The Ethics of Reading

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Ethics of Reading

    Originally posted by RobWriter View Post
    I will ask this though - as a writer of a spec that goes wide - what harm do you suffer if someone not authorized reads it - and that is all? No sharing, no voicing of opinion, no e-mailing to scriptshadow. I don't ask this question suggesting there isn't any harm - or that there is harm - it's an honest question meant to probe at a lesser discussed issue.

    Why does the writer of a spec that's gone wide have to provide proof of harm? Isn't it enough to say they don't want anyone beyond industry people to read their script?

    I don't understand this sense of entitlement.

    When a script goes wide it's intended for review by potential buyers. Just because you can get your hands on it, thanks to leaks in the pipeline, doesn't mean you're entitled to read it because you claim it "helps" you. And it centainly doesn't put the onus on the owner of the material to prove harm.

    When you steal intellectual property not intended for you to read, the onus is on you.
    Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

    Comment


    • Re: The Ethics of Reading

      I'm not sure that "entitlement- is the correct word. The word I'd go with is "inclusion-. People have a desire to feel included in the system they aspire to join. I don't think this is surprising or unreasonable.

      It seems to me that the issues of what is right and what is wrong are broadly agreed upon by the people involved in this discussion. I have no problem understanding the validity of the points being made by people who oppose script sharing. Similarly there are good arguments for the economic and educational benefits in favor of it.

      The hair-splitting starts with attempting to argue the case one way for one set of people, and the other way for another.

      I'm not sure I've yet heard anyone make a case that no unpermitted script sharing should happen. The disagreement is on who gets included and who gets excluded.

      In addressing that issue humanity can be divided into three groups: Pros & Industry Insiders with an interest in scripts (Perhaps 20,000 people), Amateurs & Script Reading Enthusiasts (Perhaps another 20,000), and the Public (6,960,000,000 people).

      The Public has demonstrated no interest in screenplays in general. Outside of a handful of high profile projects, e.g. The Dark Knight Rises, there's not much reason to think the Public chooses to, or enjoys, reading screenplays. There's also not much evidence that the Public is paying any attention to the evaluation of screenplays. If they are the impact is inconsequential compared to the impact of trailers, movie critics, and all the other publicity that happens before a person buys their ticket.

      Pros & Industry Insiders have collectively decided that it's good practice for them to look at these scripts. This practice extends far beyond "potential buyers-. If there is a conflict of interest or if the resultant collective wisdom and discussions are negative for the project, that is considered part of how the industry works. People say they can sight examples of deals collapsing due to amateur script opinions, but I'll bet that's a drop in the ocean compared with the negative impacts of insider discussion of material they are not authorized to look at.

      For many Pros, the Amateurs are counted among the Public, while many Amateurs would like to be counted as Insiders. This is the core of the debate.

      Since so few people in the world are interested in screenplays, and there is such sparse discussion of the craft, with minimal recognition from the movie going public, it seems to make sense to encourage interest wherever it is found. For me, instead of excluding Amateurs, the industry needs to find better ways to include and encourage them.

      My main suggestion for this is to create a new tier of membership for the WGA, called something like "Associate Membership-. Anyone would be able to designate themselves as an aspiring WGA member and pay $50 a year to be recognized as such. This goes some way to addressing the problems people have with material reaching the hands of outsiders who can't be traced and for whom there are no consequences for their actions.

      Comment


      • Re: The Ethics of Reading

        "My main suggestion for this is to create a new tier of membership for the WGA, called something like “Associate Membership”. Anyone would be able to designate themselves as an aspiring WGA member and pay $50 a year to be recognized as such. This goes some way to addressing the problems people have with material reaching the hands of outsiders who can’t be traced and for whom there are no consequences for their actions."

        That's an excellent idea. Don't expect it to happen anytime soon. $50 a year wouldn't begin to pay for the headaches a step like this could generate. Besides which --

        Unions go where the money and power is. Providing unproduced, uncredited writers with even rudimentary collective rights would be like unionizing not just fast food workers, but the people who frequent fast food places. (I base this observation on the fact that, from my experience, the WGA appears to regard us aspiring writers as consumers as much as "workers").

        Also, consider that, if "pro" writers already feel inadequately represented in protecting their in-development scripts, how will they react when the Great Unwashed suddenly pour into the system, under the same auspices? Pros could make a legitimate claim that the WGA would be overextending itself, since it can't protect them even as is from shark operators like ScriptShadows.

        Like I said, good idea. But like a lot of good ideas, too loaded up with negative possibilities to be seriously considered by the powers-that-be.
        Last edited by Max Otto Schrenck; 12-27-2012, 08:46 AM. Reason: clarification

        Comment


        • Re: The Ethics of Reading

          Originally posted by BattleDolphinZero View Post
          Here's the problem, people aren't behaving responsibly. And what is going to inevitably happen is that powerful entities are gonna lay the smack down on all major sites. Poor PJ got the crunch put on her because other people don't know how to act.

          People are posting spec scripts that are currently in play. That is fvcked. And they're not gonna stop doing stuff like that because there is no pressure from their peers. No one says, "hey, man, you probably shouldn't be posting that."
          What BDZ said and more. Quite frankly, I don't know why this issue is even up for debate given what happened to me. I thought I was doing good, no ulterior/prejorative motives at all, and got hammered. Maybe some people like being dragged through the mud.
          http://www.pjmcilvaine.com/

          Comment


          • Re: The Ethics of Reading

            Originally posted by one seven spectrum View Post
            Why haven't the studios gone after Eads?
            I think sooner or later someone is gonna piss someone off at a high level and they will go after a group of places that have high traffic. I'm not the most savvy guy so I could be wrong, but if the wrong person gets screwed and it becomes personal for a boss, it's nothing to set loose the lawyers.

            Comment


            • Re: The Ethics of Reading

              Originally posted by BattleDolphinZero View Post
              I think sooner or later someone is gonna piss someone off at a high level and they will go after a group of places that have high traffic. I'm not the most savvy guy so I could be wrong, but if the wrong person gets screwed and it becomes personal for a boss, it's nothing to set loose the lawyers.
              I don't think there's much they can do. This has been going on for a long time so as long as he stays away from 'Dark Knight's he should be alright.

              But I do wonder, if this happens, who's gonna get screwed? Carson? Or the people that send him these scripts?

              I think the people he sends writers to (like Nathan and Tyler) are the same ones that provide him with all these scripts.

              Who knows.

              Comment


              • Re: The Ethics of Reading

                Originally posted by Chief View Post
                I don't think there's much they can do. This has been going on for a long time so as long as he stays away from 'Dark Knight's he should be alright.
                A DMCA take-down notice is pretty much all it would take

                Comment


                • Re: The Ethics of Reading

                  Originally posted by Chief View Post
                  I don't think there's much they can do.
                  Seriously? Distributing copyrighted material for profit... Yeah, there's a lot to be done there.

                  Originally posted by Chief View Post
                  I think the people he sends writers to (like Nathan and Tyler) are the same ones that provide him with all these scripts.
                  He had access to in-development scripts before these writers fell into his lap. It's not hard to find recent scripts with a few contacts in the industry.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Ethics of Reading

                    Originally posted by ATB View Post
                    Seriously? Distributing copyrighted material for profit... Yeah, there's a lot to be done there.



                    He had access to in-development scripts before these writers fell into his lap. It's not hard to find recent scripts with a few contacts in the industry.
                    He doesn't sell the scripts, he sends them on a newsletter for educational purposes.

                    Studios can hardly take down websites like 1channel (and other streaming) where their movies can be WATCHED FOR FREE (= real Loss of profit).

                    I don't think they are sweating because some guy is sending drafts of scripts in development hell to others.

                    John August in 2009 said that studios might clamp down on writers due to what Carson is doing.

                    Have they....?

                    No.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Ethics of Reading

                      This debate will never come to an end.

                      I've noticed it's mainly amateur / unknown screenwriters grabbing every spec, in development draft, or produced screenplay floating around the internet. ****, keep reading while everyone else is writing.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Ethics of Reading

                        This is the piracy debate revisited.

                        There's a group of people who feel that because the internet has made someone else's intellectual property easily available, they're entitled to it. NOW. Not after it's made available through legal channels, but the second that someone steals it and puts it online.

                        When questioned, they challenge the actual damages to the rights holders. Demanding that the people who own the property provide details and proof of why they don't want to be stolen from.

                        All I can say to those who feel that way is: may you be on the other side of the divide at some point in your life, so you understand what entitled twats you sound like.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Ethics of Reading

                          Originally posted by Chief View Post
                          He doesn't sell the scripts, he sends them on a newsletter for educational purposes.

                          Studios can hardly take down websites like 1channel (and other streaming) where their movies can be WATCHED FOR FREE (= real Loss of profit).

                          I don't think they are sweating because some guy is sending drafts of scripts in development hell to others.

                          John August in 2009 said that studios might clamp down on writers due to what Carson is doing.

                          Have they....?

                          No.
                          Hate to bring up PJ's battle again, but you really think they'd target a writer with a dropbox and not a blogger with a "newsletter" who profits off the PUBLIC reviews he offers to his readers?

                          It will happen. Everyone knows it but Reeves and Co.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Ethics of Reading

                            Originally posted by Howie428 View Post
                            I'm not sure that "entitlement- is the correct word. The word I'd go with is "inclusion-. People have a desire to feel included in the system they aspire to join. I don't think this is surprising or unreasonable.

                            .
                            It is highly unreasonable. You can't be included in a system simply because you aspire to join it one fine day. That rationale falls in the cognative dissonance category, at least it does for me.

                            What about basic respect? The writers -- pro, repped, Blacklist, et al --here and on other sites, have clearly stated they don't want their scripts circulated to parties unknown. That should be enough.

                            All of these, "Yeah, but I want, I need ..." rationalizations are rife with entitlement and a big dose of rudeness.

                            Someone says, 'Get off my lawn,' you get off their lawn. Didn't your parents teach you this?
                            Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Ethics of Reading

                              Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                              This is the piracy debate revisited.

                              There's a group of people who feel that because the internet has made someone else's intellectual property easily available, they're entitled to it. NOW. Not after it's made available through legal channels, but the second that someone steals it and puts it online.

                              When questioned, they challenge the actual damages to the rights holders. Demanding that the people who own the property provide details and proof of why they don't want to be stolen from.

                              All I can say to those who feel that way is: may you be on the other side of the divide at some point in your life, so you understand what entitled twats you sound like.
                              I have a friend who regularly links me diatribes written by some kid on the Internet who feels that copyright has no value. He constantly says that watching movies without paying is not stealing because it's thoughts, not property. He infuriates me. He's one of those who believes that if you can't touch it, it's not worth anything. And yet, if he hacked into banking software and stole digital money, he'd be in real life prison.
                              Chicks Who Script podcast

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Ethics of Reading

                                Originally posted by Steven L. View Post
                                This debate will never come to an end.

                                I've noticed it's mainly amateur / unknown screenwriters grabbing every spec, in development draft, or produced screenplay floating around the internet. ****, keep reading while everyone else is writing.
                                No it's not, most amateur writers don't even have access to these scripts it's mostly writers (repped) with connections that get these scripts.

                                Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                                This is the piracy debate revisited.

                                There's a group of people who feel that because the internet has made someone else's intellectual property easily available, they're entitled to it. NOW. Not after it's made available through legal channels, but the second that someone steals it and puts it online.

                                When questioned, they challenge the actual damages to the rights holders. Demanding that the people who own the property provide details and proof of why they don't want to be stolen from.

                                All I can say to those who feel that way is: may you be on the other side of the divide at some point in your life, so you understand what entitled twats you sound like.
                                OK, Mr. Lowell.

                                I've never agreed with publicly reviewing scripts.

                                This is about the ethics of reading, not the ethics of getting scripts, sending them out to thousands and reviewing them which is wrong.

                                I'll agree that it's wrong for me to read an unproduced/black list etc. script if it's also wrong for a repped/selling writer to do so.

                                And don't give me that bull 'No it's commonly understood that writers are OK with it'.

                                If your rep/agent gives you a script belonging to another writer youare not allowed to read it, unless said writer gave you the permission to do so.

                                Or are you telling me Christopher Nolan would be OK with other writers reading Inception?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X