NO, NOT ME, suckers... some venerable hits taking their final bows...Law & Order, 24, LOST...
...I'll be talking about the shows and their legacies tomorrow on CBC Radio Q.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Lucy, Schroeder & Robin Hood Explain the Movie Business.
IF YOU'RE LIKE me, you probably greeted the new Robin Hood movie with a bit of mystification. Especially when the reviews came in. If you were going to tell such a well-trod & explored story (a couple of movies & TV series just in the last few years!) how could you not make sure you were bringing something new and different to it?
Well it's simple. As Bill Martell explains, you start with new and different -- in this case, a nifty script called NOTTINGHAM, and then you systematically murder it. Until it is dead, dead, dead, well and truly dead.
The full blow by blow is painful & illuminating.
Of course, this kind of collaboration doesn't just happen with Directors. Sometimes it's with Producers too. Most writers have these stories floating around. And most of those stories can be very adequately explained by this simple interaction between Lucy & Schroeder from A Charlie Brown Christmas:
Well it's simple. As Bill Martell explains, you start with new and different -- in this case, a nifty script called NOTTINGHAM, and then you systematically murder it. Until it is dead, dead, dead, well and truly dead.
So, Ridley Scott wanted to change the NOTTINGHAM script which featured period forensics to a script about archers and archery...
Then he came up with a brilliant idea! What if the Sheriff Of Nottingham and Robin Hood were the *same person*! Kind of like FIGHT CLUB. He’d be chasing himself for the whole damned movie! And there were some drafts of the screenplay written like that, until someone (maybe Helgeland) must have hinted that it might be a little silly.
And draft after draft, they script changed - evolved - twisted - becoming something completely different. The way the most expensive meal you have ever eaten turns into something else when it goes through the digestive process.
The full blow by blow is painful & illuminating.
Of course, this kind of collaboration doesn't just happen with Directors. Sometimes it's with Producers too. Most writers have these stories floating around. And most of those stories can be very adequately explained by this simple interaction between Lucy & Schroeder from A Charlie Brown Christmas:
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Hot, Not, Gutshot
HOT: that trailer for Inception.
NOT: that trailer for MacGruber.
GUTSHOT: "MacGruber is the first R-rated SNL Movie. Um. What?"
HOT: hating on "Treme."
NOT: hating on "Nurse Jackie."
GUTSHOT: hating on the episode of LOST where Alison Janney introduces the Man In Black & Jacob to the Golden Island Vagina.
HOT: The Trotsky, Heartbeats, & comedies made by Canadian auteurs in their early 20s
NOT: Proof that even with good products, Canadian distributors have no idea what the fuck to do.
GUTSHOT: Anybody who tries to make their living exclusively as a screenwriter in Canada.
HOT: NBC's Pilot Development
NOT: David Shore's "The Rockford Files"
GUTSHOT: Anybody holding their breath for that remake of Cannon.
HOT: Pointing out that "Glee" was much better before all the attention.
NOT: the plot where the Gay kid tries to be straight for his Dad & turns to Mellencamp. (Dude, Mellencamp is like, totally closet gay. The guy's name for a while was COUGAR. Rowwr.)
GUTSHOT: You, after any line that comes out of Brittany's mouth (as played by Actress Heather Morris.)
HOT: Stefon
NOT: Those Fifteen Kristen Wiig characters that are essentially the same character.
GUTSHOT: SNL turning everything into a returning character. A personality tic is not a character.
HOT: Huddy
NOT: Hameron
GUTSHOT: Forchase
HOT: Saying the CBC is biased against Conservative viewpoints.
NOT: Taking responsibility for being in government for nearly five years.
GUTSHOT: Anybody who tries to reason with anybody else from the great Province of Alberta.
HOT: Repatriating Canadian Talent from L.A.
NOT: Preventing Canadian Talent from going to L.A. by offering merit-based opportunities here.
GUTSHOT: Excuses by everybody other than Jay Baruchel.
HOT: Friends-like comedies.
NOT: Nihilist cop shows.
GUTSHOT: Ben Silverman.
HOT: That blonde.
NOT: That blonde from last year.
GUTSHOT: Lindsay Lohan. Oh cm'on. Am I right? AM I RIGHT?
NOT: that trailer for MacGruber.
GUTSHOT: "MacGruber is the first R-rated SNL Movie. Um. What?"
HOT: hating on "Treme."
NOT: hating on "Nurse Jackie."
GUTSHOT: hating on the episode of LOST where Alison Janney introduces the Man In Black & Jacob to the Golden Island Vagina.
HOT: The Trotsky, Heartbeats, & comedies made by Canadian auteurs in their early 20s
NOT: Proof that even with good products, Canadian distributors have no idea what the fuck to do.
GUTSHOT: Anybody who tries to make their living exclusively as a screenwriter in Canada.
HOT: NBC's Pilot Development
NOT: David Shore's "The Rockford Files"
GUTSHOT: Anybody holding their breath for that remake of Cannon.
HOT: Pointing out that "Glee" was much better before all the attention.
NOT: the plot where the Gay kid tries to be straight for his Dad & turns to Mellencamp. (Dude, Mellencamp is like, totally closet gay. The guy's name for a while was COUGAR. Rowwr.)
GUTSHOT: You, after any line that comes out of Brittany's mouth (as played by Actress Heather Morris.)
HOT: Stefon
NOT: Those Fifteen Kristen Wiig characters that are essentially the same character.
GUTSHOT: SNL turning everything into a returning character. A personality tic is not a character.
HOT: Huddy
NOT: Hameron
GUTSHOT: Forchase
HOT: Saying the CBC is biased against Conservative viewpoints.
NOT: Taking responsibility for being in government for nearly five years.
GUTSHOT: Anybody who tries to reason with anybody else from the great Province of Alberta.
HOT: Repatriating Canadian Talent from L.A.
NOT: Preventing Canadian Talent from going to L.A. by offering merit-based opportunities here.
GUTSHOT: Excuses by everybody other than Jay Baruchel.
HOT: Friends-like comedies.
NOT: Nihilist cop shows.
GUTSHOT: Ben Silverman.
HOT: That blonde.
NOT: That blonde from last year.
GUTSHOT: Lindsay Lohan. Oh cm'on. Am I right? AM I RIGHT?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Practically Perfect in Every Way
ONE OF THE most common questions any professional TV writer ever gets is, "what shows should I spec?" It's literally asked multiple times in any talk or career day or meetup you ever do. Agents get the question. Writers get the question. I'm pretty sure studio executives' dogs get the question.
A couple of weeks back I did a one-day workshop in Winnipeg sponsored by Film Training Manitoba & the CFC (and I'm pretty sure there might be another organization in there too, I'm sorry if I'm leaving you out. There seems to be a good bit of government support for the Film Industry in Manitoba. Coming from Ontario, where they've starved the OMDC for years, it was weird.) Anyway, that's a digression.
What I did at that workshop is what I always do. I asked people what their favorite shows were, and what they were thinking of speccing. This is always a trick question. We got several Californications, a Dexter or two, a bunch of Breaking Bads, Sons of Anarchy, True Blood...one brave soul stuck up for Being Erica. I think there might have been a Flashpoint.
But the point was that about 80% of the room wanted to do a cable show. That's natural. Writers or would be writers are attracted to good writing and sometimes that means investing in a show that is more of a cult thing.
But every slice of the pie that grows smaller means less of a chance of connecting with a show that your reader knows. And that's why new writers looking to make a mark with their first specs ignore network shows at their peril.
The L.A. Times today has an article about Modern Family & The Good Wife, where the critic calls them nearly perfect shows. They have their reasons -- well and thoughtfully laid out. I tend to agree with most of them.
The most important thing is to like the show you're speccing. If you don't, that will show. But I defy anybody who really wants to write professionally to watch a few episodes of either Modern Family or The Good Wife and not appreciate the deep and solid craft at work in these shows. Both programs, now wrapping up their first seasons, have managed to maintain a consistent, superior quality that connects to a network sized audience each week. Now, true, that is a slice that's getting smaller by the year, but it's still the most significant slice.
It's a hard thing to have to explain the ropes to somebody that really, really wants to write an episode of an obscure cable drama that might or might not see another season. There are plenty of people who are working who should know better. There are people working on Canadian network shows that don't count a single network hit among their likes and influences, and I think it shows in their work. Californication is not an example of anything except maybe a male writer's Arrested Development.
(Arrested Development was a bad spec back in the day. And 30 Rock's not as great as you think it is, either. Better to do a good, solid Big Bang Theory.)
There are other questions, like "when should I spec a show?" And to this I usually say, "second season, when you know its place is secure." But such is the strength of both Modern Family & Good Wife that I think there's no doubt that these two, comedy & drama, are the specs you should be working now.
(As an aside, another thing to keep in mind for next season: pay attention to the first positioning spots the Network does in print and on TV during the summer: they are the clearest indicators of how they see the show, and how they'll try to position it. Half the time, the poster announces the theme of the show.)
There will be time to build your portfolio with other colours, other paints -- maybe something with a more cable feel. But take a look at the article linked above, and ask why tens of millions of viewers agree with it each week. That is the business you're in, my friend.
This is a populist medium. It's okay if you admire The Wire. We all do. But if you've got talent, a solid The Good Wife will get you more work in a month of Sundays. You don't get points for being an auteur in this game. You get points for writing good, accessible stuff -- and writing it fast. Surprise the audience, yes, but also give them something familiar and relatable. Save the cable spec til later. Stalk the big game first.
For what it's worth, that's my thinking. Maybe now I can punt on the question for awhile. :)
A couple of weeks back I did a one-day workshop in Winnipeg sponsored by Film Training Manitoba & the CFC (and I'm pretty sure there might be another organization in there too, I'm sorry if I'm leaving you out. There seems to be a good bit of government support for the Film Industry in Manitoba. Coming from Ontario, where they've starved the OMDC for years, it was weird.) Anyway, that's a digression.What I did at that workshop is what I always do. I asked people what their favorite shows were, and what they were thinking of speccing. This is always a trick question. We got several Californications, a Dexter or two, a bunch of Breaking Bads, Sons of Anarchy, True Blood...one brave soul stuck up for Being Erica. I think there might have been a Flashpoint.
But the point was that about 80% of the room wanted to do a cable show. That's natural. Writers or would be writers are attracted to good writing and sometimes that means investing in a show that is more of a cult thing.
But every slice of the pie that grows smaller means less of a chance of connecting with a show that your reader knows. And that's why new writers looking to make a mark with their first specs ignore network shows at their peril.
 |
| Announcing itself in the poster. |
The L.A. Times today has an article about Modern Family & The Good Wife, where the critic calls them nearly perfect shows. They have their reasons -- well and thoughtfully laid out. I tend to agree with most of them.
The most important thing is to like the show you're speccing. If you don't, that will show. But I defy anybody who really wants to write professionally to watch a few episodes of either Modern Family or The Good Wife and not appreciate the deep and solid craft at work in these shows. Both programs, now wrapping up their first seasons, have managed to maintain a consistent, superior quality that connects to a network sized audience each week. Now, true, that is a slice that's getting smaller by the year, but it's still the most significant slice.
It's a hard thing to have to explain the ropes to somebody that really, really wants to write an episode of an obscure cable drama that might or might not see another season. There are plenty of people who are working who should know better. There are people working on Canadian network shows that don't count a single network hit among their likes and influences, and I think it shows in their work. Californication is not an example of anything except maybe a male writer's Arrested Development.
(Arrested Development was a bad spec back in the day. And 30 Rock's not as great as you think it is, either. Better to do a good, solid Big Bang Theory.)
 |
| The Best Character on TV Right Now |
(As an aside, another thing to keep in mind for next season: pay attention to the first positioning spots the Network does in print and on TV during the summer: they are the clearest indicators of how they see the show, and how they'll try to position it. Half the time, the poster announces the theme of the show.)
There will be time to build your portfolio with other colours, other paints -- maybe something with a more cable feel. But take a look at the article linked above, and ask why tens of millions of viewers agree with it each week. That is the business you're in, my friend.
This is a populist medium. It's okay if you admire The Wire. We all do. But if you've got talent, a solid The Good Wife will get you more work in a month of Sundays. You don't get points for being an auteur in this game. You get points for writing good, accessible stuff -- and writing it fast. Surprise the audience, yes, but also give them something familiar and relatable. Save the cable spec til later. Stalk the big game first.
For what it's worth, that's my thinking. Maybe now I can punt on the question for awhile. :)
No Business Like Show
IN WHAT OTHER business can you sit around with colleagues, speaking in the voice of a Thai Ladyboy about how what you do is more honest work than screenwriting, whilst a smoky, take-no-prisoners dame provides Yenta services for the next generation, and the shop talk reveals human frailty, the apex of vanity, and murderous incompetence all at once?
Accountants don't get to do this.
But then again, they no meet Ting Ting.
Accountants don't get to do this.
But then again, they no meet Ting Ting.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Law & Order Canceled
SUPPOSEDLY.
Later tonight: the moon will run with blood; a two headed dog will give birth to a cat; Ryan Seacrest will give long, soft butterfly kisses to Donald Trump, and Charlie Sheen will kill a hooker live on Larry King.
Later tonight: the moon will run with blood; a two headed dog will give birth to a cat; Ryan Seacrest will give long, soft butterfly kisses to Donald Trump, and Charlie Sheen will kill a hooker live on Larry King.
Find That Moose & Beaver in Your Script & Hit "Delete."
IN THE DISCUSSION on the CBC post below, Deborah Nathan & a couple of other commenters raised the issue of content guidelines. Deborah wrote:
First of all, I never claimed that CBC doesn't have the right to look for talent where they want, merely that they are seeking green pastures while doing a not-very-good job of tending the garden they already have here. The thrust was the "if you're in L.A. you're A-list" mentality.
Secondly, CAVCO is a tax credit scheme. I think it would probably be difficult to impose residency requirements. And there are certainly beneficial effects with having service productions able to access tax credits.
But let's move onto Deb's central point, because it's one that I've heard a lot of people make over the last few months.
The idea that shows must be "primarily set in Canada" and "reflect Canadian themes" has been contentious for a long time. It's one of the reasons, in fact, that Canadian Sci-Fi was so hard to do. The WGC got an exemption to this for Sci-fi awhile back.
But a lot of people seem not to know is that the hated guidelines have also changed, with the transition from CTF to CMF. I turned to WGC Director of Policy Kelly Lynne Ashton for help with this one. The new guidelines read:
(Emphasis added by me.) As you can see, the stipulation about setting and themes is gone, and is replaced by the much broader "primarily intended for." So The Borgias might still be a tough sell for 10/10, but a Canadian WWI or WWII movie that takes place entirely in Europe, or a movie about two Canadian guys around L.A. a la Passenger Side, or even my own ministeries Across The River To Motor City, becomes a lot more doable.
And the old knock about having to throw in a few moose and beaver, thankfully is no more, too.
The WGC kept on the CMF all through the consultation process to make sure that this looser definition wasn't further watered down by allowing less than a 10/10 production, so light industrial shows that don't use any above-the-line Canadian talent couldn't qualify. And the "primarily intended for" is a valve so that, say, CBS couldn't partially finance a cop show set in Chicago but shot here. But it's a way better definition, especially paired with continued 10/10 protection.
As for the "deeming Canadian" practice, the WGC continues to monitor projects & keep an eye on it. They're aware of the problem and have managed to walk back a number of these attempts.
I look forward to hearing from Deb about how none of this is enough, and how working for these things has actually made us weaker.
The CAVCO rules state a "Canadian citizen" not resident. So they are perfectly within their rights to court any Canadian who lives anywhere in the world.
Get the CAVCO rule changed if you want to stop this practice.
I'm more concerned about the practice of Americans being deemed as Canadian so they can front a show here. And the practice of camouflaging an American series as a coproduction so it receives full 10/10 status and tax credits.
I would also like to see changes to the definitions that gets rid of the parochial nature of creating drama here - as in a Canadian setting, speaks to Canadians. Really, I think if the networks want to be part of productions like the Borgias and Camelot, we should be allowed to pitch such projects, too. After all, what is British or American about the Borgias? Yet those two nations can see the value in a drama about that family.
First of all, I never claimed that CBC doesn't have the right to look for talent where they want, merely that they are seeking green pastures while doing a not-very-good job of tending the garden they already have here. The thrust was the "if you're in L.A. you're A-list" mentality.
Secondly, CAVCO is a tax credit scheme. I think it would probably be difficult to impose residency requirements. And there are certainly beneficial effects with having service productions able to access tax credits.
But let's move onto Deb's central point, because it's one that I've heard a lot of people make over the last few months.
The idea that shows must be "primarily set in Canada" and "reflect Canadian themes" has been contentious for a long time. It's one of the reasons, in fact, that Canadian Sci-Fi was so hard to do. The WGC got an exemption to this for Sci-fi awhile back.
But a lot of people seem not to know is that the hated guidelines have also changed, with the transition from CTF to CMF. I turned to WGC Director of Policy Kelly Lynne Ashton for help with this one. The new guidelines read:
The project speaks to Canadians and is primarily intended for a Canadian audience.
(Emphasis added by me.) As you can see, the stipulation about setting and themes is gone, and is replaced by the much broader "primarily intended for." So The Borgias might still be a tough sell for 10/10, but a Canadian WWI or WWII movie that takes place entirely in Europe, or a movie about two Canadian guys around L.A. a la Passenger Side, or even my own ministeries Across The River To Motor City, becomes a lot more doable.
And the old knock about having to throw in a few moose and beaver, thankfully is no more, too.
The WGC kept on the CMF all through the consultation process to make sure that this looser definition wasn't further watered down by allowing less than a 10/10 production, so light industrial shows that don't use any above-the-line Canadian talent couldn't qualify. And the "primarily intended for" is a valve so that, say, CBS couldn't partially finance a cop show set in Chicago but shot here. But it's a way better definition, especially paired with continued 10/10 protection.
As for the "deeming Canadian" practice, the WGC continues to monitor projects & keep an eye on it. They're aware of the problem and have managed to walk back a number of these attempts.
I look forward to hearing from Deb about how none of this is enough, and how working for these things has actually made us weaker.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Never Learn Anything Ever
I'M BACK IN a writing room again today...first time in awhile, and the familiar tingle is a great accompaniment to the morning Cup o'Joe. Nothing can spoil this mood that...what's that? CBC News!
Damnit!
It is an article of faith in Canadian Television that every generation of network executive, or production company executive must make the same mistake, over, and over, and over.
So let's review.
When Canadian talent "goes to the States" it is for the possibility of vastly greater opportunities & paydays.
If you hit, and receive those paydays, you cannot afford to work for Canadian money anymore. The difference is vast. Oceanic.
Damnit!
CBC Goes Searching for Talent, in the States
I don't even have the energy for the long screed on this one.The CBC is heading to south for a talent scouting trip.
The Arts and Entertainment and Factual units are looking for pitches for new shows and series, and they’re hitting the road to do it. First stop was Vancouver yesterday, then on to L.A. ”We are open for business. We are the only people who make Canadian prime-time series and we’re looking for the best of the best,” Kirstine Stewart said to the Toronto Star yesterday.
It is an article of faith in Canadian Television that every generation of network executive, or production company executive must make the same mistake, over, and over, and over.
So let's review.
When Canadian talent "goes to the States" it is for the possibility of vastly greater opportunities & paydays.
If you hit, and receive those paydays, you cannot afford to work for Canadian money anymore. The difference is vast. Oceanic.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The "Copyfight" Reaches Epistemic Closure
THERE ARE MANY, many arguments you can make about the societal benefits of limiting the terms of copyright.
Unfortunately, you won't find many of them in the comments section on Michael Geist's site.
Geist has staked out his territory -- as an academic and law professor, he believes in an expansion for fair use/fair dealing and frowns upon mechanisms such as digital locks that prevent people from using purchased content the way they want. Through newspaper columns, consistent advocacy on the issue, and assiduous courting of so-called "copyleft"ists, "copyfighters," and other creatively-monikered folk, he's become the de facto clearinghouse for a so-called "consumer-focused" view of copyright reform.
As I've argued previously here, and privately in friendly emails with Geist himself, what's consistently missing from his site (and from the points of view of his commenters) is any realistic representation from the creators of artistic works.
See it's quite easy to rail against copyright when the enemy is a huge multigloobinial copomoration breathing fire out its greasy lawyer-tusks, but wee people have a dog in the hunt too when it comes to protecting their intellectual property.
Not that you'd know it from Geist's site.
Argue politely or otherwise that the content creator's opinion is a little light on the ground, and you're very quickly met with rhetoric & indifference, ranging to outright hostility. In some cases, you're lumped in with the corporate weasels because they're the most fun to fight. (The blowback from suing customers is the single greatest mistake made in this area in recent years. It's emboldened the immoral, and given fire to the muddleheaded. It's like a layer of volcanic ash-gunk that covers anyone who tries to argue the creator's side.)
Otherwise, you're treated to a lovely, shopworn, half-assed screed on the "you can't stop the ocean" style argument about making money in the new world. (Seriously, hands up anybody who's been hearing this argument since before the last dot.com bust?)
There's nothing quite like a lecture on economic models given by people who don't seem to really grasp how it works, and who don't realize that arguing theoretics to someone with a concrete, measurable and immediate economic interest is a bit insensitive at best, and monstrous at worst. It's especially welcoming when you spend a whole lot of your daily life discussing monetization with other groups, seeing presentations from Comscore, interacting with people working to monetize online efforts everyday. The newsflash, of course, is that nobody's figured it out yet. Not Jill, not The New York Times. We're all still waiting for that 9-year old girl in Passaic, N.J. to show us the way. (Pick it up, there, Heidi. We're dyin' out here.)
In the meantime, one is supposed to put up with people who argue with a straight face that the baby & the bathwater must be thrown out. Because ... well ... um... because.
I didn't expect a whole lot of sympathy or a whole lot of uptake-taking on the Geist droids. What did strike me, though, is that in the lobs of arguments I've heard a hundred times before, nobody asked a question. Nobody. Nobody asked for a clarification about how TV is financed, or maybe how the "tour and merchandising" model of artist recoupment doesn't work across all forms. See, in the closed circle of "copyfight debate" they know how artists have it wrong, how corporations have it wrong, and the way forward is already completely decided.
When the copyright town hall chugged into Toronto last year, there was the predictable over-representation from the recorded music industry (the guys you love to hate) defending a business model that nobody outside of a record company would even dream of sticking up for anymore.
Their arguments, hiding sins of excess from an industry that took exploitation of talent and practically forged a whole separate art form out of it -- screwitecture, let's call it...such are the documented excesses of the record industry that we shant go into them here.
The fact that arguing for copyright for content creators involves sitting at the table with these guys is kind of like having to put up with pervy Uncle Eddie at the family wedding. You hold your breath and try not to look as embarrassed as you really are inside. (And you keep your ass out of reach of his freaky hands.)
But aside from the majors, there were some thoughtful contributions from creator groups -- and some truly passionate representations from artists & creators themselves.
That night, both before & after the town all, the brief chats I had with artists & creators mirrored each and every conversation I've had with somebody who makes things for a living. I'm always amazed by the thoughtful, measured attempt to wrestle with creator rights versus consumer good. Most are unhappy with the current law, thinking it does too little to protect in some areas and too much to restrict in others. There is no uniformity in boundaries or solution, but there is always a heartfelt, honest attempt to grapple with how to expand consumer rights in the way the digital world practically demands, without losing the thread that allows for fair renumeration.
When it came to the so-called copyfight side, however, we were treated to a few people arguing flat out in favour of piracy and a couple of university students, stumbling, ill-informed, unsure, arguing something that they felt in their heart but couldn't articulate clearly. The failure was easy to understand. This was the real world, not the safe harbours of copyfight central, where the tiny demographic slice of internet people all agree. They weren't playing to their closed epistemic circle. Must have been scary.
You see the shallowness of understanding of the creator side in the response to organizations' like the WGC's position on collective licensing. Based on already running, successful collection societies that are running in Europe to compensate rights holders for things like PVR use, timeshifting, tv rebroadcasting and such, the WGC proposes that one solution be a levy system. They're quick to jump on the "levy" part and scream how it's unfair, will never work, etc, but miss the second part of it, where the WGC suggests that now-illegal uses be made legal in exchange.
See, that's negotiation. You give something up, you get something.
But even when you take out the pirates who don't think you should pay for anything, the bulk of copyfans in Geist Nation still approach the idea of negotiating a new copyright law as...say it with me, now:
"Gimme."
Even Geist's vaunted expansion in fair-dealing for academic use goes against the current grain. Starting from "it should be free" goes against what's in place now with academic copying for textbooks & other materials. If the cost is too onerous and does restrict legitimate research use, then obviously that needs to be looked at. But it's a measure of the exclusion of the artist from Geist's roundtable that it seems to be an article of faith that "free" must be the default. Well, uh... huh? Why? Are Profs going to lecture for free now, too? What about students. When you get those degrees & jobs are you gonna go work for free?
There's so much I wish for for consumers in a copyright bill. I think terms of 75 years for copyright is ridiculous. I think that parody & satire should be codified so that Disney, or me, or anyone can't order a YouTube video removed through copyright law as a cudgel and censorious act to quash a video that makes a valid, socially desirable criticism. Or even a wicked parody. I want recognition of mashup art & I want consumers who pay for content to be able to use that content and view it on whichever device they want.
All these are points of negotiation, but I do have to say that I'm far less passionate about pushing them forward than I otherwise might have been because I know there is a significant constituency that believes I should have no rights over my creations at all. A constituency that wants to speak for me, and then dismiss my voice as "not relevant to where digital culture is going."
Finally, to those of us who have a longer-than-undergrad view of changing culture, one should remember and take the lesson of the 'original mashup' -- the audio sample.
There was a fierce battle at the beginning of the hiphop era over sampling. Copyright holders sued to remove & ban songs that used unauthorized samples. The law was used as a cudgel, sometimes with the blessing of the original artist, sometimes not. The thought was that the sample devalued the original work. People who wanted to use samples argued that it was new art, that it deserved to be heard. Suggestions were made about licensing samples, making the whole thing legal -- and for a while there was squawking over that, too. It would be too hard to decide the value. Who would police it? Is it a good idea?
The point is, it got worked out. Maybe artists couldn't use as many samples as they wanted, but the culture changed & absorbed the change, and everybody learned how to deal with it.
The bad road we started down in the digital realm is that the first responders -- the canary in the coal mine -- was the music industry. And they responded badly, first by denying there was a problem for too long, and then being talked into a strategy where suing your customers and trying intimidation was the answer. It wasn't. We lost a lot of time to that silliness.
A solution will come in the copyright debate, too. It might take a few tries, it might mean a bad law needs to be amended, but eventually we will wind up with something that allows, hopefully, for the most socially desirable outcome that balances a right for renumeration for labour with socially desirable consumer use.
Geist protests that he does the best he can, and doesn't agree with a lot of what's in his comment sections, but leaves it open in the spirit of the internet. That may be so. But the degree to which the Geistians have a hand in the future of copyright is directly inverse to the degree to which they continue to close ranks and insist they have all the answers, and everyone else is "the man."
* * *
A note on comments on this post: this is a post on the semiotics of the debate. You want to critique what I have to say, go to town. But we're not arguing copyright in this thread, for the same reason that I closed comments the other day -- I'm not interested in having the same boring debate I've had a hundred times with people who simply aren't listening.
Unfortunately, you won't find many of them in the comments section on Michael Geist's site.
Geist has staked out his territory -- as an academic and law professor, he believes in an expansion for fair use/fair dealing and frowns upon mechanisms such as digital locks that prevent people from using purchased content the way they want. Through newspaper columns, consistent advocacy on the issue, and assiduous courting of so-called "copyleft"ists, "copyfighters," and other creatively-monikered folk, he's become the de facto clearinghouse for a so-called "consumer-focused" view of copyright reform.
As I've argued previously here, and privately in friendly emails with Geist himself, what's consistently missing from his site (and from the points of view of his commenters) is any realistic representation from the creators of artistic works.
See it's quite easy to rail against copyright when the enemy is a huge multigloobinial copomoration breathing fire out its greasy lawyer-tusks, but wee people have a dog in the hunt too when it comes to protecting their intellectual property.
Not that you'd know it from Geist's site.
Argue politely or otherwise that the content creator's opinion is a little light on the ground, and you're very quickly met with rhetoric & indifference, ranging to outright hostility. In some cases, you're lumped in with the corporate weasels because they're the most fun to fight. (The blowback from suing customers is the single greatest mistake made in this area in recent years. It's emboldened the immoral, and given fire to the muddleheaded. It's like a layer of volcanic ash-gunk that covers anyone who tries to argue the creator's side.)
Otherwise, you're treated to a lovely, shopworn, half-assed screed on the "you can't stop the ocean" style argument about making money in the new world. (Seriously, hands up anybody who's been hearing this argument since before the last dot.com bust?)
There's nothing quite like a lecture on economic models given by people who don't seem to really grasp how it works, and who don't realize that arguing theoretics to someone with a concrete, measurable and immediate economic interest is a bit insensitive at best, and monstrous at worst. It's especially welcoming when you spend a whole lot of your daily life discussing monetization with other groups, seeing presentations from Comscore, interacting with people working to monetize online efforts everyday. The newsflash, of course, is that nobody's figured it out yet. Not Jill, not The New York Times. We're all still waiting for that 9-year old girl in Passaic, N.J. to show us the way. (Pick it up, there, Heidi. We're dyin' out here.)
In the meantime, one is supposed to put up with people who argue with a straight face that the baby & the bathwater must be thrown out. Because ... well ... um... because.
I didn't expect a whole lot of sympathy or a whole lot of uptake-taking on the Geist droids. What did strike me, though, is that in the lobs of arguments I've heard a hundred times before, nobody asked a question. Nobody. Nobody asked for a clarification about how TV is financed, or maybe how the "tour and merchandising" model of artist recoupment doesn't work across all forms. See, in the closed circle of "copyfight debate" they know how artists have it wrong, how corporations have it wrong, and the way forward is already completely decided.
When the copyright town hall chugged into Toronto last year, there was the predictable over-representation from the recorded music industry (the guys you love to hate) defending a business model that nobody outside of a record company would even dream of sticking up for anymore.
Their arguments, hiding sins of excess from an industry that took exploitation of talent and practically forged a whole separate art form out of it -- screwitecture, let's call it...such are the documented excesses of the record industry that we shant go into them here.
The fact that arguing for copyright for content creators involves sitting at the table with these guys is kind of like having to put up with pervy Uncle Eddie at the family wedding. You hold your breath and try not to look as embarrassed as you really are inside. (And you keep your ass out of reach of his freaky hands.)
But aside from the majors, there were some thoughtful contributions from creator groups -- and some truly passionate representations from artists & creators themselves.
That night, both before & after the town all, the brief chats I had with artists & creators mirrored each and every conversation I've had with somebody who makes things for a living. I'm always amazed by the thoughtful, measured attempt to wrestle with creator rights versus consumer good. Most are unhappy with the current law, thinking it does too little to protect in some areas and too much to restrict in others. There is no uniformity in boundaries or solution, but there is always a heartfelt, honest attempt to grapple with how to expand consumer rights in the way the digital world practically demands, without losing the thread that allows for fair renumeration.
When it came to the so-called copyfight side, however, we were treated to a few people arguing flat out in favour of piracy and a couple of university students, stumbling, ill-informed, unsure, arguing something that they felt in their heart but couldn't articulate clearly. The failure was easy to understand. This was the real world, not the safe harbours of copyfight central, where the tiny demographic slice of internet people all agree. They weren't playing to their closed epistemic circle. Must have been scary.
You see the shallowness of understanding of the creator side in the response to organizations' like the WGC's position on collective licensing. Based on already running, successful collection societies that are running in Europe to compensate rights holders for things like PVR use, timeshifting, tv rebroadcasting and such, the WGC proposes that one solution be a levy system. They're quick to jump on the "levy" part and scream how it's unfair, will never work, etc, but miss the second part of it, where the WGC suggests that now-illegal uses be made legal in exchange.
See, that's negotiation. You give something up, you get something.
But even when you take out the pirates who don't think you should pay for anything, the bulk of copyfans in Geist Nation still approach the idea of negotiating a new copyright law as...say it with me, now:
"Gimme."
Even Geist's vaunted expansion in fair-dealing for academic use goes against the current grain. Starting from "it should be free" goes against what's in place now with academic copying for textbooks & other materials. If the cost is too onerous and does restrict legitimate research use, then obviously that needs to be looked at. But it's a measure of the exclusion of the artist from Geist's roundtable that it seems to be an article of faith that "free" must be the default. Well, uh... huh? Why? Are Profs going to lecture for free now, too? What about students. When you get those degrees & jobs are you gonna go work for free?
There's so much I wish for for consumers in a copyright bill. I think terms of 75 years for copyright is ridiculous. I think that parody & satire should be codified so that Disney, or me, or anyone can't order a YouTube video removed through copyright law as a cudgel and censorious act to quash a video that makes a valid, socially desirable criticism. Or even a wicked parody. I want recognition of mashup art & I want consumers who pay for content to be able to use that content and view it on whichever device they want.
All these are points of negotiation, but I do have to say that I'm far less passionate about pushing them forward than I otherwise might have been because I know there is a significant constituency that believes I should have no rights over my creations at all. A constituency that wants to speak for me, and then dismiss my voice as "not relevant to where digital culture is going."
Finally, to those of us who have a longer-than-undergrad view of changing culture, one should remember and take the lesson of the 'original mashup' -- the audio sample.
There was a fierce battle at the beginning of the hiphop era over sampling. Copyright holders sued to remove & ban songs that used unauthorized samples. The law was used as a cudgel, sometimes with the blessing of the original artist, sometimes not. The thought was that the sample devalued the original work. People who wanted to use samples argued that it was new art, that it deserved to be heard. Suggestions were made about licensing samples, making the whole thing legal -- and for a while there was squawking over that, too. It would be too hard to decide the value. Who would police it? Is it a good idea?
The point is, it got worked out. Maybe artists couldn't use as many samples as they wanted, but the culture changed & absorbed the change, and everybody learned how to deal with it.
The bad road we started down in the digital realm is that the first responders -- the canary in the coal mine -- was the music industry. And they responded badly, first by denying there was a problem for too long, and then being talked into a strategy where suing your customers and trying intimidation was the answer. It wasn't. We lost a lot of time to that silliness.
A solution will come in the copyright debate, too. It might take a few tries, it might mean a bad law needs to be amended, but eventually we will wind up with something that allows, hopefully, for the most socially desirable outcome that balances a right for renumeration for labour with socially desirable consumer use.
Geist protests that he does the best he can, and doesn't agree with a lot of what's in his comment sections, but leaves it open in the spirit of the internet. That may be so. But the degree to which the Geistians have a hand in the future of copyright is directly inverse to the degree to which they continue to close ranks and insist they have all the answers, and everyone else is "the man."
* * *
A note on comments on this post: this is a post on the semiotics of the debate. You want to critique what I have to say, go to town. But we're not arguing copyright in this thread, for the same reason that I closed comments the other day -- I'm not interested in having the same boring debate I've had a hundred times with people who simply aren't listening.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Mothers' Little Helper & The Road To Nowhere
THE MESSAGE LIGHT blinking caught me by surprise. It’s not often I get a call on a Saturday night these days. Calls are mostly exchanged in the afternoon, plans set or broken. By Saturday evening either I’m out with those most likely to call, or burrowed in for a bit of middle-aged hermitage.
Last night, then -- a dinner party for a friend’s milestone birthday. Much mirth & fine conversation and then, a strange echo of a once-common ritual – a bunch of us sitting around watching Betty White take her unlikely star turn on Saturday Night Live.
Once upon a time, watching SNL in a big group was a common Saturday night activity, usually punctuated by a cheap two-four of whatever beer was on sale. But Lord, that was seven casts, a passel of missing friends, practically a whole head of hair and a half-dozen apartments ago.
I hit the blinking light and my Mother’s voice filled the room. She sounded happy, but tired. Mom’s in Massachusetts, with her sister. This weekend the two of them are tag teaming, minding my second cousins, so their Mom gets a well-deserved shot at attending a reunion of friends in Manhattan.
The kids are adorable; big-hearted, full of life – two boys and a girl, all under the age of eight. But sadly, it seems, none of the kids in my family are any less than an advanced level parenting assignment. My mom has laughed about it before, “It all comes back to you after awhile – it’s just everything happens a whole lot more slowly.”
It was something seeing Betty White hoof it through her sketches at the age of 88 and a half, but having seen my cousins in action, I’m definitely glad that my Mom & my Aunt had each other’s backs.
It reminded me of another time, or many other times – fidgeting in the back seat, bored out of my skull, feeling the pointlessness of a drive that would never end. A stretch of I-4 in Orlando. The time: The mid 1970’s. A stretch of the highway from the downtown to Winter Park. It seemed we’d drive that stretch of road for hours & hours, butt becoming numb against the tacky vinyl of the back seat of the Ford LTD, seat belt pinching as you tried to scale the back seat, or lean forward far enough to see the good stuff. I’m there on the right. On the far left is one sister. She’s nervous & a little unsure. To my eternal shame, this is the sister who would sometimes thump down onto her butt the moment I wheeled into a room in my bullish six or seven year old glory. You don’t spit into a hurricane, after all.
In between us is sister number two – red tight curls & thumb parked firmly in mouth as she regards you with the stare – a size-me-up, suffer-no-fools countenance that recalled both my Grandmother & your best approximation of a police interrogator...Age Four. It’s not that she wasn’t buying whatever you were selling – she just demanded the time to judge for herself.
So then, I-4. Past Colonial Drive & Church Street…the wrong way from Disney World or anything fun. On the ramp. Off the ramp. Same stretch of road, again and again. Would anything else ever be this boring?
I had my answer, of course. At that point I still remembered the great furniture store incident. That involved, I believe, eighty two hours of debate about the relative merits of a couch in Huffman Koos. That previous incident ended inauspiciously with, I believe, me lying on the floor of the store wailing. Not my finest hour, I’ll admit, but when you’re under three feet tall your quiver of arrows is a little shallow.
Past the bank building. Neon sign. Off ramp to Winter Park. Again. And again. And again.
What stygian horror was this? Why were we being subjected to this mind numbingly boring exercise? Distracted thoughts turned to whether I should poke my little sister. It might provide some momentary scuffle, some enjoyment, a little drama when the wailing started. And the denials could stretch out a few more minutes. But then, as now, the blowback of tussling with the little red curls came with a high, high price. If the thumb leaves the mouth, trouble starts. Then maybe it's the wooden spoon. You don't want to the wooden spoon. The wooden spoon was very bad.
Oh I indulged. I gave into baser instincts. I don’t want to sugar coat it. I acted out. I whinged & complained and hit, & hogged the seat & undid the belt, & probably made things a lot worse.
See, when you’re a 34 or 35-year old mother of middle-class means with three kids under the age of eight, your learning opportunities to change & grow are necessarily restricted. So you find yourself in imperfect situations, where you have to improvise, like practicing for your Drivers' road test, getting on and off the highway with three kids in the back seat.
Truth be told, practically my Mother’s entire driver education career happened with her three kids buckled in in back. For the life of me, I don’t know how the lessons took. But they did. She took lessons from an instructor, and weekends would be for practicing with my father. On the ramp. Off the ramp. Parking lot. Park. Reverse. Again. Mom, can we goooo?
It would be years before I associated the boring drives to nowhere with the necessity of her practice. And then, the wash of shame would wave over me as I realized my role. Wow. In the real life driving game of life my poor Mom never got to play at anything other than the Expert level.
That might have had something to do with the failed tests.
Oh Yeah. My Mom failed her driving test. She failed it a lot.
She was cautious, she knew the rules, and she was a perfectly qualified novice driver, but it seemed like the action of testing & being judged was infinitely more difficult than learning to check mirror, signal, blindspots, kids in the back not killing each other.
Finally, in what has become family legend, my Mom’s driving instructor came up with the solution. A final, last minute refresher before her fifth crack at the test. “You know this,” he said. “You just have to stay calm, and not get nervous.”
Three kids under the age of eight. One of them a rambunctious proto-sociopath.
He sighed.
Then he slipped her a valium.
The time of the appointment grew closer. A few last minute parallel parks. My mom talked, and the driving instructor rolled his eyes.
“Try not to be too talky. Stick to yes & no if they ask you questions.”
Liiiiitttle bit slurry, y’see.
In the end, fifth time was the charm. And I can say with confidence that not only is my mother an excellent driver who has never been in an accident, I can’t even really recall any close calls with her behind the wheel.
Though I’m also pretty sure she doesn’t like going above sixty.
The message on the machine last night, then, was a thank you for the gift basket I’d sent Mom and Auntie & Cousin – just three of the wonderful mothers in my life. Anticipating the end of the weekend of kid-minding, I’d instructed them not to stint on the wine. My mom seemed to appreciate that, and look forward to the end of her shift.
“I’ll tell you this,” her message said. “God bless young mothers.”
Amen to that.
For all the white knuckle times, behind the wheel or not…thanks for everything, Mothers everywhere.
Friday, May 7, 2010
No, Really, Dude...shaddup!
ALEX EPSTEIN has a really fun one on why alleged evildoers really can't help themselves.
The State of the Copyright Debate
I LIKE MICHAEL GEIST. I think he's smart, I think he's provocative and writes well and certainly knows his issues from his perspective. But when he reports on creators' issues (and challenges going forward) with any new copyright law, this is the general quality of comment he attracts from his legions of copyright fans:
Oh to be twenty-one (or thirty-three) and to be so blasé and dismissive about complex issues.
The problem with the copyfans & the fair use now advocates of all stripes is that they have a wonderful ability to view the debate in the most simple of terms. We can categorize those terms thusly:
Gimme.
The problem with gimme, of course, is that it's hard to plug into any kind of self-sustaining economic model by which artists get paid for their labors. Add to this the fundamental ignorance that people seem to have about the entire structure by which content creators currently get paid. You'll often hear this expressed as "I buy a book once, why do I have to keep paying for it?" or some such thing.
The impression seems to be that the true value of the art is paid for by the consumer at point-of-purchase. And that artists and content creators want some cushy deal that nobody else gets. (Ie: I paint your house once, and you keep paying me to paint your house for five more years, or until five years after I die, or whatever.)
What makes the idea of the art fundamentally different is three factors: 1) reproducability 2) timelines of creation 3) life of the artist
In the case of 1) reproducability let's take a painting, like the Picasso that sold for a record number this week. It's easy to understand why that fetched so much: it's unique. Picasso painted it, and it's the only one, and people like Picassos.
Consider what it would be like if the Rolling Stones had recorded, say, Exile on Main Street and everybody knew how great it was, maybe there had been a listening party or something, and then only one person could buy it. How much would that recording be worth? What about The Godfather? There was a film fest in 1972 and they showed The Godfather and everybody went apeshit, and then Francis Ford Coppola sold the film -- the original negative -- to one guy. And then only he got to show it to friends & lucky people. How much would that cost?
Obviously with these kinds of art, a market developed for reproductions. In fact the whole model of making money was based on reproduction & distribution of those copies. The artist creator gets a percentage of each copy, mass produced, rather than imbue all the value in the one, unique work. (ie: the painting, though in the case of the Picasso, there is both -- reproduction rights, and the value of hte unique original.) So we bought our Picasso posters & prints for dorm room walls, and our Godfather DVD or VHS box sets. So long as everything was physical, it was hunky dory. But digitization changed the value proposition -- because now the physical product that would kick back whatever percentage to the artist (instead of its true value in a lump up front a la the auctioned Picasso) doesn't sell anymore. Now, digital bits can flow freely -- and do -- through bit torrent networks & sharing sites & burned copies handed from friend to friend to friend.
"I pay for cable so I've paid already so I shouldn't have to pay a levy for a PVR."
No, Chester. What you did there, was pay for the pipe to bring content into your home. You paid the admission price to the museum. That doesn't give you the right to go home with the Picasso. You can be as petulant as you want; stamp your feet all you like. The facts are just not on your side here.
The problem then as it currently exists in our imperfect world is that the cure has been worse than the disease. People who've lawfully bought DVD's of their favorite show find they're locked down with DMCA anti copy crap that keeps them from playing them on the device they want, or from playing it on two computers, or streaming it to another location in their house... in short, the idea of what people want to do, lawfully, with the media they've bought and paid for has expanded, but the system is trying to keep it locked down. This is retrograde and contrary to the way that people want to use media.
The idea of blanket licensing & levies is a more European idea that says, "look, people will use it how they use it. We may not get 100% of the money for other uses, the way we used to when "other uses" meant film, TV sale, audio book on tape, trade paperback, etc. -- but we will at least get part of that money. And that is way better than suing your customers or gumming up everything with stupid digital locks that the nefarious types are just going to break anyway, leaving you in the position of punishing your most ardent fans or consumers. And content creators are the last people who want that.
2) Timelines of creation. Inevitably, when I challenge some asshole directly about "why should I have to keep paying blah blah blah" and find out what they do, they're somebody who wants to talk about things in terms of their job. So let's do that.
We'll take me as an example. I get paid to write now. It's a precarious job, because I'm totally self-employed, and I can't collect unemployment benefits. My income swings widely from year to year, yet I can't average the income, so when I make a lot, I can't put more of it away because I'm taxed like a Wall Street CEO, and when I make mouse fart money I can't even go on pogey.
Add to this the fact that, just like a doctor goes to Med School for years, and interns, and goes through residencies to get to where they are, I had to teach myself to write. It took years. More than a decade of pounding out crappy scripts in my spare time, not making a dime, working one or two jobs I hated. Artists do the same thing, but have to somehow afford paints and brushes or canvases. There's more than one artist I know who spent their time choosing between whether to eat or buy another canvas one day. I have a friend who's an opera singer who blows me away with the rundown of the costs of vocal coaching, exercises, money to go to places to audition, other professional training. All of this to get to the point where -- if they're lucky -- if they're very, very, very lucky, you might hear of them, and maybe want to buy something they made. Now you get to see if their investment in themselves-- let's call it "sweat equity" -- pays off. We can all make fun of Michael Bublé now, but truth is the guy worked his ass off for a lot of years to learn his craft. Watch a bit of Tréme and see how all those musicians enjoy cushy wonderful, gala-ridden lives getting to make a living. I got a brave bit of prediction for you here: those braying loudest on the copyright file: put you in that life and you couldn't cut it, even if you had the talent.
In short, part of what you're paying for that "every time" isn't the thing you've got in your hands. You're amortizing the entire apprenticeship period of that artist for when they weren't making a goddamn dime.
The timelines of creation are long. And the initial purchase price of a movie ticket or a DVD rental or an Itunes track does not fully reflect that sweat equity. In a world where the purchase of physical items breaks down, something needs to rise to replace that, so that the true value of the creative work can flow to the artist. Believe me, left to themselves, the corporations will always figure out a way to get you to shell out more -- and for the most part, you'll do it happily -- be it a Happy Iron Man Meal or some piece of shit that you don't need. And that will never flow back to the person who did the initial creating. Joe Schuster & Jerry Siegel had to sue to get money out of Superman, the character they created that made Time Warner BILLIONS. No, where people like the brave commenter above leave the track is in trying to get the artist paid for their labour. That's why these guys, so long as you bray about what your rights should be & crap all over efforts for artists to earn a living, or comment ignorantly as above....well....you can lick my sweaty neck. (I was going somewhere else with that, but my Mom occasionally reads this blog. Hi Mom. Thanks for the casserole.)
3) life of the artist
Let's take the case of Yann Martel. Yann Martel was a big deal in 2001 for publishing Life of Pi. Book clubs, Booker Prize, the whole magilla. Martel's been working on his followup for years. It's 2010. That's nine years. Nine years to come up with the new book.
And it came out. And critics are shitting all over it. It's starting to look like it might be a big flopperoo.
Ouch.
Once again, the artist takes a huge risk -- and it might not pay off. And there's a limited number of those things that you have in you. A novelist's career might span thirty years -- but it's going to have a number of flops. And the flops that make you nothing still take the same sweat, and tears, and toil, and time, and psychic grit to get through as the lauded successes. Courtney Love is just as batshit crazy when she puts out her good CD's as her bad ones. Clint Eastwood's lovely, meticulous filmmaking might give you Million Dollar Baby, or something lesser like Gran Torino, or hell, Space Cowboys. That's just the way it goes.
A TV writer has a shelf life, as well. There's some cruel math at work. You start out a young turk, have a few years to rise up. Maybe you get lucky and do something that hits, or maybe you don't and are a journeyman. But if you get 15 years in before you get aged out that's pretty lucky indeed. You have to make your bones how you can, fast as you can -- from as many different ways as you can.
The point is, the model is not, and never has been the same as a builder who builds a house and sells it to you. It is much more like an owner of a house on the beach that's very desirable and lovely that rents it out to people because it's desirable and lovely.
There is a lot that's shitty about copyright now that many artists don't agree with. I think that the copyright terms, which are now more than 75 years after death (what they call the Disney exemption, because that prevented Steamboat Willie from falling into the public domain) are ridiculous. I think there's got to be a way to allow mashups & stuff to happen.
(And keep in mind that there are mechanisms that do work here. Onceuponatime the argument was all about how hip hop was going to be killed by the man because of having to clear samples. Most samples were illegal. Now most samples are legally cleared. And there's no hip hop anywhere on the shelves, or on the Itunes charts, right? Please.)
I think that when it comes to something like "fair dealing" it's a finer slice. I think works should be able to be used for comment, parody, satire -- and limited educational use. But you know, agreements were reached on things like copying for school use in textbooks and things - and I see absolutely no reason to think that "it's too hard to police" is a valid argument why wide-open educational use of copyrighted materials should be expected. I also think it's a bit odious that Educational representatives, most of whom have pensions & tenure -- ie: job security, are arguing against a fair compensation regime for people who are essentially self-employed freelancers with none of those economic cushions.
I'm a consumer too. And I certainly think that current law does not work for the consumer and how our relationship to media has changed in the last few decades. And I sure as hell don't think a draconian, DMCA-style U.S. law will make things better. And the law should be forward-thinking, to encompass and provide a roadmap of how to do things in NEW media not conceived yet.
(At the very least, I would like the next law to deal with the fact that for years I've been able to lend a friend a book -- but now I can't do the same thing for an e-book. That, to me, is a restriction of my rights. And maybe if they want to go that way then an e-book really shouldn't be priced anywhere near a trade paperback. I'm not paying Amazon $14 for something I can't lend. $9, we'll talk.)
What I do know, is that in the copyright consultations last year, the thing that depressed me most was the disconnect between the people doing the creating, and the so called "copyright activists" demanding their "gimme."
It seems to me that if you're an "expert on copyright law," with legions of followers with whom you exhibit great influence, then part of your responsibility comes with truly engaging on the creator side of the equation, and figuring out a stand that you can articulate to your followers that doesn't involve content creators assuming all of the risk in the brave new world going forward. It's not enough to demand. You have to engage on a creator-friendly, not just consumer-friendly solution to the problem.
Because, quite frankly, you may be educating your followers on things like "fair dealing" and "digital locks," but a quick scan of your comments section shows a paucity of understanding of creator issues, and a powerful desire to roll people like me up in there with the big bad "them."
I don't think of myself or my friends as "them." But by allowing that linkage to go unchallenged, you hurt the very cause you claim to espouse, and wind up looking like someone fronting another self-interest group who may be agitating for a pyrrhic victory: widespread use of copyrighted materials isn't going to get you too far once nobody can afford to make any.
Except, I guess, Sony.
All Michael Bay, all the time. Enjoy that world. Brr.
UPDATE: Not often, but sometimes you get a comment that you read and think, "well that's a way better ending to the post than mine was." So it's promotion time! I'll give commenter John the last word on this post. Please feel free to continue discussing in the comments below. I'm going to bow out for a while because I'm still really quite ill, and I think it's time for a little hard napping.
John writes:
Nice work -- your posting is making the digital rounds.
I agree with you on almost everything you've written, and most of my disagreements would be minor quibbles on language. For instance, I despise much of the vocabularly of the larger copy-debate. Words like "draconian," "corporatist" and "DMCA-style" start my eyes a-rolling.
Unfortuanetly, that's exactly the vocabulary that gets the mob excited, which I guess is why it's so often used. What's the point of having an accurate, meaningful, well-informed discussion on the way to new legislation, when you can shout DMCA in a crowded theatre and start a stampede.
The leaders of the copyfight were all invited very early on to genuinely engage with professional creators, and it seems clear they all consciously chose a different constituency -- "lowest price is the law" consumers. It's a shame for everyone.
Amen to that.
Heres a tip...
Hey, creators of music, movies, any type of IP, heres a tip. The world is changing, they way you do business has to change as well.
Try creating something that people will actually PAY for, like something decent for a change
Oh to be twenty-one (or thirty-three) and to be so blasé and dismissive about complex issues.
The problem with the copyfans & the fair use now advocates of all stripes is that they have a wonderful ability to view the debate in the most simple of terms. We can categorize those terms thusly:
Gimme.
The problem with gimme, of course, is that it's hard to plug into any kind of self-sustaining economic model by which artists get paid for their labors. Add to this the fundamental ignorance that people seem to have about the entire structure by which content creators currently get paid. You'll often hear this expressed as "I buy a book once, why do I have to keep paying for it?" or some such thing.
The impression seems to be that the true value of the art is paid for by the consumer at point-of-purchase. And that artists and content creators want some cushy deal that nobody else gets. (Ie: I paint your house once, and you keep paying me to paint your house for five more years, or until five years after I die, or whatever.)
What makes the idea of the art fundamentally different is three factors: 1) reproducability 2) timelines of creation 3) life of the artist
Consider what it would be like if the Rolling Stones had recorded, say, Exile on Main Street and everybody knew how great it was, maybe there had been a listening party or something, and then only one person could buy it. How much would that recording be worth? What about The Godfather? There was a film fest in 1972 and they showed The Godfather and everybody went apeshit, and then Francis Ford Coppola sold the film -- the original negative -- to one guy. And then only he got to show it to friends & lucky people. How much would that cost?
Obviously with these kinds of art, a market developed for reproductions. In fact the whole model of making money was based on reproduction & distribution of those copies. The artist creator gets a percentage of each copy, mass produced, rather than imbue all the value in the one, unique work. (ie: the painting, though in the case of the Picasso, there is both -- reproduction rights, and the value of hte unique original.) So we bought our Picasso posters & prints for dorm room walls, and our Godfather DVD or VHS box sets. So long as everything was physical, it was hunky dory. But digitization changed the value proposition -- because now the physical product that would kick back whatever percentage to the artist (instead of its true value in a lump up front a la the auctioned Picasso) doesn't sell anymore. Now, digital bits can flow freely -- and do -- through bit torrent networks & sharing sites & burned copies handed from friend to friend to friend.
"I pay for cable so I've paid already so I shouldn't have to pay a levy for a PVR."
No, Chester. What you did there, was pay for the pipe to bring content into your home. You paid the admission price to the museum. That doesn't give you the right to go home with the Picasso. You can be as petulant as you want; stamp your feet all you like. The facts are just not on your side here.
The problem then as it currently exists in our imperfect world is that the cure has been worse than the disease. People who've lawfully bought DVD's of their favorite show find they're locked down with DMCA anti copy crap that keeps them from playing them on the device they want, or from playing it on two computers, or streaming it to another location in their house... in short, the idea of what people want to do, lawfully, with the media they've bought and paid for has expanded, but the system is trying to keep it locked down. This is retrograde and contrary to the way that people want to use media.
The idea of blanket licensing & levies is a more European idea that says, "look, people will use it how they use it. We may not get 100% of the money for other uses, the way we used to when "other uses" meant film, TV sale, audio book on tape, trade paperback, etc. -- but we will at least get part of that money. And that is way better than suing your customers or gumming up everything with stupid digital locks that the nefarious types are just going to break anyway, leaving you in the position of punishing your most ardent fans or consumers. And content creators are the last people who want that.
2) Timelines of creation. Inevitably, when I challenge some asshole directly about "why should I have to keep paying blah blah blah" and find out what they do, they're somebody who wants to talk about things in terms of their job. So let's do that.
We'll take me as an example. I get paid to write now. It's a precarious job, because I'm totally self-employed, and I can't collect unemployment benefits. My income swings widely from year to year, yet I can't average the income, so when I make a lot, I can't put more of it away because I'm taxed like a Wall Street CEO, and when I make mouse fart money I can't even go on pogey.
Add to this the fact that, just like a doctor goes to Med School for years, and interns, and goes through residencies to get to where they are, I had to teach myself to write. It took years. More than a decade of pounding out crappy scripts in my spare time, not making a dime, working one or two jobs I hated. Artists do the same thing, but have to somehow afford paints and brushes or canvases. There's more than one artist I know who spent their time choosing between whether to eat or buy another canvas one day. I have a friend who's an opera singer who blows me away with the rundown of the costs of vocal coaching, exercises, money to go to places to audition, other professional training. All of this to get to the point where -- if they're lucky -- if they're very, very, very lucky, you might hear of them, and maybe want to buy something they made. Now you get to see if their investment in themselves-- let's call it "sweat equity" -- pays off. We can all make fun of Michael Bublé now, but truth is the guy worked his ass off for a lot of years to learn his craft. Watch a bit of Tréme and see how all those musicians enjoy cushy wonderful, gala-ridden lives getting to make a living. I got a brave bit of prediction for you here: those braying loudest on the copyright file: put you in that life and you couldn't cut it, even if you had the talent.
In short, part of what you're paying for that "every time" isn't the thing you've got in your hands. You're amortizing the entire apprenticeship period of that artist for when they weren't making a goddamn dime.
The timelines of creation are long. And the initial purchase price of a movie ticket or a DVD rental or an Itunes track does not fully reflect that sweat equity. In a world where the purchase of physical items breaks down, something needs to rise to replace that, so that the true value of the creative work can flow to the artist. Believe me, left to themselves, the corporations will always figure out a way to get you to shell out more -- and for the most part, you'll do it happily -- be it a Happy Iron Man Meal or some piece of shit that you don't need. And that will never flow back to the person who did the initial creating. Joe Schuster & Jerry Siegel had to sue to get money out of Superman, the character they created that made Time Warner BILLIONS. No, where people like the brave commenter above leave the track is in trying to get the artist paid for their labour. That's why these guys, so long as you bray about what your rights should be & crap all over efforts for artists to earn a living, or comment ignorantly as above....well....you can lick my sweaty neck. (I was going somewhere else with that, but my Mom occasionally reads this blog. Hi Mom. Thanks for the casserole.)
3) life of the artist
Let's take the case of Yann Martel. Yann Martel was a big deal in 2001 for publishing Life of Pi. Book clubs, Booker Prize, the whole magilla. Martel's been working on his followup for years. It's 2010. That's nine years. Nine years to come up with the new book.
And it came out. And critics are shitting all over it. It's starting to look like it might be a big flopperoo.
Ouch.
Once again, the artist takes a huge risk -- and it might not pay off. And there's a limited number of those things that you have in you. A novelist's career might span thirty years -- but it's going to have a number of flops. And the flops that make you nothing still take the same sweat, and tears, and toil, and time, and psychic grit to get through as the lauded successes. Courtney Love is just as batshit crazy when she puts out her good CD's as her bad ones. Clint Eastwood's lovely, meticulous filmmaking might give you Million Dollar Baby, or something lesser like Gran Torino, or hell, Space Cowboys. That's just the way it goes.
A TV writer has a shelf life, as well. There's some cruel math at work. You start out a young turk, have a few years to rise up. Maybe you get lucky and do something that hits, or maybe you don't and are a journeyman. But if you get 15 years in before you get aged out that's pretty lucky indeed. You have to make your bones how you can, fast as you can -- from as many different ways as you can.
The point is, the model is not, and never has been the same as a builder who builds a house and sells it to you. It is much more like an owner of a house on the beach that's very desirable and lovely that rents it out to people because it's desirable and lovely.
There is a lot that's shitty about copyright now that many artists don't agree with. I think that the copyright terms, which are now more than 75 years after death (what they call the Disney exemption, because that prevented Steamboat Willie from falling into the public domain) are ridiculous. I think there's got to be a way to allow mashups & stuff to happen.
(And keep in mind that there are mechanisms that do work here. Onceuponatime the argument was all about how hip hop was going to be killed by the man because of having to clear samples. Most samples were illegal. Now most samples are legally cleared. And there's no hip hop anywhere on the shelves, or on the Itunes charts, right? Please.)
I think that when it comes to something like "fair dealing" it's a finer slice. I think works should be able to be used for comment, parody, satire -- and limited educational use. But you know, agreements were reached on things like copying for school use in textbooks and things - and I see absolutely no reason to think that "it's too hard to police" is a valid argument why wide-open educational use of copyrighted materials should be expected. I also think it's a bit odious that Educational representatives, most of whom have pensions & tenure -- ie: job security, are arguing against a fair compensation regime for people who are essentially self-employed freelancers with none of those economic cushions.
I'm a consumer too. And I certainly think that current law does not work for the consumer and how our relationship to media has changed in the last few decades. And I sure as hell don't think a draconian, DMCA-style U.S. law will make things better. And the law should be forward-thinking, to encompass and provide a roadmap of how to do things in NEW media not conceived yet.
(At the very least, I would like the next law to deal with the fact that for years I've been able to lend a friend a book -- but now I can't do the same thing for an e-book. That, to me, is a restriction of my rights. And maybe if they want to go that way then an e-book really shouldn't be priced anywhere near a trade paperback. I'm not paying Amazon $14 for something I can't lend. $9, we'll talk.)
What I do know, is that in the copyright consultations last year, the thing that depressed me most was the disconnect between the people doing the creating, and the so called "copyright activists" demanding their "gimme."
It seems to me that if you're an "expert on copyright law," with legions of followers with whom you exhibit great influence, then part of your responsibility comes with truly engaging on the creator side of the equation, and figuring out a stand that you can articulate to your followers that doesn't involve content creators assuming all of the risk in the brave new world going forward. It's not enough to demand. You have to engage on a creator-friendly, not just consumer-friendly solution to the problem.
Because, quite frankly, you may be educating your followers on things like "fair dealing" and "digital locks," but a quick scan of your comments section shows a paucity of understanding of creator issues, and a powerful desire to roll people like me up in there with the big bad "them."
I don't think of myself or my friends as "them." But by allowing that linkage to go unchallenged, you hurt the very cause you claim to espouse, and wind up looking like someone fronting another self-interest group who may be agitating for a pyrrhic victory: widespread use of copyrighted materials isn't going to get you too far once nobody can afford to make any.
Except, I guess, Sony.
All Michael Bay, all the time. Enjoy that world. Brr.
UPDATE: Not often, but sometimes you get a comment that you read and think, "well that's a way better ending to the post than mine was." So it's promotion time! I'll give commenter John the last word on this post. Please feel free to continue discussing in the comments below. I'm going to bow out for a while because I'm still really quite ill, and I think it's time for a little hard napping.
John writes:
Nice work -- your posting is making the digital rounds.
I agree with you on almost everything you've written, and most of my disagreements would be minor quibbles on language. For instance, I despise much of the vocabularly of the larger copy-debate. Words like "draconian," "corporatist" and "DMCA-style" start my eyes a-rolling.
Unfortuanetly, that's exactly the vocabulary that gets the mob excited, which I guess is why it's so often used. What's the point of having an accurate, meaningful, well-informed discussion on the way to new legislation, when you can shout DMCA in a crowded theatre and start a stampede.
The leaders of the copyfight were all invited very early on to genuinely engage with professional creators, and it seems clear they all consciously chose a different constituency -- "lowest price is the law" consumers. It's a shame for everyone.
Amen to that.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Come To Think of It, I've Never Seen Her Birth Certificate...
I'VE SERVED for two years on the Writers Guild of Canada National Council, and was recently acclaimed to a second term. Today the new executive convened for the first time with an important task: to select a new President to help guide the organization through the next two years, and advise the hardworking Executive Director, Maureen Parker, and her tireless staff.
I'm very pleased to say that by unanimous consent we selected somebody with her eye planted firmly on the next frontier of opportunity for writers: the digital realm.
Many of you will already know Jill Golick from her blogging & her extensive work in new media creation. There are great challenges ahead, and Jill's well poised to help us meet them.
Over at her place, you can read her first thoughts on the challenges ahead directly.
It's a new day.
Many of you will already know Jill Golick from her blogging & her extensive work in new media creation. There are great challenges ahead, and Jill's well poised to help us meet them.
Over at her place, you can read her first thoughts on the challenges ahead directly.
It's a new day.
Moving Forward on Copyright: The Creators' Voice
MY PESSIMISM was at a high ebb yesterday, egged on no doubt by the nasty intenstinal flu I've been battling for the last three days. But today I was reminded that though the tea leaves don't look great for the Government's upcoming views on copyright, no one has yet seen the actual legislation.
Through the consultations last year, one of the things that I found most disturbing is how little actual truck anyone seemed to be giving to the needs and wishes of those who create copyrightable works. It's one thing to argue about the loss to academia & the public with restricted fair dealing; but it seemed to me that too many of those who argued for consumer-focused and friendlier copyright laws seemed to little consider or integrate thought of creators' rights; what they should expect from a future law. I was quite supportive of flexibility for consumers; it's just that the love from the other side seemed... shall we say, wan at best.
Academics and the public have a case for expanded rights. So do consumers, in terms of demanding flexibility for lawful uses and the right to be able to consume media as they wish. But at the same time, the ones with the most to immediately lose are creatives themselves. And what seemed to be on offer for us is a whole lot of unproven faierie dust about "alternative revenue" and "becoming more entrepeneurial" -- stuff that sounds great and romantic to a 21 year old with a guitar, but is probably less helpful for a screenwriter who needs $15 million in loan guarantees upfront to get a film made.
So there were other signals to be heard yesterday, too, apparently, from a government that insists it's not going to turn its back on content creators. So we'll see. In the meantime, the Creators Copyright Coalition, an umbrella group consisting of many different creators' groups, including songwriters, Screenwriters, Directors, book authors & performers, released their position on a forward-looking copyright law:
You can read more by clicking here to download the release, or just read more after the jump.
Through the consultations last year, one of the things that I found most disturbing is how little actual truck anyone seemed to be giving to the needs and wishes of those who create copyrightable works. It's one thing to argue about the loss to academia & the public with restricted fair dealing; but it seemed to me that too many of those who argued for consumer-focused and friendlier copyright laws seemed to little consider or integrate thought of creators' rights; what they should expect from a future law. I was quite supportive of flexibility for consumers; it's just that the love from the other side seemed... shall we say, wan at best.
Academics and the public have a case for expanded rights. So do consumers, in terms of demanding flexibility for lawful uses and the right to be able to consume media as they wish. But at the same time, the ones with the most to immediately lose are creatives themselves. And what seemed to be on offer for us is a whole lot of unproven faierie dust about "alternative revenue" and "becoming more entrepeneurial" -- stuff that sounds great and romantic to a 21 year old with a guitar, but is probably less helpful for a screenwriter who needs $15 million in loan guarantees upfront to get a film made.
So there were other signals to be heard yesterday, too, apparently, from a government that insists it's not going to turn its back on content creators. So we'll see. In the meantime, the Creators Copyright Coalition, an umbrella group consisting of many different creators' groups, including songwriters, Screenwriters, Directors, book authors & performers, released their position on a forward-looking copyright law:
The Creators Copyright Coalition (CCC) is an alliance of 15 professional associations of individual creators and performers and copyright collective societies active in the theatre, the visual arts, the applied arts, literature, music, recording and audiovisual (radio, television, film and commercials). Together these 15 associations and collectives represent more than 100,000 creators (authors and performers) who are copyright owners.
CREATORS PUSH FOR COPYRIGHT REFORM
Toronto – Canadian creators are urging the government to adopt copyright laws that support arts and culture in Canada.
“There are key steps the government could take today to reform Canadian copyright laws that would balance the interests of both Canadian creators and consumers,” said Bill Freeman, Chair of the Creators Copyright Coalition (CCC).
On behalf of Canadian creators from across the country, the CCC is looking for the new copyright bill to:
- Ratify the WIPO Internet Treaties
- Update the private copying regime
- Designate writers and directors as joint authors of AV works
- Facilitate consumer access to content while ensuring creators are fairly compensated
- No expansion of fair dealing
- Institute strong penalties against content piracy
“Our coalition brings together organizations with diverse interests. We all agree that these points must be reflected in the new copyright bill if the government is serious about taking a balanced approach that respects content creators,” said Freeman. “We also look forward to bringing our perspective to the upcoming digital economy consultations. For example, we’ll urge the government to consider the potential for collective licensing to facilitate consumer access to our works while ensuring Canadian creators are compensated.”
Media Inquiries: Bill Freeman, CCC Chair, 416 203-2956, billfreeman@rogers.com
You can read more by clicking here to download the release, or just read more after the jump.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Consultation, Schmonsultation
THIS IS JUST relentlessly depressing on every single level. I am filled with disgust.
From Michael Geist:
And my answer, this time is, not a Goddamn thing. You're Canadian. You're just going to sit back and eat it. And they know it.
The fuck with the funny coloured money & the own the podium shit. We really want to save money, let's just make it official: outsource governance to Washington.
We'd still get screwed on copyright, but hey, they have a health care bill now at least.
From Michael Geist:
PMO Issues The Order: Canadian DMCA Bill Within Six Weeks
The bill is not expected until June, but it will have dramatic repercussions once introduced. First, the bill represents a stunning reversal from the government's seeming shift away from C-61 and its commitment to a bill based on the national copyright consultation. Instead, the consultation appears to have been little more than theatre, with the PMO and Moore choosing to dismiss public opinion. Second, after adopting distinctly pro-consumer positions on other issues, Moore has abandoned that approach with support for what may become the most anti-consumer copyright bill in Canadian history.This is the part where people usually write in and say, 'wow, what can we do about this!'
And my answer, this time is, not a Goddamn thing. You're Canadian. You're just going to sit back and eat it. And they know it.
The fuck with the funny coloured money & the own the podium shit. We really want to save money, let's just make it official: outsource governance to Washington.
We'd still get screwed on copyright, but hey, they have a health care bill now at least.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Justified Craft, Breaking Away, & Car Living
MEANWHILE, BACK IN the subject of TeeVee...
The Globe has a nice profile today by Stephen Cole of Elmore Leonard where he rhapsodizes about how thrilled he is with what Graham Yost has done with the character of Raylan Givens in Justified.
Part of what I love about Justified is that it manages to create its world so effortlessly & instantly, but then goes around and breaks all the rules of what you're supposed to do to establish a TV series. They go to L.A. in the 3rd episode. L.A.! I mean, who does that? Changes locale in ep 3?
They also did a nice slow burn building up the Daddy character as a formidable foe, then introduced him as a character who seemed weak and past his prime (though still capable of some real kicks.)
I am completely addicted to this show, which makes up for...
Breaking Bad. I know, I know, I read the tweets & the interviews saying that the show is bananas now, but, as suspected, losing all sympathy for Walt just sort of drained my desire to watch the series. Something's gotta go. While I like my antiheroes, I guess I just don't like things quite so nihilistic. Hey, if I want nihilism, I look in the mirror.
I will also say with some relief that I screened the first episode of HBO Canada's's new show from George F. Walker, "Living in Your Car," (which Canadians can watch online here) and enjoyed it -- with a couple of lingering questions. I was not a big fan of either This is Wonderland or (especially) The Line, so I'm delighted to say that the pilot for LIYC is brisk & snappy. It's actually a pretty textbook example of how to introduce a lot of backstory in a smart & funny, breezy way.
The lead, John Ralston, is enjoyable and charismatic. I don't know what kind of pop new Walker collaborator Joseph Kay (who created the show with Walker & Dani Romain) brought to the table, but the feel of this show is much more current than the last couple. I just am not sure, like Breaking Bad, if it's going to be a series with the kind of legs to keep me hooked. As played in the pilot, the Ralston character is charismatic but not a bit sympathetic. I'm going to need a reason to care about him in subsequent episodes. Still, it's another strong case in the argument that Canada's premium pay services are following their American counterparts by churning out the most consistently engaging and interesting homegrown shows.
I just hope we're not treated to a scene of a woman in a slip in a motel having a long argument with somebody anytime soon.
The Globe has a nice profile today by Stephen Cole of Elmore Leonard where he rhapsodizes about how thrilled he is with what Graham Yost has done with the character of Raylan Givens in Justified.The trick to storytelling, Leonard believes, “is leaving out the parts readers skip.” That’s something Justified, which airs in Canada on Super ChannelMonday nights, manages with economy and wit, he says. The story of U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens, a Stetson-wearing lawman who returns to Harlan County to deal with a messy past, manages to pass Leonard’s creative checklist.
“Last night’s show was terrific,” the writer says. “Action all the way, good story, suspense .... The funny stuff was funny.”
“I got a whole bunch of his paperbacks and handed them out to writers,” Toronto-born Yost says. “We wanted everyone to get the rhythm and feel of Elmore Leonard.”
Yost literally handcuffed writers to Leonard by having inspirational bracelets made up that read WWED – “What would Elmore do?”
“I gave ’em to my kids and grandkids,” Leonard laughs, adding that whatever Yost did, his actors captured Leonard’s sound.
Part of what I love about Justified is that it manages to create its world so effortlessly & instantly, but then goes around and breaks all the rules of what you're supposed to do to establish a TV series. They go to L.A. in the 3rd episode. L.A.! I mean, who does that? Changes locale in ep 3?
They also did a nice slow burn building up the Daddy character as a formidable foe, then introduced him as a character who seemed weak and past his prime (though still capable of some real kicks.)
I am completely addicted to this show, which makes up for...
Breaking Bad. I know, I know, I read the tweets & the interviews saying that the show is bananas now, but, as suspected, losing all sympathy for Walt just sort of drained my desire to watch the series. Something's gotta go. While I like my antiheroes, I guess I just don't like things quite so nihilistic. Hey, if I want nihilism, I look in the mirror.
I will also say with some relief that I screened the first episode of HBO Canada's's new show from George F. Walker, "Living in Your Car," (which Canadians can watch online here) and enjoyed it -- with a couple of lingering questions. I was not a big fan of either This is Wonderland or (especially) The Line, so I'm delighted to say that the pilot for LIYC is brisk & snappy. It's actually a pretty textbook example of how to introduce a lot of backstory in a smart & funny, breezy way. The lead, John Ralston, is enjoyable and charismatic. I don't know what kind of pop new Walker collaborator Joseph Kay (who created the show with Walker & Dani Romain) brought to the table, but the feel of this show is much more current than the last couple. I just am not sure, like Breaking Bad, if it's going to be a series with the kind of legs to keep me hooked. As played in the pilot, the Ralston character is charismatic but not a bit sympathetic. I'm going to need a reason to care about him in subsequent episodes. Still, it's another strong case in the argument that Canada's premium pay services are following their American counterparts by churning out the most consistently engaging and interesting homegrown shows.
I just hope we're not treated to a scene of a woman in a slip in a motel having a long argument with somebody anytime soon.
Bye the Bye...
WHILE THIS SHOULD probably go without saying, as the hits to the blog go bananas & as news orgs circle ... ahem ... "no comment," I should stress that despite Jane Taber's assertion that I'm a "big shot" at the WGC, that's really not true. What I write here is my own opinion, and does not necessarily reflect that of the Writers Guild of Canada.
I feel like I should throw up the FBI/Interpol warning now. For the record, if I ever do do a DVD commentary, I'm totally going to say the word, "fuck." Judge me as thou wilt.
I feel like I should throw up the FBI/Interpol warning now. For the record, if I ever do do a DVD commentary, I'm totally going to say the word, "fuck." Judge me as thou wilt.
Oh, Dear, It's the Mop & Pail...& They'd Like To Borrow A Cup of Crazy
FURTHER TO OUR silly little contretemps yesterday, I notice-- "Quelle horreur!" -- that Canada's National Newspaper has gone squirrel with my little story. (As opposed to "going viral" where an internet meme takes off, "going squirrel"is when the MSM can't help themselves from picking up something from a blog, but still manages to intimate that people the internet are nuts.)
Exhibit A -- Jane Taber's Ottawa Notebook:
To correct the gentle writer for the august organ of record, I am a big deal only in relative circumference.
The thing is, I am more than willing to give the Honourable Member from Port Moody, Coquitlam & the other place I can't remember the benefit of the doubt -- poorly chosen words by a superfan in a medium that's (supposed to be) informal -- but the divisive, secretive and closed thinking this government shows dealing with anyone who disagrees with them, and the Minister's own propensity for being highly dismissive and rejecting input from anyone who isn't in "his" camp colours it a bit differently.
And the "lighten up" response -- that riposte that followed a thousand dirty jokes & ass grabs in the office 20 years ago -- isn't stellar. What would have been the harm in, "I misspoke, and it was dumb. I thought like a hockey fan not a government minister. Like all Canadians, I just hope for some good hockey and a final between two Canadian teams -- and then, may the best team win. P.S. I think that's the Canucks.")
There. P.R. problem solved.
The post I wrote was really using the Hockey thing as a jumping off point to discuss and illustrate the minister -- and the government's -- prevailing attitude, which is -- "we know better, and if reality or data disagrees, we will choose ideology."
Sometimes teachable moments come wrapped in padding & face masks.
Ah well, back to the word mines.
I expect acorn showers from the Small Dead Animals nuthatch in 5, 4, 3...
-Posted from iPad, nerds!
UPDATE 05/03:
This is cross-posted from below, where a commenter, "Red Snapper" points out another excellent take on the subtext of this article:
You know, part of the rumbles over the Gordon Brown gaffe last week (separate & apart from the debate over whether the woman he spoke to was actually a bigot or not) comes from the fact that deep down, this is what a lot of us fear about politicians -- especially in a Parliamentary system where they're supposed to be more loyal to the party than their constituents -- when the doors are closed, they barely pay lip service to other people's opinions. We're not naive. We saw the result of George W. Bush's government shutting out any and all advisors that didn't conform to their worldview: it transformed government into a purely political apparatus, with disastrous effects for the United States, and the world. (In contrast, if you'll remember, to the Clinton years, when Republicans had to worry and harrumph over stained dresses because any of their good ideas were actually, you know, embraced by Clinton)
Blocking contrary voices on Twitter just proves that the guy is really, really interested in saying how great he is going around handing out money -- serving his portfolio? Not so much.
Exhibit A -- Jane Taber's Ottawa Notebook:
First, favouring one homegrown squad or the other when there are only two Canadian teams left in the playoffs is bad enough when you are the Canadian Heritage Minister. But going so far as to favour the Western team (he represents a suburban Vancouver riding) over the team from Quebec when the party that you represent as Minister of Official Languages is depending on the province for its majority government is deranged.
In a blog post called Tweets Have Consequences, Denis McGrath, a TV writer and a big deal in the Writers Guild of Canada, wrote: “I wouldn’t have minded the evocation of the 2nd iteration of the Alberta wingers who took over the Conservative party a while back, but Moore is a politician – and words, whether they’re calling a constituent a ‘bigot’ or choosing a team in a match – have impact.”
Arguing that sport is a “special metaphor for everything”, Mr. McGrath writes that by stating that the Canucks are Canada’s team, Mr. Moore is doing what the Harper Conservatives do best – splitting Canadians apart into “an us or them.”
“Us doesn’t include the CBC, artistic elites, union people, city dwellers – and Quebec. In a fractious, minority parliament situation, divide & conquer, shore up your base & cherry pick some ridings here and there might be the only way toward stability. But it’s killing the country. Killing it.”
Mr. McGrath comments, too, on Mr. Moore’s poor timing in declaring the Canucks “Team Canada” on the heels of the men’s hockey Olympic gold medal victory that united the country. He says it goes beyond “tone deafness, into a very much darker corner of the current political climate.”
Oh, and he was just warming up…
Building to his conclusion, Mr. McGrath tells Mr. Moore not to lecture the electorate as to who is more Canadian, based on who they are rooting for in the playoffs.
So James Moore, what were you thinking? “Was trying to have fun. Relax, lighten up. Geez,” Mr. Moore told his critic.
To correct the gentle writer for the august organ of record, I am a big deal only in relative circumference.
The thing is, I am more than willing to give the Honourable Member from Port Moody, Coquitlam & the other place I can't remember the benefit of the doubt -- poorly chosen words by a superfan in a medium that's (supposed to be) informal -- but the divisive, secretive and closed thinking this government shows dealing with anyone who disagrees with them, and the Minister's own propensity for being highly dismissive and rejecting input from anyone who isn't in "his" camp colours it a bit differently.
And the "lighten up" response -- that riposte that followed a thousand dirty jokes & ass grabs in the office 20 years ago -- isn't stellar. What would have been the harm in, "I misspoke, and it was dumb. I thought like a hockey fan not a government minister. Like all Canadians, I just hope for some good hockey and a final between two Canadian teams -- and then, may the best team win. P.S. I think that's the Canucks.")
There. P.R. problem solved.
The post I wrote was really using the Hockey thing as a jumping off point to discuss and illustrate the minister -- and the government's -- prevailing attitude, which is -- "we know better, and if reality or data disagrees, we will choose ideology."
Sometimes teachable moments come wrapped in padding & face masks.
Ah well, back to the word mines.
I expect acorn showers from the Small Dead Animals nuthatch in 5, 4, 3...
-Posted from iPad, nerds!
UPDATE 05/03:
This is cross-posted from below, where a commenter, "Red Snapper" points out another excellent take on the subtext of this article:
I also question his increasing use of the "block" function. He's actively shunning cultural organizations he's supposed to be standing up for as well as taxpayers who are so outrageous as to now [sic, he means 'not'] fawn over him 24/7.That's a great point. The Minister got Pissed off at ACTRA a few weeks ago and blocked them, so that he doesn't have to read their responses, and they can't "follow" him. This is a regular thing now with the Minister. If you're not in step with his worldview, he does the digerati equivalent of putting hands over ears and petulantly shouting, "naah naah nahh can't hear you!"
You know, part of the rumbles over the Gordon Brown gaffe last week (separate & apart from the debate over whether the woman he spoke to was actually a bigot or not) comes from the fact that deep down, this is what a lot of us fear about politicians -- especially in a Parliamentary system where they're supposed to be more loyal to the party than their constituents -- when the doors are closed, they barely pay lip service to other people's opinions. We're not naive. We saw the result of George W. Bush's government shutting out any and all advisors that didn't conform to their worldview: it transformed government into a purely political apparatus, with disastrous effects for the United States, and the world. (In contrast, if you'll remember, to the Clinton years, when Republicans had to worry and harrumph over stained dresses because any of their good ideas were actually, you know, embraced by Clinton)
Blocking contrary voices on Twitter just proves that the guy is really, really interested in saying how great he is going around handing out money -- serving his portfolio? Not so much.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Oh New York...
THEY'RE INTERVIEWING a T-Shirt vendor on CNN who I've seen in Times Square a hundred times.
When the shoes start to drop on this, it's going to get ugly very quick.
How awesome are the police & citizenry of Manhattan? Rockstars.
When the shoes start to drop on this, it's going to get ugly very quick.
How awesome are the police & citizenry of Manhattan? Rockstars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)