I would love it if anyone here might be able to either help me, or point me specifically in the right direction:
I'm putting together a series of reenactments of radio plays from between 1930 and 1960 for a college radio station. Having just started out with this, I'm in desperate need of help on the subject of copyrights.
An adaption of one of Mr. Bradbury's stories, "Zero Hour" was aired on "Suspense", the CBS radio program, on 4/5/55. If anyone knows anything about if this program had its initial 28-year copyright renewed, and if so, who currently owns the broadcast rights, please help me out.

Dear DanB

Try:
www.old-time.com/otrlogs/z

Also, try questions to:

e-mail: Passage@Juno.com

Dear DanB:

Here I go again with these web-addresses. It works when I type it in the finder but not on auto-click. So try it this way, or type it in the finder this way and see what happens:
www.old-time.com/otrlogs/zerohour_dj.log

I Hide My Head.... I gave you the wrong Zero Hour, which was the name of a program series. instead of a Bradbury short story info. So I have to look a little harder. The entire script I found on, which you probably have already.
http://simplyscripts.com/radio_gz.html

If that doesn't work either, I am definitely heading for that cave of the unlearned.

When you're feeling your web articulations are getting a bit chaotic, remember this:

"At one time or another, we've all felt our lives were out of control and heading toward chaos. For us, science has striking news. Our lives are already in chaos -- and not just occasionally, but all of the time. What's more, the new science suggests, an individual and collective understanding of chaos may dramatically change our lives. Although we humans tend to abhor chaos and avoid it whenever possible, nature uses chaos in remarkable ways to create new entities, shape events, and hold the Universe together. . .

"The metaphor of chaos theory helps us deal with such situations because it shows that beyond and between our attempts to control and define reality lies the rich, perhaps even infinite, realm of subtlety and ambiguity where real life is lived."

From: "Seven Life Lessons of Chaos: Timeless Wisdom from the Science of Change". By John Briggs and F. David Peat. Harper Collins, 1999.

Turns out you are a part of the creative force that underlies all growth in the universe. That's a better feeling than confusion, isn't it? You are a part of the cosmic scheme!

Besides, in the end, you always get us there!

Hmmmmm...groovy.

Am I going ahead with proving Mr. Dark right? But of course....
DANB:::There's a lot of jumbles of info on the following web-site. But maybe something there will lead you to finding out about the copyrights on Zero Hour:
www.faqs/org/faqs/radio/old-time-faq/

Ohh, this better work...

Mr. Dark::: I need more philosophical disertation.

Now the above site doesn't work again, as is. So... try it this way:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/radio/old-time-faq/

I get there if I type it in the finder, anyway.

DANB:
Go to Question #9 , on the site I recommended above. It talks about copyrights. Seems that there is a 75 yr renewal on lots of programs.

I don't know if DanB is still here . . . he may have posted and run.

But, here is some "philosophical dissertation" for you to chew on:

"The result is evidently that being is isolated in its being and that it does not enter into any connection with what is not itself. Transition, becoming, anything which permits us to say that being is not yet what it will be and that it is already what it is not -- all that is forbidden on principle. For being is the being of becoming and due to this fact it is beyond becoming. It is what it is. This means that by itself it can not even be what it is not; we have seen indeed that it can encompass no negation. It is full positivity. It knows no otherness; it never posits itself as other-than-another-being. It can support no connection with the other. It is itself indefinitely and it exhausts itself in being . . . Being is. Being is in-itself. Being is what it is. These are the three characteristics which the prelimnary examination of the phenomenon of being allows us to assign to the being of phenomena."

From Jean Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness".

Now, how does Sartre's examination of the question of being and self-definition tie in with Charles's loss of his sense of self in the story "Fever Dream"? When does Charles's "being" become something else? He realizes that he is becoming something other than himself. He tries to get others to listen to him, but the doctor gives him pink pills "with COOL authority". The doctor, dealing with disease in the abstract, cannot "feel" the change that is very real to Charles.

Charles: "I am dead, he thought. I've been killed, and yet I live. my body is dead, it is all disease and nobody will know. I will walk around and it will not be me, it will be something else."

There is a point at which Charles is not him in-himself. He is something else. At what point? That's Sarte's question.

How's that for some philosophical dissertation?


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 08-30-2002).]

Mr. Dark::: I must comment on J.P. Sarte's excerpts that you displayed. Okay, here it goes:
Sentence 1: Not true
Sentence 2: Yes and No
3: What?
4: Huh?
5: Up to the semi colon...True.
Beyond the semi-colon....Probably False
6: I Don't Think so
7: Up to the semi-colon...Probably. Beyond the semi-colon...What?
8: Probably
9: Probably
10: Probably
11: What in heck is that supposed to mean?
12: Huh? again.
13: Okay, now, let's hear a BIG ? ? ? ? ?

Now using J.P. Sarte to explain a Bradbury story is unfair. I'll tell you why. Sarte had no spiritual dimension whatsoever. Isn't he the one who wrote, No Exit? He said there was No exit out of this life. That's all there was. And all the while Bradbury continually talks about eternal themes. That's the real fascination with Ray. He writes about true metaphors to explain things beyond the No Exit. Two totally opposing people.

I could not agree with you more.

I guess I would have one small comment. I believe in learning by argument or dialectic and so comparing AND contrasting authors and ideas is a valid way to learn. I think contrasting Bradbury's world vision in his literature with Sartre's world vision in his literature would be an excellent way to get a better understanding of both. Also, in looking at their backgrounds (Bradbury in middle town America and Sartre working the underground movement during WWII may have an impact on their world views!)

I guess I would have another small comment. When we say Sartre has no spiritual element, that would depend, of course on what we mean by spiritual element (I don't want to get into a Clintonian, "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is."). In a great essay Sartre wrote ("Existentialism is a Humanism"), he talks about what the implications of an existentialist world view would mean and also identifies several prominent existentialist writers/philosophers who are christians (again, definitions would need to be applied here), but there is an element that we are responsible to create lives and to accept our freedom. He develops a philosophy -- not of cynicism and hopelessness -- but of freedom, responsibility, and self-definition. It's definitely not churchy, but there are elements of a spiritual side to Sartre. He took morality very seriously! He did not preach from a pulpit and sign agreements with Hitler, he was in the underground, fighting for the freedom he believed in. (By the way, many ministers fought in the underground resistance, also; so I'm not taking a shot at religion!) I'm just making hte point that he took morality and responsibility very seriously.

But I do use Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" in class (Community College) when I want to blow students away. If you pull a page at random and begin reading, no one knows what the heck is going on. When they start to get cocky, it's good to read them some Sartre and Kant. Technical philosophy can become so isolated from the human condition it makes itself tangential to our experience. On the other hand, some of Sartre's stuff is absolutely great, and, when philosophy is done well, it enhances our world experience. It sounds like I'm selling soap, but I really believe literature, religion, love and philosophy constitute a large part of our happiness. (Well, okay, gotta add humor!)

But, You asked for philosophy . . . You got it. We aim to please here on the Bradbury page (not that I'm claiming any ownership or authority . . . I'm just a humble slug who has loved Bradbury since 9th grade). In the era of the mini-skirt (before they were banned in high schools), I was only distracted from them by Bradbury, Tolkien and by Herbert's great novel, Dune.

I also agree with you that Bradbury has a real spiritual element in much of his writing. It fascinated me when I first read Martian Chronicles in high school how much religion/spirituality there was in that book. A story about space that spent more time dealing with religion, culture and spirituality than with the specifics about technology. Pretty cool.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 08-31-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 08-31-2002).]

B O Y ! Have be ever gotten away from the original posted Question.

Sorry, DanB!

Now, continuing in our waywardness:::
My "contention" (that's not the right word...but the best I can muster in a moment) ... with Ray himself (on a deeply personal level) is that he is at times writing the "spirit" of scripture, but unaware of the exact nature of its character. That only can be applied to Ray, to many other authors. I think people like Robert L. Stevenson had some idea of the nature of his prose. Years ago I met Poul Andersen (son?) ..forgot exactly where...but I was somewhat familiar with his writing, enough to ask him..if he believed in God. I asked this because the character of God (Christian God) seemed to simmer thru his writing. And he said..."Absolutely not!! No prooof of his existence." etc etc. I'll always remember that..because, I thought...well, how can you say that? Especially when, here, there, in the curves and sounds and experience of some of your stuff, you notice something of what would be called God. That's describing a lot in a little space...but I leave it all like that.

Thanks to all for helping me with the concrete and, I suppose, the metaphysical side to my search. I'll check some of these links and get back. Maybe later in the day, when my mind is functioning more fully, I could add on to some of the other discussions as well. 'Till then...

hmmm...
Either the internet FAQ archive you recommended is down for some reason, or something is fishy with the campus network that I'm on. Quite possibly the latter. I'll try again later, I guess. That's a link that my furious search hadn't turned up yet, so that might just be... "the one". I'll get back. Thanks again.