That said, however, Ellison typifies the very worst “writer as arrogant boor” of the genre. He’s petulant, deeply self-involved, arrogant, a flagrant misogynist and a bully.

He’s also a master of his craft. Since his very young years and his brilliant first novels there’s never been a question that he’s one of the best. At writing.

As a human being, however, he leaves much to be desired. He’s an egomaniac who talks down to and about fans, is grossly inappropriate in his behavior toward women, and sees himself as the be-all and end-all of the craft. Not so. There are many others writers in the genre whose work is on a par with and in fact may eclipse his.

His willingness to take on the powers that be may well help other writers in the end, but don’t be too quick to applaud him. With Ellison you can be certain that altruism was low on his list of priorities when he began his crusade – and in fact the impact on his fellow writers almost certainly was not a motivator. This isn’t about fairness across the board, nor about breaking new ground in writer’s rights. Like Ellison himself said – “it’s about the money.” Take the man at his word.

->So what else may be done?

1) Some have alleged that there exists a class of writers who hold contracts similar to H.E.’s contract herein discussed.

2) Further, it has been posited that a verdict in favor of H.E. would set legal precedent(s) that would increase the probable value of the entire class of contracts.

If the above 2 points are true, then it would seem reasonable for the entire group of similarly contracted authors (or any subset of them) to form a class and launch a class action suit against their contractual counterpart(y/ies).

Such a class action suit might benefit the group and be more attractive to potentially allied law firms because the broader variety of claimants and plaintiff-evidences might mitigate the risk of an unprofitable ruling. The value proposition of revenue-sharing from such a class might even entice law firms to bid for the opportunity to represent the class.

The primary drawback might be that studios would have an enhanced incentive to collude in an attempt to defeat the class and thereby fix writing prices in a monopsonistic manner. Despite that incentive such an attempt by studios might appear anti-competitive (ergo illegal), hence somewhat unlikely to be overtly manifested.

->What might the results be?

If such a class action were to meet with success in court or the court of public opinion: Circumstances appear to suggest that the net effect would be a more efficient Coasian outcome that would prevent externalization of plaugarism costs by studios.

->Who would ultimately pay?

Given that demand for movies (i.e. luxury goods) is relatively elastic, one would expect the studios (and not the moviegoing public) to bear most of the cost(s) in the form of reduced profit margins.

Perhaps you should read comments Ellison has made about Star trek fans. I seriously doubt he cares what we think of him.

As far as I know ,the WGA has not made any statement concerning Ellison’s lawsuit.

Anthony, I have enjoyed taking part in this thread, but maybe it’s time to shut it down. I don’t think there is anything positive left to be gained on this topic. Just my opinion. Thanks.

John Capes

Kramer, the accused, has been under house arrest since 2000, and the case is finally going to trial this May. So, an accused man has been under arrest for NINE YEARS without a trial–and you think that’s okay?

You think it’s wrong for Ellison, a friend of Kramer’s for 30 years, to defend the man? I don’t get it…

This idea that an accusation is enough to condemn a person goes against everything the American legal system is built upon. The same goes for your dismissal of Blake’s acquittal; that’s the way the system works. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

I fail to see how it’s wrong for someone to defend a person they believe is innocent. I guess you don’t like the fact that Americans are guaranteed a jury trial, legal defense, and the right to face their accusers–after all, defending an accused person is wrong, isn’t it?

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/the_wizard_of_dragon_con_stands_trial/Content?oid=7799

Yeah, and Robert Blake was “acquitted”. Just like Michael Jackson and OJ (the first time). That doesn’t make anyone defending them less wrong.