Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper
From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,net.movies
Subject: Ellison and TERMINATOR
Message-ID: <826@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 14:13:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.826
Posted: Wed Jun 12 14:13:17 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 02:13:03 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 58
Xref: watmath net.sf-lovers:7956 net.movies:6623

A few people have mentioned the legal bruhaha about the film THE
TERMINATOR and the payment that Ellison received on copyright
infringment grounds for similarities to the two Outer Limits episodes
that Ellison wrote.  I haven't seen much in the way of opinion about
the situation.  I want to express an opinion.  I think it stinks.

Science fiction is a literature that prides itself on freedom of ideas.
For a long time science fiction in the magazines was really a dialog of
ideas.  One author would disagree with another by writing a story along
similar lines, but would vary the idea showing how he thought things
would work out differently.  Writers built on the ideas of previous
authors.  They came to assume, in fact, that the reader was familiar
with earlier works on the same subject.  Wells had to explain the
concept of time travel in TIME MACHINE, Ellison didn't in Soldier From
the Future.  Stories borrowed ideas from other stories all the time and
nobody paid much attention because that is the way the science fiction 
game is played.  And one reason it could be played that way is that
large sums of money were not involved.  Then TV and cinema got into the
science fiction act and still there did not seem to be much of a
problem since science fiction was still not a big moneymaker.

Then Ellison and Bova wrote a story called "Brillo" about how a human
is better than a robot to act as a policeman.  In some ways it reused
ideas from Asimov and others, but nobody cared because it was a
different approach to some of Asimov's ideas.  A TV network considered
adapting "Brillo" into a series or a TV movie or something but the
project never got off the ground.  That same netword did do a series on
the concept that a robot policeman would have to overcome initial
prejudice, but would be a good thing.  It is highly profitable to win a
suit against a network and Ellison and Bova sued.  They apparently 
demonstrated that "Brillo" inspired the concept of FUTURE COP and laid
claim to ownership of the idea of a robot policeman.  They must have
had a darn good lawyer but they won that one.  Science fiction fans
everywhere applauded that a couple science fiction writers had won a
suit against a big, bad corporation.

After Fox made ALIEN, Van Vogt threatened to sue over similarities to
his "Discord in Scarlet."  Apparently egg-laying aliens is another
owned idea.

Now I admit when I saw TERMINATOR I did think of "Soldier from the
Future."  I thought a whole lot more about CYBORG 2087, a film in which
a cyborg is sent back into our present to avert a totalitarian future.
I can't tell you what concept Ellison must have claimed was stolen from
him.  "Soldier" was about a soldier, not a civilian or a robot.  Is it
the idea of time travellers coming from the future into the present to
avert a bad future?  Surely that is too broad for Ellison to claim all
of it.

My impression is that Ellison is just a parasite who claims to be
disgusted at how the film industry does not meet his high science
fiction standards, yet when they try to play by the same rules that we
expect from science fiction writers, he is right in there with his
lawyer trying to make a fast buck.  Anyone else out there have thoughts
on this.

				Mark Leeper
				...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper