Interesting quote by JMS

I was reading through the rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated newsgroup, I came across a discussion about the practice of downloading and distributing of science-fiction episodes. While this action is prevalent with some science-fiction shows such as Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis, the produces of the new Battlestar Galactica series on the SciFi Channel have stated that if the downloading of episodes becomes prevalent, they will cancel the show.

Babylon 5 creator Joseph Michael Straczynski has made a post on the thread that I think is worth mentioning. I am an advocate of copyright (when it is used properly) and share many of his views. Here's what he had to say:

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

But okay, I'll bite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In television, the figures are also not great, despite what the public perception may be. Roughly half of the Writers Guild is unemployed at any given time. The average WGA member earns less per year than the average grade school teacher, and if they're lucky they get maybe 2 assignments per year. The top writers who earn consistently six figures constitute only 2% of the entire membership of the Guild. The rest struggle to get by, and to contniue to create the stories they tell. To that end, every dime is essential, as it is to most people.

Perhaps the most crucial aspect of their work is residuals. Residuals aren't a bonus, they aren't a gift, they're *deferred compensation* no different than the royalties an author gets from his books (as noted above). If you were to take away those residuals, well over the majority of working freelance writers (and actors and directors) would be financially unable to continue to work full time at their profession, and would have to get other jobs or leave the business entirely.

Every time an episode of television airs, those responsible for it get a small residual. And I do mean small. But it adds up in time. I'm not talking about the major studios, or networks, or the advertisers...I'm talking about the guy who sold 3 scripts that year, made maybe $30,000 for the entire year *before* taxes, and knows that the two or three grand in extra income from residuals of his prior work will mean he can have a decent Christmas this year.

This individual -- and the actors, directors, others -- get nothing from internet downloads. And the more prevalent this becomes, the more fragile becomes the life of artists, and there may come a point -- and I am not exaggerating here -- where a lot of people can no longer afford to keep working at their preferred profession because this makes the economics no longer feasible.

"Well, they should keep at it anyway," some might say, "if they have to suffer a little, that's their choice."

Is their suffering preferable to somebody having to actually buy a DVD? Is their suffering or financial deterioration acceptable because the result -- putting their art on the net -- makes it more *convenient* for others?

There's this overwhelming sense of entitlement you see these days, where if you
WANT something then by god you're entitled to HAVE it, damn the consequences for somebody else, and this is just one aspect of it.

This recently went to court with Harlan Ellison's case against AOL -- which was finally settled out by AOL and new law further created to magnify this position -- that those who upload short stories and novels onto the nets without permission are commiting a crime. And if the role of the TV writer is especially parlous, the fiscal position of prose writers is even MORE fragile.

So it seems to me an odd statement to say, "Boy, I really love this show, the writing, the acting, the directing, so much that I'm going to steal from the people who made it and hurt their income and possibly destroy their ability to tell more such stories in future, THAT'S how much of a fan I am."

Yes, the prevalence of downloads does cut into reruns, and ratings, which in today's highly fractionalized TV marketplace could spell the difference between renewal or cancellation, because the advertisers look at the bottom line numbers, and if they drop past a certain point, yes, the show goes away. And yes, internet uploads of episodes will cut into that fragile calculation. And yes, you may end up killing the very show you say you enjoy.

But even before you get to those computations, the act itself is simply wrong, for all the reasons stated above.

The problem is that people don't like to be corrected, don't like to be told that they're doing something wrong. They are defensive, and arrogant, and pushy, and they feel that the world should give them anything they want because they want it, period, and if anybody else has a problem with that, it's THEIR problem.

The technical term for these people is deadbeats. The kind of guys who come to stay at your house for a weekend, end up staying for a month, eating your food without paying for it, using your car without sharing gas costs, and get pissed off when you ask that they share the burden.

Me, I don't associate with guys like that.

Your mileage may vary.

(Source: Straczynski, J. Michael. "Re: ATTN JMS: File Sharing, Sci-Fi TV and the art of motorcycle." 8 December 2004. <news:rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated>.)