Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm

"1 May 2021"

"The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the public."

Lynn

On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>    https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>
> "1 May 2021"
>
> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the public."
>
It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
Waiting for a new signature to suggest itself...

On 5/9/2021 7:24 PM, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>>     https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>
>> "1 May 2021"
>>
>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the
>> public."
>>
> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
> ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
>
>     Cheers,
>         Gary    B-)

I hope that they bought out his royalty as it sounds like ADF and his
wife need the money.

Lynn

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
> > https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
> >
> > "1 May 2021"
> >
> > "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
> > Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the public."
> >
> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
> ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
>
I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the sfwa (and other writers groups) for people who've been affected to contact them to pursue their claims after the start of may

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 12:02:05 PM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/9/2021 7:24 PM, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> > On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
> >> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
> >>
> >> "1 May 2021"
> >>
> >> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
> >> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the
> >> public."
> >>
> > It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
> > ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
> >
> I hope that they bought out his royalty as it sounds like ADF and his
> wife need the money.
>
I kind of feel that should be ADFs choice

On 5/9/2021 8:49 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>>
>>> "1 May 2021"
>>>
>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
>>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the public."
>>>
>> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
>> ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
>>
> I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the sfwa (and other writers groups) for people who've been affected to contact them to pursue their claims after the start of may
>
Ya, I don't see The House of Mouse rolling over that easily.

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

On 2021-05-10, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 5/9/2021 8:49 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>>>
>>>> "1 May 2021"
>>>>
>>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
>>>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the public."
>>>>
>>> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
>>> ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
>>>
>> I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the sfwa (and other writers groups) for people who've been affected to contact them to pursue their claims after the start of may
>>
> Ya, I don't see The House of Mouse rolling over that easily.

If Disney's assertion that they can purchase a company's assets without
corresponding contractual liabilities is correct, it destroys the
entire economy. It would be SFnal, even.

Obvious case: you start a landscaping company, as an LLC, that takes
out a loan to buy a truck and a mower. The next month, you sell the
assets of the landscaping company to your neighbor's LLC in exchange
for services previously rendered, keeping the liabilities, and dissolve
your LLC as bankrupt.

Next month, the neighbor's LLC sells the truck and mower for fair market value,
hires you as an employee, gives you a starting bonus equal to half the
proceeds from the truck and mower, and accepts your resignation. Everyone
makes sure to pay their taxes.

A short time later no bank is willing to loan money to any corporate entity
at all.

-dsr-

In article <slrns9id0r.du2.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
-dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>On 2021-05-10, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 5/9/2021 8:49 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>>>> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>>>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> "1 May 2021"
>>>>>
>>>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
>>>>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the public."
>>>>>
>>>> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
>>>> ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
>>>>
>>> I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the sfwa (and
>other writers groups) for people who've been affected to contact them to
>pursue their claims after the start of may
>>>
>> Ya, I don't see The House of Mouse rolling over that easily.
>
>If Disney's assertion that they can purchase a company's assets without
>corresponding contractual liabilities is correct, it destroys the
>entire economy. It would be SFnal, even.
>
>Obvious case: you start a landscaping company, as an LLC, that takes
>out a loan to buy a truck and a mower. The next month, you sell the
>assets of the landscaping company to your neighbor's LLC in exchange
>for services previously rendered, keeping the liabilities, and dissolve
>your LLC as bankrupt.
>
>Next month, the neighbor's LLC sells the truck and mower for fair market value,
>hires you as an employee, gives you a starting bonus equal to half the
>proceeds from the truck and mower, and accepts your resignation. Everyone
>makes sure to pay their taxes.
>
>A short time later no bank is willing to loan money to any corporate entity
>at all.
>
>-dsr-

I'm pretty sure I've seen something like that played out in real
life. When "The Market Commons" open air shopping complex in Myrtle
Beach went bankrupt, the assets were quickly sold at fire-sale
prices because "we have to get *something* to the creditors!", but
it seemed like the buyers were mostly the old owners under new
corporate vehicles who got the assets at a big discount without the
liabilities. It's hard to say for certain because a) the whole MB
scene seems to be pretty opaque & incestuous, and the local paper
is part of it all & b) I wasn't really that interested in the whole
thing other than to shake my head in wonder.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 10 May 2021 14:01:25 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <slrns9id0r.du2.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>-dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>On 2021-05-10, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2021 8:49 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>>>>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "1 May 2021"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
>>>>>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the public."
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
>>>>> ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the sfwa (and
>>other writers groups) for people who've been affected to contact them to
>>pursue their claims after the start of may
>>>>
>>> Ya, I don't see The House of Mouse rolling over that easily.
>>
>>If Disney's assertion that they can purchase a company's assets without
>>corresponding contractual liabilities is correct, it destroys the
>>entire economy. It would be SFnal, even.
>>
>>Obvious case: you start a landscaping company, as an LLC, that takes
>>out a loan to buy a truck and a mower. The next month, you sell the
>>assets of the landscaping company to your neighbor's LLC in exchange
>>for services previously rendered, keeping the liabilities, and dissolve
>>your LLC as bankrupt.
>>
>>Next month, the neighbor's LLC sells the truck and mower for fair market value,
>>hires you as an employee, gives you a starting bonus equal to half the
>>proceeds from the truck and mower, and accepts your resignation. Everyone
>>makes sure to pay their taxes.
>>
>>A short time later no bank is willing to loan money to any corporate entity
>>at all.
>>
>>-dsr-
>
>I'm pretty sure I've seen something like that played out in real
>life. When "The Market Commons" open air shopping complex in Myrtle
>Beach went bankrupt, the assets were quickly sold at fire-sale
>prices because "we have to get *something* to the creditors!", but
>it seemed like the buyers were mostly the old owners under new
>corporate vehicles who got the assets at a big discount without the
>liabilities. It's hard to say for certain because a) the whole MB
>scene seems to be pretty opaque & incestuous, and the local paper
>is part of it all & b) I wasn't really that interested in the whole
>thing other than to shake my head in wonder.

I went through it when the assets of Pioneer Aerospace were sold to
Zodiac Aerazur.

In DSR's scenario, the thing that he's missing is that the debt goes
with the property, not with the company. Try to sell the truck and
you'll find that until you pay the loan you can't transfer the title,
so the neighbor's LLC doesn't own the truck until somebody pays for
it. You can declare bankruptcy and try to get out from under the loan
but if you do that and the truck has any significant value the trustee
of the bankruptcy court is going to sell it for whatever the market
will bear and put the proceeds toward the debt.

Now, some other property could be used as collateral on the loan, then
you own the truck and can sell it but you can't sell that other
property until the debt is paid so you haven't gained anything.

One can argue that one could take out a personal loan--try to do that
for the purchase price of a new truck and see how far you get. Or you
could use company stock as collateral but that's only going to work if
the lender has reason to believe that the stock actually has value
which pretty much requires that it be publicly traded, in which case
using it in a scam is going to get the SEC down on you.

Bankruptcy isn't a magic off-switch for debt--the trustee is going to
take everything that he or she is allowed to take, and they are
allowed to take just about everything you have.

In article <ifssllFs8m3U1@mid.individual.net>,
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:

> In article <slrns9id0r.du2.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
> -dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
> >On 2021-05-10, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/9/2021 8:49 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> >>>> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
> >>>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "1 May 2021"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
> >>>>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the
> >>>>> public."
> >>>>>
> >>>> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
> >>>> ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
> >>>>
> >>> I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the sfwa (and
> >other writers groups) for people who've been affected to contact them to
> >pursue their claims after the start of may
> >>>
> >> Ya, I don't see The House of Mouse rolling over that easily.
> >
> >If Disney's assertion that they can purchase a company's assets without
> >corresponding contractual liabilities is correct, it destroys the
> >entire economy. It would be SFnal, even.
> >
> >Obvious case: you start a landscaping company, as an LLC, that takes
> >out a loan to buy a truck and a mower. The next month, you sell the
> >assets of the landscaping company to your neighbor's LLC in exchange
> >for services previously rendered, keeping the liabilities, and dissolve
> >your LLC as bankrupt.
> >
> >Next month, the neighbor's LLC sells the truck and mower for fair market
> >value,
> >hires you as an employee, gives you a starting bonus equal to half the
> >proceeds from the truck and mower, and accepts your resignation. Everyone
> >makes sure to pay their taxes.
> >
> >A short time later no bank is willing to loan money to any corporate entity
> >at all.
> >
> >-dsr-
>
> I'm pretty sure I've seen something like that played out in real
> life. When "The Market Commons" open air shopping complex in Myrtle
> Beach went bankrupt, the assets were quickly sold at fire-sale
> prices because "we have to get *something* to the creditors!", but
> it seemed like the buyers were mostly the old owners under new
> corporate vehicles who got the assets at a big discount without the
> liabilities. It's hard to say for certain because a) the whole MB
> scene seems to be pretty opaque & incestuous, and the local paper
> is part of it all & b) I wasn't really that interested in the whole
> thing other than to shake my head in wonder.

But that was a bankruptcy case (though the bankruptcy court should not
have allowed what you described to happen). If company A buys part of
company B, the liabilities associated with that part of company B do NOT
go away. Either company A acquired them or company B kept them. Thus, if
royalties were part of the contract, somebody has to pay.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 2021-05-10, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
> In article <ifssllFs8m3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> In article <slrns9id0r.du2.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>> -dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>> >On 2021-05-10, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >> On 5/9/2021 8:49 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> >>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>> >>>> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> >>>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>> >>>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "1 May 2021"
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
>> >>>>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the
>> >>>>> public."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
>> >>>> ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
>> >>>>
>> >>> I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the sfwa (and
>> >other writers groups) for people who've been affected to contact them to
>> >pursue their claims after the start of may
>> >>>
>> >> Ya, I don't see The House of Mouse rolling over that easily.
>> >
>> >If Disney's assertion that they can purchase a company's assets without
>> >corresponding contractual liabilities is correct, it destroys the
>> >entire economy. It would be SFnal, even.
>> >
>> >Obvious case: you start a landscaping company, as an LLC, that takes
>> >out a loan to buy a truck and a mower. The next month, you sell the
>> >assets of the landscaping company to your neighbor's LLC in exchange
>> >for services previously rendered, keeping the liabilities, and dissolve
>> >your LLC as bankrupt.
>> >
>> >Next month, the neighbor's LLC sells the truck and mower for fair market
>> >value,
>> >hires you as an employee, gives you a starting bonus equal to half the
>> >proceeds from the truck and mower, and accepts your resignation. Everyone
>> >makes sure to pay their taxes.
>> >
>> >A short time later no bank is willing to loan money to any corporate entity
>> >at all.
>> >
>> >-dsr-
>>
>> I'm pretty sure I've seen something like that played out in real
>> life. When "The Market Commons" open air shopping complex in Myrtle
>> Beach went bankrupt, the assets were quickly sold at fire-sale
>> prices because "we have to get *something* to the creditors!", but
>> it seemed like the buyers were mostly the old owners under new
>> corporate vehicles who got the assets at a big discount without the
>> liabilities. It's hard to say for certain because a) the whole MB
>> scene seems to be pretty opaque & incestuous, and the local paper
>> is part of it all & b) I wasn't really that interested in the whole
>> thing other than to shake my head in wonder.
>
> But that was a bankruptcy case (though the bankruptcy court should not
> have allowed what you described to happen). If company A buys part of
> company B, the liabilities associated with that part of company B do NOT
> go away. Either company A acquired them or company B kept them. Thus, if
> royalties were part of the contract, somebody has to pay.

In the instant issue, Disney claims it bought the right to publish and
sell books from Company B but not the liability to continue paying royalties
to the authors. That liability rests in Company B, in Disney's theory, which
doesn't have to pay anything out because Company B is obviously not printing
and selling books.

In the collapse of civilization model, Disney buys the Wheel of Time series
from Robert Jordan Enterprises in exchange for a 45% royalty on hardcopy and
a 75% royalty on ebooks and derivative works. They send the publishing rights
to Disney Hyperbolic Press, and the liability to Mayfly#341 Corporation, a
Texas C-Corp created last Tuesday. Mayfly#341 has no assets and promptly folds,
in accordance with the prophecy. Harriet McDougal loses her home. Mayfly#342
is created.

-dsr-

On Mon, 10 May 2021 19:05:22 -0400, -dsr-
<dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:

>On 2021-05-10, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>> In article <ifssllFs8m3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <slrns9id0r.du2.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>>> -dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>> >On 2021-05-10, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> >> On 5/9/2021 8:49 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> >>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>>> >>>> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> >>>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>>> >>>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> "1 May 2021"
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
>>> >>>>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the
>>> >>>>> public."
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
>>> >>>> ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the sfwa (and
>>> >other writers groups) for people who've been affected to contact them to
>>> >pursue their claims after the start of may
>>> >>>
>>> >> Ya, I don't see The House of Mouse rolling over that easily.
>>> >
>>> >If Disney's assertion that they can purchase a company's assets without
>>> >corresponding contractual liabilities is correct, it destroys the
>>> >entire economy. It would be SFnal, even.
>>> >
>>> >Obvious case: you start a landscaping company, as an LLC, that takes
>>> >out a loan to buy a truck and a mower. The next month, you sell the
>>> >assets of the landscaping company to your neighbor's LLC in exchange
>>> >for services previously rendered, keeping the liabilities, and dissolve
>>> >your LLC as bankrupt.
>>> >
>>> >Next month, the neighbor's LLC sells the truck and mower for fair market
>>> >value,
>>> >hires you as an employee, gives you a starting bonus equal to half the
>>> >proceeds from the truck and mower, and accepts your resignation. Everyone
>>> >makes sure to pay their taxes.
>>> >
>>> >A short time later no bank is willing to loan money to any corporate entity
>>> >at all.
>>> >
>>> >-dsr-
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure I've seen something like that played out in real
>>> life. When "The Market Commons" open air shopping complex in Myrtle
>>> Beach went bankrupt, the assets were quickly sold at fire-sale
>>> prices because "we have to get *something* to the creditors!", but
>>> it seemed like the buyers were mostly the old owners under new
>>> corporate vehicles who got the assets at a big discount without the
>>> liabilities. It's hard to say for certain because a) the whole MB
>>> scene seems to be pretty opaque & incestuous, and the local paper
>>> is part of it all & b) I wasn't really that interested in the whole
>>> thing other than to shake my head in wonder.
>>
>> But that was a bankruptcy case (though the bankruptcy court should not
>> have allowed what you described to happen). If company A buys part of
>> company B, the liabilities associated with that part of company B do NOT
>> go away. Either company A acquired them or company B kept them. Thus, if
>> royalties were part of the contract, somebody has to pay.
>
>In the instant issue, Disney claims it bought the right to publish and
>sell books from Company B but not the liability to continue paying royalties
>to the authors. That liability rests in Company B, in Disney's theory, which
>doesn't have to pay anything out because Company B is obviously not printing
>and selling books.
>
>In the collapse of civilization model, Disney buys the Wheel of Time series
>from Robert Jordan Enterprises in exchange for a 45% royalty on hardcopy and
>a 75% royalty on ebooks and derivative works. They send the publishing rights
>to Disney Hyperbolic Press, and the liability to Mayfly#341 Corporation, a
>Texas C-Corp created last Tuesday. Mayfly#341 has no assets and promptly folds,
>in accordance with the prophecy. Harriet McDougal loses her home. Mayfly#342
>is created.

In this case they did not "buy the right to publish and sell", they
bought the copyright. That means that like it or not the work is
their property, not Foster's. Whether the contract under which the
copyright was released can be severed from the copyright, now, that is
a question for the courts and it could go either way.

In the case of Jordan, it is highly unlikely that he would sell the
copyright under those terms. He would likely license it. The license
is a contract and Disney would have to sell the contract as a whole
unless it had clauses which allowed the payments to be severed from
the privilege granted, which would be a bloody stupid thing for any
author to sign.

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>
> "1 May 2021"
>
> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the public."
>
here's a FAQ about the overall Disney situation
https://www.writersmustbepaid.org/faq

On 5/10/2021 6:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2021 19:05:22 -0400, -dsr-
> <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-05-10, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>> In article <ifssllFs8m3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <slrns9id0r.du2.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>>>> -dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-05-10, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/2021 8:49 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>>>>>>>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "1 May 2021"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
>>>>>>>>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the
>>>>>>>>> public."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full payment to
>>>>>>>> ADF, but full payment to others who have been fscked over by the mouse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the sfwa (and
>>>>> other writers groups) for people who've been affected to contact them to
>>>>> pursue their claims after the start of may
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ya, I don't see The House of Mouse rolling over that easily.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Disney's assertion that they can purchase a company's assets without
>>>>> corresponding contractual liabilities is correct, it destroys the
>>>>> entire economy. It would be SFnal, even.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obvious case: you start a landscaping company, as an LLC, that takes
>>>>> out a loan to buy a truck and a mower. The next month, you sell the
>>>>> assets of the landscaping company to your neighbor's LLC in exchange
>>>>> for services previously rendered, keeping the liabilities, and dissolve
>>>>> your LLC as bankrupt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next month, the neighbor's LLC sells the truck and mower for fair market
>>>>> value,
>>>>> hires you as an employee, gives you a starting bonus equal to half the
>>>>> proceeds from the truck and mower, and accepts your resignation. Everyone
>>>>> makes sure to pay their taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> A short time later no bank is willing to loan money to any corporate entity
>>>>> at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> -dsr-
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure I've seen something like that played out in real
>>>> life. When "The Market Commons" open air shopping complex in Myrtle
>>>> Beach went bankrupt, the assets were quickly sold at fire-sale
>>>> prices because "we have to get *something* to the creditors!", but
>>>> it seemed like the buyers were mostly the old owners under new
>>>> corporate vehicles who got the assets at a big discount without the
>>>> liabilities. It's hard to say for certain because a) the whole MB
>>>> scene seems to be pretty opaque & incestuous, and the local paper
>>>> is part of it all & b) I wasn't really that interested in the whole
>>>> thing other than to shake my head in wonder.
>>>
>>> But that was a bankruptcy case (though the bankruptcy court should not
>>> have allowed what you described to happen). If company A buys part of
>>> company B, the liabilities associated with that part of company B do NOT
>>> go away. Either company A acquired them or company B kept them. Thus, if
>>> royalties were part of the contract, somebody has to pay.
>>
>> In the instant issue, Disney claims it bought the right to publish and
>> sell books from Company B but not the liability to continue paying royalties
>> to the authors. That liability rests in Company B, in Disney's theory, which
>> doesn't have to pay anything out because Company B is obviously not printing
>> and selling books.
>>
>> In the collapse of civilization model, Disney buys the Wheel of Time series
>>from Robert Jordan Enterprises in exchange for a 45% royalty on hardcopy and
>> a 75% royalty on ebooks and derivative works. They send the publishing rights
>> to Disney Hyperbolic Press, and the liability to Mayfly#341 Corporation, a
>> Texas C-Corp created last Tuesday. Mayfly#341 has no assets and promptly folds,
>> in accordance with the prophecy. Harriet McDougal loses her home. Mayfly#342
>> is created.
>
> In this case they did not "buy the right to publish and sell", they
> bought the copyright. That means that like it or not the work is
> their property, not Foster's. Whether the contract under which the
> copyright was released can be severed from the copyright, now, that is
> a question for the courts and it could go either way.
>
> In the case of Jordan, it is highly unlikely that he would sell the
> copyright under those terms. He would likely license it. The license
> is a contract and Disney would have to sell the contract as a whole
> unless it had clauses which allowed the payments to be severed from
> the privilege granted, which would be a bloody stupid thing for any
> author to sign.
>

Y'know that Jordan couldn't have done ANY such thing, because he's been
dead almost two decades, right?

I'm guessing that the Harriet McDougal in that story is the controlling
partner of Robert Jordan Enterprises, which is basically his estate.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> writes:
>On 5/10/2021 6:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 May 2021 19:05:22 -0400, -dsr-
..
>>
>> In the case of Jordan, it is highly unlikely that he would sell the
>> copyright under those terms. He would likely license it. The license
>> is a contract and Disney would have to sell the contract as a whole
>> unless it had clauses which allowed the payments to be severed from
>> the privilege granted, which would be a bloody stupid thing for any
>> author to sign.
>>
>
>Y'know that Jordan couldn't have done ANY such thing, because he's been
>dead almost two decades, right?
>
>I'm guessing that the Harriet McDougal in that story is the controlling
>partner of Robert Jordan Enterprises, which is basically his estate.

She is also known as his Widow.

Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes:
>On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>
>> "1 May 2021"
>>
>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the public."
>>
>here's a FAQ about the overall Disney situation
>https://www.writersmustbepaid.org/faq

That website:

Your Browser Is
No Longer Supported

To view this website and enjoy a better online
experience, update your browser for free.

What is it with web page designers? KISS.

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 7:52:07 AM UTC-6, -dsr- wrote:

> If Disney's assertion that they can purchase a company's assets without
> corresponding contractual liabilities is correct, it destroys the
> entire economy.

In that case, the economy has already been destroyed.

*Of course* you can purchase the assets of a company instead of purchasing
the company itself. There are a number of ways of doing it.

For example, the company could have gone bankrupt. Its creditors took over
the company's assets, and are now selling them off to recover as much as they
can of its liabilities.

Also, if as far as you know, the company is in no danger of going bankrupt,
you can purchase some portion of its assets without becoming responsible
for its liabilities, that responsibility staying with the company.

But neither of these things applies to what happened with Disney. None the
less, a company could indeed have sold all of its assets to one buyer - while
remaining responsible, presumably with the money they're paid for those assets -
for its debts. It is indeed possible to explicitly specify whether you're selling
a going concern, or just assets.

What the courts will determine, though, is if this is actually the kind of sale that
took place, or if there was some subterfuge.

John Savard

On 11 May 2021 at 14:22:39 BST, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:

> Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>>
>>> "1 May 2021"
>>>
>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been resolved.
>>> Further news relating to this matter to be released shortly to the public."
>>>
>> here's a FAQ about the overall Disney situation
>> https://www.writersmustbepaid.org/faq
>
> That website:
>
> Your Browser Is
> No Longer Supported
>
> To view this website and enjoy a better online
> experience, update your browser for free.
>
> What is it with web page designers? KISS.

They are KISS by only using supported valid encryption protocols, rather
than ones that leak information and are deprecated.

Upgrade your browser.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
None of this will matter in 20 billion years.

On 11/05/2021 09.37, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On 11 May 2021 at 14:22:39 BST, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:
>
>> Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>>> here's a FAQ about the overall Disney situation
>>> https://www.writersmustbepaid.org/faq
>>
>> That website:
>>
>> Your Browser Is
>> No Longer Supported
>>
>> To view this website and enjoy a better online
>> experience, update your browser for free.
>>
>> What is it with web page designers? KISS.
>
> They are KISS by only using supported valid encryption protocols, rather
> than ones that leak information and are deprecated.
>
> Upgrade your browser.

I don't see why the information on that page needs to be encrypted.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Deuteronomy 10:18-19

On 11 May 2021 at 15:51:57 BST, ""Michael F. Stemper""
<mstemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/05/2021 09.37, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On 11 May 2021 at 14:22:39 BST, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:
>>
>>> Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>>>> here's a FAQ about the overall Disney situation
>>>> https://www.writersmustbepaid.org/faq
>>>
>>> That website:
>>>
>>> Your Browser Is
>>> No Longer Supported
>>>
>>> To view this website and enjoy a better online
>>> experience, update your browser for free.
>>>
>>> What is it with web page designers? KISS.
>>
>> They are KISS by only using supported valid encryption protocols, rather
>> than ones that leak information and are deprecated.
>>
>> Upgrade your browser.
>
> I don't see why the information on that page needs to be encrypted.

Encryption everywhere, we'll have none of that "if you have nothing to
hide" nonsense here.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Is everyone acting like a solipsist in here, or is it just me?

On Tue, 11 May 2021 09:51:57 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<mstemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/05/2021 09.37, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On 11 May 2021 at 14:22:39 BST, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:
>>
>>> Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>>>> here's a FAQ about the overall Disney situation
>>>> https://www.writersmustbepaid.org/faq
>>>
>>> That website:
>>>
>>> Your Browser Is
>>> No Longer Supported
>>>
>>> To view this website and enjoy a better online
>>> experience, update your browser for free.
>>>
>>> What is it with web page designers? KISS.
>>
>> They are KISS by only using supported valid encryption protocols, rather
>> than ones that leak information and are deprecated.
>>
>> Upgrade your browser.
>
>I don't see why the information on that page needs to be encrypted.

I like the warning that my browser occasionally pops up--it amounts to
"danger, somebody might find out that you were looking for movie
showtimes" or the like.

-dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote in
news:slrns9id0r.du2.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org:

> On 2021-05-10, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 5/9/2021 8:49 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R. Schmidt
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>>>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> "1 May 2021"
>>>>>
>>>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has been
>>>>> resolved. Further news relating to this matter to be
>>>>> released shortly to the public."
>>>>>
>>>> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes full
>>>> payment to ADF, but full payment to others who have been
>>>> fscked over by the mouse.
>>>>
>>> I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the sfwa
>>> (and other writers groups) for people who've been affected to
>>> contact them to pursue their claims after the start of may
>>>
>> Ya, I don't see The House of Mouse rolling over that easily.
>
> If Disney's assertion that they can purchase a company's assets
> without corresponding contractual liabilities is correct, it
> destroys the entire economy. It would be SFnal, even.
>
> Obvious case: you start a landscaping company, as an LLC, that
> takes out a loan to buy a truck and a mower. The next month, you
> sell the assets of the landscaping company to your neighbor's
> LLC in exchange for services previously rendered, keeping the
> liabilities, and dissolve your LLC as bankrupt.
>
> Next month, the neighbor's LLC sells the truck and mower for
> fair market value, hires you as an employee, gives you a
> starting bonus equal to half the proceeds from the truck and
> mower, and accepts your resignation. Everyone makes sure to pay
> their taxes.
>
> A short time later no bank is willing to loan money to any
> corporate entity at all.

Not a good analogy, since a loan to buy the truck, in particular,
would be a secure load with a lien on the title. In other words,
you *can't* sell the truck without the bank signing off on the
title. DMV won't accept the transfer.

The situation with publishuing rights is more complicated, which
provide more opportunity for lawyers to play lawyerly games. But
Disney is generally pretty sensitive to bad publicity.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mbhj9g1pimd7ee64rdecvdgde8tbeus1mc@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 10 May 2021 19:05:22 -0400, -dsr-
> <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>
>>On 2021-05-10, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>> In article <ifssllFs8m3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <slrns9id0r.du2.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>>>> -dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>>> >On 2021-05-10, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >> On 5/9/2021 8:49 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>> >>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:29:08 AM UTC+10, Gary R.
>>>> >>> Schmidt wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 10/05/2021 07:22, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Alan Dean Foster - Disney update
>>>> >>>>> https://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> "1 May 2021"
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> "The issue with Disney regarding back royalties has
>>>> >>>>> been resolved. Further news relating to this matter to
>>>> >>>>> be released shortly to the public."
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> It is to be hoped that the resolution not only includes
>>>> >>>> full payment to ADF, but full payment to others who have
>>>> >>>> been fscked over by the mouse.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> I don't believe it has, I think I've seen calls from the
>>>> >>> sfwa (and
>>>> >other writers groups) for people who've been affected to
>>>> >contact them to pursue their claims after the start of may
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> Ya, I don't see The House of Mouse rolling over that
>>>> >> easily.
>>>> >
>>>> >If Disney's assertion that they can purchase a company's
>>>> >assets without corresponding contractual liabilities is
>>>> >correct, it destroys the entire economy. It would be SFnal,
>>>> >even.
>>>> >
>>>> >Obvious case: you start a landscaping company, as an LLC,
>>>> >that takes out a loan to buy a truck and a mower. The next
>>>> >month, you sell the assets of the landscaping company to
>>>> >your neighbor's LLC in exchange for services previously
>>>> >rendered, keeping the liabilities, and dissolve your LLC as
>>>> >bankrupt.
>>>> >
>>>> >Next month, the neighbor's LLC sells the truck and mower for
>>>> >fair market value,
>>>> >hires you as an employee, gives you a starting bonus equal
>>>> >to half the proceeds from the truck and mower, and accepts
>>>> >your resignation. Everyone makes sure to pay their taxes.
>>>> >
>>>> >A short time later no bank is willing to loan money to any
>>>> >corporate entity at all.
>>>> >
>>>> >-dsr-
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure I've seen something like that played out in
>>>> real life. When "The Market Commons" open air shopping
>>>> complex in Myrtle Beach went bankrupt, the assets were
>>>> quickly sold at fire-sale prices because "we have to get
>>>> *something* to the creditors!", but it seemed like the buyers
>>>> were mostly the old owners under new corporate vehicles who
>>>> got the assets at a big discount without the liabilities.
>>>> It's hard to say for certain because a) the whole MB scene
>>>> seems to be pretty opaque & incestuous, and the local paper
>>>> is part of it all & b) I wasn't really that interested in the
>>>> whole thing other than to shake my head in wonder.
>>>
>>> But that was a bankruptcy case (though the bankruptcy court
>>> should not have allowed what you described to happen). If
>>> company A buys part of company B, the liabilities associated
>>> with that part of company B do NOT go away. Either company A
>>> acquired them or company B kept them. Thus, if royalties were
>>> part of the contract, somebody has to pay.
>>
>>In the instant issue, Disney claims it bought the right to
>>publish and sell books from Company B but not the liability to
>>continue paying royalties to the authors. That liability rests
>>in Company B, in Disney's theory, which doesn't have to pay
>>anything out because Company B is obviously not printing and
>>selling books.
>>
>>In the collapse of civilization model, Disney buys the Wheel of
>>Time series from Robert Jordan Enterprises in exchange for a 45%
>>royalty on hardcopy and a 75% royalty on ebooks and derivative
>>works. They send the publishing rights to Disney Hyperbolic
>>Press, and the liability to Mayfly#341 Corporation, a Texas
>>C-Corp created last Tuesday. Mayfly#341 has no assets and
>>promptly folds, in accordance with the prophecy. Harriet
>>McDougal loses her home. Mayfly#342 is created.
>
> In this case they did not "buy the right to publish and sell",
> they bought the copyright. That means that like it or not the
> work is their property, not Foster's. Whether the contract
> under which the copyright was released can be severed from the
> copyright, now, that is a question for the courts and it could
> go either way.

It all depends on hwo the original contract was written.
>
> In the case of Jordan, it is highly unlikely that he would sell
> the copyright under those terms. He would likely license it.
> The license is a contract and Disney would have to sell the
> contract as a whole unless it had clauses which allowed the
> payments to be severed from the privilege granted, which would
> be a bloody stupid thing for any author to sign.
>
And arguably criminal for their agent to let them.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

In article <rc8l9g5vcj9qvcjgu9q1sped5sfcd6rsb9@4ax.com>,
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 May 2021 09:51:57 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
><mstemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/05/2021 09.37, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>> On 11 May 2021 at 14:22:39 BST, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>>>> here's a FAQ about the overall Disney situation
>>>>> https://www.writersmustbepaid.org/faq
>>>>
>>>> That website:
>>>>
>>>> Your Browser Is
>>>> No Longer Supported
>>>>
>>>> To view this website and enjoy a better online
>>>> experience, update your browser for free.
>>>>
>>>> What is it with web page designers? KISS.
>>>
>>> They are KISS by only using supported valid encryption protocols, rather
>>> than ones that leak information and are deprecated.
>>>
>>> Upgrade your browser.
>>
>>I don't see why the information on that page needs to be encrypted.
>
>I like the warning that my browser occasionally pops up--it amounts to
>"danger, somebody might find out that you were looking for movie
>showtimes" or the like.

It's getting to be a pain. Columbiaclosings.com is an unencrypted HTTP
site. I don't have any user passwords, I don't do any e-commerce (except
through a link to Cafepress, which does its own encryption) and all the
content is meant to be globally readable, but despite it not mattering
in any real sense, I get the unsafe lock icon, and browsers are moving
to make accessing the site even more alarming.

At some point pretty soon, I'm going to have to bite the bullet and move
over to HTTPS. I don't look forward to having to patch all the thousands
of internal http self links in the slightest..
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 5/11/2021 7:51 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 11/05/2021 09.37, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On 11 May 2021 at 14:22:39 BST, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:
>>
>>> Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>>>> here's a FAQ about the overall Disney situation
>>>> https://www.writersmustbepaid.org/faq
>>>
>>> That website:
>>>
>>>       Your Browser Is
>>>       No Longer Supported
>>>
>>>       To view this website and enjoy a better online
>>>       experience, update your browser for free.
>>>
>>> What is it with web page designers?   KISS.
>>
>> They are KISS by only using supported valid encryption protocols, rather
>> than ones that leak information and are deprecated.
>>
>> Upgrade your browser.
>
> I don't see why the information on that page needs to be encrypted.
>
Everything on the 'net is "encrypted". The entire packet transmission
methodology is a form of encryption. The data compression applied to
moving data over the net to maximize bandwidth is a form of encryption.
The ASCII that Usenet is based on is a form of encryption.

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.