actually relates to what the law is and not what the sites host believes. I'm still not clear how you are pro-copy holder though.

[comhcinc]

you skipped over the important part that actually relates to what the law is and not what the sites host believes.
i'm not dispurting the law. i never said that it wasn't law. i understand copyright law. i don't understand why you don't understand that i understand.

i disagree with the law as it is. that was the point of my post. i don't think these people are entilted to any money because i don't like the way copyright law works now.

so do we understand each other or do you need to link to another page explaining something that we both already understand?

[satori]

i'm not dispurting the law. i never said that it wasn't law. i understand copyright law. i don't understand why you don't understand that i understand.

when you said "should" I took that as you stating that this is what should be happening. If you had of said 'I believe it should' I would of taken it as you appear to have meant to say it. Yes, now that we've written a book on the subject I understand what you initially were trying to communicate.


i disagree with the law as it is. that was the point of my post. i don't think these people are entilted to any money because i don't like the way copyright law works now.
[QUOTE]
still not sure how that's pro-copy holder.

[QUOTE]
so do we understand each other or do you need to link to another page explaining something that we both already understand?

wow, didn't realise we were in condescending mode. I linked you to the first that came up on google that listed the points of law so we didn't go back and fourth. If you were more clear in your initial post I would of understood that it was your opinion and not fact.

[heyseuss]

i never said he like the guys. i said that they can't be that bad otherwise he wouldn't be working with them OR they wouldn't let jackson work with them.

Don't be so naive to think that a director/producers relationship with a movie studio has anything to do with them liking each other or not. $$$ Ain't nobody in the biz at the level, actually liking working with each other.

interviewer; "Do you like Peter Jackson"

newline exec; "yes, I do"

newline exec voice inside his head; "yes, I do, he makes me a buttload of cash which makes my soul, Luci, very happy".

[comhcinc]

when you said "should" I took that as you stating that this is what should be happening. If you had of said 'I believe it should' I would of taken it as you appear to have meant to say it. Yes, now that we've written a book on the subject I understand what you initially were trying to communicate.
um what i said was:
truth of the matter is that LoTR should be in the public domain and these people (who have nothing to do with the creation of the books) shouldn't get a cent.
i'm just don't understand how adding the words "I believe" makes it any clearer. but lets see
truth of the matter is that i believe LoTR should be in the public domain and these people (who have nothing to do with the creation of the books) i believe shouldn't get a cent.
.......nope just extra words


still not sure how that's pro-copy holder.
i don't believe the current systerm helps the copyright holder in any real way. i think it causes people to be less willing to be artistic.

wow, didn't realise we were in condescending mode. I linked you to the first that came up on google that listed the points of law so we didn't go back and fourth. If you were more clear in your initial post I would of understood that it was your opinion and not fact.
sorry if i was snippy, but i just don't see how i be any more clearer. i thought you were being condescending.
sorry my bad.

anyway now that we are clear, i'd like to hear everyone else's point of view on this.

[heyseuss]

wow, didn't realise we were in condescending mode.

What are you, new ?

[satori]

.......nope just extra words


not really, it changes the entire tone of what you were saying and it makes it a passive statement of thought rather than an active declaration of fact.


sorry if i was snippy, but i just don't see how i be any more clearer. i thought you were being condescending.
sorry my bad.

Well we've discussed how to be more clear I think we're good.


anyway now that we are clear, i'd like to hear everyone else's point of view on this.

good call

[tsmith15]

Whatever they have to do to get Hobbit made, they'd better do it.