Re: The Ethics of Reading
When you say disseminating scripts is "part of your job" you are clearly suggesting that the dissemination is authorized, either expressly by the screenwriter (in the case of an unsold script) or expressly by the party which has purchased it (i.e. your employer). So it sounds like what you mean is that you, as an agent of your employer, have been directed and duly authorized by your employer or the rightsholder to send that script to colleagues of yours (e.g. your equivalents at other companies).
Now perhaps this sort of authorization does exist in the form of a blank informal policy to the effect that all such employees at your company are permitted to share intellectual property with colleagues (and perhaps other individuals) on a discretionary basis. But frankly I doubt it. I think what is actually happening is that such employees are sometimes expressly directed to transmit scripts and other property of their employers to individuals at other companies, and that they also have access to further properties, and that there is a culture (differing in slight degrees from company to company) which generally tolerates without officially condoning the practice of sharing scripts amongst employees (even of competitors) on a discretionary basis, provided these properties are not "leaked" publicly.
If this is correct, then script sharing between assistants etc. is probably not morally wrong (so long as the rightful owners condone it) but is certainly legally murky (depending just how informal these policies are). It would depend on the extent of your express authority to share a particular property. However on the basic question of this thread, it is difficult to maintain that script sharing is not an "elitist" practice with respect to other aspiring writers who lack such access. It's intentionally designed to exclude external parties which de facto includes the vast majority of aspiring writers. Unaltered spec scripts and in-development materials are scarce, yet these are important tools of the trade to an aspiring screenwriter, and hold almost zero value for any other party. That these tools are kept locked away by rightful owners/agents is fine and good; what's irksome is that not only do the minor keyholders see no problem playing with the tools regardless of their actual degree of legal authorization but that, moreover, they see this as a boon to writers. This practice is of very limited value to aspiring writers outside the sharing circle, and in fact appears to perpetuate a cycle of privilege in who gets to sell a screenplay. You are circulating material that does not belong to you, that you are usually not expressly authorized to share, and that only rarely benefits an actual author and virtually never benefits any aspiring writer other than yourselves. It's probably not immoral, but let's not pretend it's a good or altruistic practice. It only benefits people who can manage to obtain the access.
Originally posted by Bitter Script Reader
View Post
Now perhaps this sort of authorization does exist in the form of a blank informal policy to the effect that all such employees at your company are permitted to share intellectual property with colleagues (and perhaps other individuals) on a discretionary basis. But frankly I doubt it. I think what is actually happening is that such employees are sometimes expressly directed to transmit scripts and other property of their employers to individuals at other companies, and that they also have access to further properties, and that there is a culture (differing in slight degrees from company to company) which generally tolerates without officially condoning the practice of sharing scripts amongst employees (even of competitors) on a discretionary basis, provided these properties are not "leaked" publicly.
If this is correct, then script sharing between assistants etc. is probably not morally wrong (so long as the rightful owners condone it) but is certainly legally murky (depending just how informal these policies are). It would depend on the extent of your express authority to share a particular property. However on the basic question of this thread, it is difficult to maintain that script sharing is not an "elitist" practice with respect to other aspiring writers who lack such access. It's intentionally designed to exclude external parties which de facto includes the vast majority of aspiring writers. Unaltered spec scripts and in-development materials are scarce, yet these are important tools of the trade to an aspiring screenwriter, and hold almost zero value for any other party. That these tools are kept locked away by rightful owners/agents is fine and good; what's irksome is that not only do the minor keyholders see no problem playing with the tools regardless of their actual degree of legal authorization but that, moreover, they see this as a boon to writers. This practice is of very limited value to aspiring writers outside the sharing circle, and in fact appears to perpetuate a cycle of privilege in who gets to sell a screenplay. You are circulating material that does not belong to you, that you are usually not expressly authorized to share, and that only rarely benefits an actual author and virtually never benefits any aspiring writer other than yourselves. It's probably not immoral, but let's not pretend it's a good or altruistic practice. It only benefits people who can manage to obtain the access.
Comment