Romance, Historical, Contemporary, Paranormal, Young Adult, Book reviews, industry news, and commentary from a reader's point of view

Thursday News: SCOTUS rules against Aereo, unanswered questions from the Aereo...

Aereo Loses at Supreme Court, in Victory for TV Broadcasters – So I don’t know how many of you were surprised by the Supreme Court’s ruling against Aereo, but I do hope the ruling encourages more debate and discussion around how to “enable choice and freedom” in media presentation. Aereo was founded on that ideal, and in an environment where cable and satellite television dominate the market (in the US, at least), we *need* more breadth and diversity.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said the service was “not simply an equipment provider,” but acted like a cable system in that it transmitted copyrighted content. “Insofar as there are differences,” he wrote, “those differences concern not the nature of the service that Aereo provides so much as the technological manner in which it provides the service.”

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
At the hearing in April, the justices had expressed concern that a ruling against Aereo would stifle technological innovation — a concern echoed throughout the tech industry. Justice Breyer took pains on Wednesday to say the decision was limited to Aereo’s service. “We believe that resolution of questions about cloud computing, remote storage DVRs and other novel matters not now before us should await a case in which they are clearly presented,” he said in announcing the decision from the bench. –New York Times

Four Unanswered Questions From Aereo’s Supreme Court Loss – This is a really nice piece that attempts a preliminary answer to four questions in the wake of the Aereo ruling, from the one below, to the legality of DVR and streaming services, and the major concern with the effect this ruling will have on innovation. Not only is there some great legal context here, there is also a pretty nice explanation of the issues and the significance of the ruling for those who are not necessarily familiar with the case.

1) Who took the legally significant action? It’s one of the most fundamental, yet unresolved, questions of Internet law: if online content is infringing, who bears legal responsibility? Is it the uploader, the downloader, one or more intermediaries helping move the content from uploader to downloader, all of the above, none of the above, or some subset of these parties? This “whodunit” question online has vexed courts for more than 20 years, and this ruling will likely exacerbate the confusion. –Forbes

Hollywood Guilds Want Supreme Court to Hear Marvel Characters Dispute – According to the Hollywood Guild, which represents artistic creators, a 2013 ruling by the 2nd Circuit “jeopardizes the statutory termination rights that many Guild members may possess in works they created.” The issue is related to a perceived trade-off within the lengthened copyright period, such that creators who have sold their rights to studios and other corporations can terminate those rights in the later years (reversion). Jack Kirby’s estate is heading the charge here, and their objection to the idea that Kirby’s creations are merely works for hire and therefore not eligible for termination and reversion of rights is getting a good deal of support and momentum toward the high court. Should SCOTUS reverse the appeals court ruling, the implications for other licensed works could be substantial.

Now that the high court might potentially review working agreements in Hollywood, SAG-AFTRA, the DGA and the WGA are weighing in on what they say is a “critically important case.” Lest anyone think that the ability to reclaim rights from studios is something merely for comic book artists, the guilds say the 2nd Circuit’s 2013 ruling “jeopardizes the statutory termination rights that many Guild members may possess in works they created.”

Similar to the amicus briefs already filed, the guilds argue that works made for hire are the product of traditional employment relationships, and that to extend the interpretation broadly to commissioned works as well would be a consequential power shift in the entertainment industry. –Hollywood Reporter

Let’s All Take A Deep Breath – So there seems to be some movement in the seemingly never-ending saga of turning the In Death books into film(s). I’ll likely be in the camp that will be critical of anyone/everyone cast in the main roles, because, over the course of 30-something books, the characters have taken on a pretty defined shape in my head. I long ago accepted that I am likely not a member of the audience for this particular film project. Although I can’t say that I was surprised at the vehemence of some of the reactions.

Yesterday we announced on the JD Robb Facebook page that Amber Entertainment has optioned the In Death books. And the comment section exploded. Reactions ranged from excitement and delight to abject despair and even anger–with every possible emotion that falls between. Casting suggestions (and demands) flew like grapeshot.

I’m going to take this opportunity to address some of those concerns, suggestions, demands. –Fall Into The Story

isn't sure if she's an average Romance reader, or even an average reader, but a reader she is, enjoying everything from literary fiction to philosophy to history to poetry. Historical Romance was her first love within the genre, but she's fickle and easily seduced by the promise of a good read. She approaches every book with the same hope: that she will be filled from the inside out with something awesome that she didnʼt know, didnʼt think about, or didnʼt feel until that moment. And she's always looking for the next mind-blowing read, so feel free to share any suggestions!


  1. library addict
    Jun 26, 2014 @ 04:42:02

    I may or not see the In Death film if it actually gets made this time around. I love the series and just don’t think they will be able to do it justice. Many people argue over who is good enough to play Roarke, but I’m more concerned about the casting for Eve.

    Most “successful” movies made from books I like only if I see the film first and then read the book(s). It very rarely works for me the other way around. So I’m taking a wait and see attitude.

  2. DS
    Jun 26, 2014 @ 07:43:49

    Had a traumatic flashback to the 1991 movie with Kathleen Turner made of the V. I. Washawski series. Has the movie industry learned anything since then? Probably depends a lot on who they tap for director.

  3. Sheryl Nantus
    Jun 26, 2014 @ 08:20:26

    I’ll actually wait and see what happens with the In Death movie before losing my mind.

    It’s been optioned before and went nowhere – call me when they have a script and signed actual actors. Until then it’s not worth the energy to scream about something that might be a darned good movie!


  4. hapax
    Jun 26, 2014 @ 08:21:22

    Roarke has always been rather a cartoon character for me (make the most impossibly staggeringly perfect guy imaginable, then have him fall overwhelmingly in love with the protagonist / reader surrogate), so I don’t think it matters who they cast, as long as he’s pretty enough.

    It’s Eve who makes the series for me, and she’ll be tough to cast — and play. She walks a very fine line between being an unlikable ballbuster and a woobie, and without her internal monologue, it would be very difficult to keep from tipping over to one side or the other.

  5. Erin Burns
    Jun 26, 2014 @ 08:42:17

    @hapax: This exactly, I can’t imagine how they can successfully capture someone who lives and works so much in her own head. I’m not going to lose my mind over it, but if nothing else, should it actually come to fruition, it should be very interesting to see where this goes.

  6. azteclady
    Jun 26, 2014 @ 11:12:48

    Count me as one not watching it, no matter what. My curiosity as to actors and script is not enough, by far, to outweigh my certainty that the actors will never match the images in my head, and that without the internal monologue (thanks, hapax), the characters would perforce be flat.

    Plus, if they are trying to attract viewers new to the series, they’d probably have to change A LOT about the first books–on the gadget/technology side, they desperately need updating, and on the action on the screen side…let’s just say I wouldn’t be surprised to hear there are chases and explosions in the movie version.

  7. Shannon Stacey
    Jun 26, 2014 @ 16:31:34

    I’ve always thought Stana Katic, who plays Kate Beckett on Castle, would be a perfect Eve. Actually, since Castle started, it’s her I see in my head when I read the books. I have no Roarke, though.

  8. Rachel
    Jun 26, 2014 @ 19:48:08

    @Shannon Stacey: My thoughts exactly. Kate Beckett is Eve Dallas, as far as I’m concerned, so an In Death movie at this point will just seem a little like a Castle re-hash. Some things just don’t transfer mediums well.

  9. Kaetrin
    Jun 26, 2014 @ 23:06:14

    @Shannon Stacey: Yes, I had the same thought the first time I watched Castle. Nathan Fillion (much as I love him) is not Roarke though! The guy I picture is German (Andreas Jancke – especially if you crossed him with David Gandy) and I don’t expect either Andreas or David to be in the movie. Which I would totally go and see.

  10. Janine
    Jun 27, 2014 @ 00:29:41

    I will probably watch the movie if it gets good reviews. I don’t have a big investment in the books (I only read the first one), so I don’t have a stake in the casting beyond the actors’ acting chops. I think a good screenwriter can change some of the internal monologue into dialogue (or voice-over narration, but I usually prefer dialogue). And I think the visual medium of film has the potential to bring a futuristic setting to life really well.

  11. library addict
    Jun 27, 2014 @ 03:27:37

    I know she’s a popular choice, but not seeing Stana Katic as Eve. I do like her on Castle though.

%d bloggers like this: