There are 18 messages totalling 869 lines in this issue. Topics in this special issue: 1. bootleg tapes & more (10) 2. (going off-topic) Re: Characters and bathrooms.... 3. bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) (4) 4. Lily-white characters ( was CAH and the down-slide of HL 5. temps (was bootleg tapes and more) (2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 06:48:42 +0100 From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more John says: > > It was fun. But now I have to start packing for Reunion. ;) > Sheesh! And I thought *I* was over-prepared! (28 days today I fly out - wheeeh!) Jette Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever! bosslady@scotlandmail.com http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 23:04:50 -0500 From: Jen <Data@cyberg8t.com> Subject: (going off-topic) Re: Characters and bathrooms.... Woohoo! B5 reference. I've recently become a MAJOR B5 fan. :) Anyways, I was going to comment here. > Tarryn wrote: > >That's what I like about Babylon 5 - they go to the toilet! We've only > >seen 3 seasons so far, but I'm sure it was Garibaldi who had to rush off, > >or was late coming to a meeting because he'd been to the bathroom. That's why I really like B5: the people are real and complex. They have personal problems and not all of these problems are earth-shattering. They react like normal people, meaning, they are not all bad or all good, but in the middle. And they also bring up pop-culture references. :) One of my most fav moments in B5 was when Rebo and Zootie visited the station in Season 5. I must say that I also like the show because of the literary and allegorical references. All of these together make the backbone of the show, making it a very rich and engaging program. I can honestly say that I have learned A LOT from B5 that I have found enriching. Jen Lurker Girl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:32:08 +0100 From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more You beat me by one day. I'll be leaving the UK on the Wednesday! John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jette Goldie" <jette@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [HL] bootleg tapes & more > John says: > > > > It was fun. But now I have to start packing for Reunion. ;) > > > > Sheesh! And I thought *I* was over-prepared! (28 days today I > fly out - wheeeh!) > > Jette > Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever! > bosslady@scotlandmail.com > http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 07:36:49 EDT From: Bizarro7@aol.com Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) Relevant to this topic, the Federal courts today ruled that Dustin Hoffman could not have the right to sue a California magazine for publishing a computer-altered image of him wearing a dress and pumps (his face was not changed). They concluded that this altered image was protected under the First Amendment. Leah CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 07:46:02 EDT From: Bizarro7@aol.com Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more In a message dated 7/23/01 8:30:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jjswbt@earthlink.net writes: << I suspect *that* is the attitude which is driving Nina "crazy". To someone who sees the "Law" as an important, real thing - and not as a distant abstract to be ignored when inconvenient - the idea of open and notorious flouting of the law...even a minor law ...is irritating. Most people have the good graces to at least be embarrassed when they admit to violating the law. Those who celebrate their "badness" annoy me...and apparently annoy Nina too. >> There's a certain law firm in Texas that would find your comment particularly ironic and amusing, in light of the parties involved and certain recent events. Leah CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 07:51:41 EDT From: Bizarro7@aol.com Subject: Re: Lily-white characters ( was CAH and the down-slide of HL In a message dated 7/23/01 8:14:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jjswbt@earthlink.net writes: << And it's hardly surprising that actors like to play villains..they get to chew the scenery with impunity (Ask that guy who played Kell in Endgame!) I prefer my heros to be as "complex" as the villain...which is why Duncan was so attractive and interesting. Clearly he is the "hero" of the Series..but he was by no means one-dimensional. We saw why he became the man he did and the price he paid for it. >> After a long stretch of playing nothing but heroic nobility, most actors will *kill* to get a substantial role playing a villain. He had to go overseas to do it, but when Sergio Leone offered Henry Fonda the lead villain role in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, he nearly flew out under his own power. Although his performance was one of the most compelling of his entire career, Americans largely found it too disturbing; once their heroic icons are cast in the role of perennial hero, they *don't* like to see that image warped. The writers made deliberate use of this expectation in the casting of the recent movie WHAT LIES BELOW (or was it 'beneath?') Leah CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:05:16 +0100 From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) Interesting situation. Do you know which magazine it was? I'm just wondering if the judgement was connected with the context of the photo's position/subject within a given feature and whether it was a clearly satirical or deliberately misleading shot? For instance, if a photo of Dustin Hoffman had been mixed with an explicit sexual shot, could/would the judgement possily have been any different? I'd like to think that if someone created a fake sexual shot of me to deliberately pass off as the real thing, I could act against them. John - who doesn't show up on camera anyway. ----- Original Message ----- From: <Bizarro7@aol.com> To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [HL] bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) > Relevant to this topic, the Federal courts today ruled that Dustin Hoffman > could not have the right to sue a California magazine for publishing a > computer-altered image of him wearing a dress and pumps (his face was not > changed). They concluded that this altered image was protected under the > First Amendment. > > Leah CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:29:34 -0400 From: jjswbt@earthlink.net Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) Leah said: >Relevant to this topic, the Federal courts today ruled that Dustin Hoffman >could not have the right to sue a California magazine for publishing a >computer-altered image of him wearing a dress and pumps (his face was not >changed). They concluded that this altered image was protected under the >First Amendment. I'm with John. The context involved makes all the difference. The courts have long protected images of famous people (even altered ones) that are used as part of a "political statement". That is why one can burn someone in effigy without getting sued. So...if someone was doing an article, say, on gender-identification issues and used an altered picture of Hoffman reminiscent of his "Tootsie" role (:::giggles at the bad pun:::) I can certainly see that as being protected . (They probably couldn't use an actual picture from "Tootsie" without getting permission from the movie studio. ) This would be a different case, I think, than making up photos of Hoffman in a dress and selling them on Ebay....or printing the pictures along with a story saying they were "real" photos of Hoffman at home in his spare time. Wendy(Maybe he was just upset that the dress made him look fat.<eg>.) Fairy Killer jjswbt@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:47:22 +0100 From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) Re: Wendy and Leah's comments. I'm specualting (again...and I'm sure someone will call me on it!) but in the UK at least there is some protection of the unautorised duplication of a person's likeness. For instance though a person could not legally stop a photograph being published of them taken in a public area, they could object if the photo had been distorted in some way to alter its context. This was proven in law in such high-profile cases involving a shot of Princess Diana that was deliberately altered to make it look as if she was embracing someone who was actually several feet away. I believe that The Mirror newspaper took action against The Sun newspaper a few years back when they altered a shot as well. Also in the UK, there are strict restrictions if a doctored or unauthorised photograph seems to endorse a product without permission. I can see a magazine throwing out a complaint from an actor if a photo had been doctored for fun and in a satrical way, just as much as I can see why an actor might try to bring an action if he felt a line had been crossed. I'm guessing that this particular action involving Hoffman proves that every case should be judged individually rather than setting any precedent. Or... at least...I hope so. John (the sheep were CGI'd in later. Honest.) ----- Original Message ----- From: <jjswbt@EARTHLINK.NET> To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [HL] bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) > Leah said: > >Relevant to this topic, the Federal courts today ruled that Dustin Hoffman > >could not have the right to sue a California magazine for publishing a > >computer-altered image of him wearing a dress and pumps (his face was not > >changed). They concluded that this altered image was protected under the > >First Amendment. > > I'm with John. The context involved makes all the difference. > > The courts have long protected images of famous people (even altered ones) that are used as part of a "political statement". That is why one can burn someone in effigy without getting sued. So...if someone was doing an article, say, on gender-identification issues and used an altered picture of Hoffman reminiscent of his "Tootsie" role (:::giggles at the bad pun:::) I can certainly see that as being protected . (They probably couldn't use an actual picture from "Tootsie" without getting permission from the movie studio. ) This would be a different case, I think, than making up photos of Hoffman in a dress and selling them on Ebay....or printing the pictures along with a story saying they were "real" photos of Hoffman at home in his spare time. > > Wendy(Maybe he was just upset that the dress made him look fat.<eg>.) > > > > Fairy Killer > jjswbt@earthlink.net > http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:38:41 +0200 From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za> Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more Wendy wrote: >My feeling is that when Person A killfiles Person B, A loses the "right" >to respond to B and loses the right to comment on B's on-line conduct. >After all..if A really isn't reading B's posts... A can't know whether B's >conduct is good, bad or indifferent. Certainly A has no right to accept C's >opinion of B's comments and then blast B for something A hasn't even read. That's easy to say, Wendy, but when someone insults you, I think killfiling is called for. It's like when one argues with a child. They can't understand rational argument, so it's better to step back and refuse to argue. It's easy to say do not killfile anyone, but after being called a criminal or childish or having one's intelligence insulted, I think one would have to be a masochist to continue to read posts by such a poster. There's a difference between rational, reasoned argument (the kind we usually have) and personal attacks (do I need to give an example?). A person asking and debating rationally and with respect will receive the same courtesy from me. A person who is insulting and sarcastic will receive the same. >I, myself, don't killfile anyone. Well, I don't have a killfile, but my delete key works pretty well. >Well *I* wasn't insulted, berated, misconstrued, misunderstood or ignored. I was. >Oh...wait. I guess I don't qualify as one of the "nicest" people on this >list. (As if there was any question:::snicker:::.) But, Wendy, you *worked* at not being one of the nicest people on the list!! <g> Don't blow it now!! >I tend to believe that laws ought to be obeyed...not because they're >convenient...but because they are the *law*. One really isn't suppose >to pick and choose which laws apply to oneself. It's an old-fashioned >point of view..but there you have it. I *know* you have written fanfic, Wendy. >>[Carmel]Maybe they don't care that it may be illegal to write fanfic? >I suspect *that* is the attitude which is driving Nina "crazy". To someone >who sees the "Law" as an important, real thing - and not as a distant >abstract to be ignored when inconvenient - the idea of open and notorious >flouting of the law...even a minor law ...is irritating. And, we don't care. Plus, the last person I remember talking about the law over justice and common sense got his head chopped off. (Think I'll watch UCoA again...) I do not think the world is as black and white as many people make it out to be. It's just not. >Most people have the good graces to at least be embarrassed when they >admit to violating the law. Over *fanfic*? You must be joking. Many of us are proud of our fanfic. No, I'm not going to wave it at TPTB, but on lists? Please. >(We haven't had such a blatant attack on weasels since Marty was here <eg>) And I clearly remember your comments on Marty, too. (No, I don't miss him.) (But at least when he flamed me, it wasn't in front of a thousand people.) (No, I didn't flame him back. I just hit delete. It was the response he deserved.) - Marina, freezing to death in Jo'Burg. \\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // // Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\ \\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // // said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\ \\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || // //==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\ Watching "Demons", an episode of Stargate SG-1: My brother: I need a trepanning ritual like I need a hole in the head. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:26:20 -0400 From: jjswbt@earthlink.net Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more I said: >>My feeling is that when Person A killfiles Person B, A loses the "right" >>to respond to B and loses the right to comment on B's on-line conduct. >>After all..if A really isn't reading B's posts... A can't know whether B's >>conduct is good, bad or indifferent. Certainly A has no right to accept >C's >opinion of B's comments and then blast B for something A hasn't even >read. Marina: >That's easy to say, Wendy, but when someone insults you, I think >killfiling is called for. No...no...you misunderstood. I don't have a problem with you killfiling someone. That's your right. I don't do it but that's just me. What I *do* object to is people who *say* they have killfiled someone and then go right on making comments about that supposedly killfiled person's behavior or posts. For example..only an example ...if you announced to the List that you have killfiled John...then I wouldn't expect you to later make comments about John's posts (since you supposedly haven't read them) or to make comments on something someone says in response to John...unless you first go back and see what John actually said. I certainly wouldn't expect you to step in to chastise John for his on-line behavior - again because you have supposedly not been read his posts. So..as far as I am concerned it's an either /or situation...killfile someone and then truly stay out of it..or don't killfile and join the fray. >>I tend to believe that laws ought to be obeyed...not because they're >>convenient...but because they are the *law*. One really isn't suppose >>to pick and choose which laws apply to oneself. It's an old-fashioned >>point of view..but there you have it. >I *know* you have written fanfic, Wendy. I did. I don't really anymore. And...I freely admit that I wrote it without really considering the legal ramifications- and that if I *had* thought about it..I might well have *not* written it. And I certainly admit - now and then - that I had no right to use the characters and "universe" created by TPTB. If TPTB asked everyone to destroy all their fanfic tomorrow...I could do it without flinching. <shrug>. I didn't claim to be perfect. >. To someone >>who sees the "Law" as an important, real thing - and not as a distant >>abstract to be ignored when inconvenient - the idea of open and notorious >>flouting of the law...even a minor law ...is irritating. >And, we don't care. Plus, the last person I remember talking about the >law over justice and common sense got his head chopped off. (Think I'll >watch UCoA again...) I understand that you don't care. But..... I think everyone has some issue (or issues) that they do care strongly about -underage drinking, racial quotas, air pollution, saving the whales, teachers' salaries, voting rights, blue foods, etc - and when that issue comes up in conversation, they can't understand why other people don't care as much as they do. I'm sure you have been in the situation of trying *passionately* to explain some problem you see to someone whose response is never more than "yeah, whatever". It's maddening <g> In this case, "the law" is that issue. Some people care about it in the abstract...some people don't see what the fuss is. To someone who cares about "the law", having someone say "I don't care that X is illegal" is as frustrating as being the sole vegetarian in a steak restaurant - you keep explaining about the evils of eating meat while the diners keep smiling and shoveling in more bites. >>Most people have the good graces to at least be embarrassed when they >>admit to violating the law. >Over *fanfic*? You must be joking. Many of us are proud of our fanfic. >No, I'm not going to wave it at TPTB, but on lists? Please. Why is it a joke? In a discussion of the legalities of fanfic - which was what a large portion of the discussion was about - why is it a joke? On the long list of possible legal infractions, it's way way way down the list.. .so if it came up in general discussion somewhere else...yeah..no big deal. But this was a discussion *about* fanfic. Again..I totally understand why people write it and why they enjoy it and why they feel that doing so does no harm..in fact, I mostly agree. What gives me pause is the flippant attitude, expressed by *some* writers, toward the legalities involved. I know why people break the law...I just have never understood why people are proud of it. (Barring those rare cases of true civil disobedience ) >- Marina, freezing to death in Jo'Burg. How cold is it? You'll have to tell me in Fehrenhiet because I'm Celsius illiterate <g>. Wendy(Centigrade?)(Kelvin?) Fairy Killer jjswbt@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:56:12 +0200 From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za> Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more Wendy wrote: >No...no...you misunderstood. I don't have a problem with you killfiling >someone. That's your right. I don't do it but that's just me. What I *do* >object to is people who *say* they have killfiled someone and then go right >on making comments about that supposedly killfiled person's behavior or >posts. I dunno... I would continue to take part in that conversation, but only with people I *hadn't* killfiled. And I'd only comment on what they said, not what the person I'd killfiled said. Because, as far as I'd be concerned, that other person wouldn't 'exist' anymore. >I did. I don't really anymore. And...I freely admit that I wrote it >without really considering the legal ramifications- and that if I *had* >thought about it..I might well have *not* written it. And I certainly >admit - now and then - that I had no right to use the characters and >"universe" created by TPTB. If TPTB asked everyone to destroy all >their fanfic tomorrow...I could do it without flinching. <shrug>. >I didn't claim to be perfect. I suppose, then, all fans can use the excuse (not to cast aspersions on you, Wendy) that they didn't know it was illegal, or hadn't considered the legalities - after all, so many people are doing it! And, of course we could say, yes, we'd get rid of it all right away, absolutely. And how many would? None, I'd bet. Not that this is right. Just that, well... we don't care. Would a <g> be inappropriate about now?? >I understand that you don't care. But..... I think everyone has some >issue (or issues) that they do care strongly about [snip] and when that >issue comes up in conversation, they can't understand why other people >don't care as much as they do. But we're all different. What I dislike is people who try to force other people to behave the way they want. If such things are holy wars made, and priceless statues blown up. Don't need that, thanks very much. Not that anyone actually *said* that, of course, but it's implied. "Fanfic is illegal, don't write it! Don't! Don't!" And the fanfic writers are, "Is there a buzzing noise in here?" >I'm sure you have been in the situation of trying *passionately* to >explain some problem you see to someone whose response is never more >than "yeah, whatever". Actually... no. They say, "Yeah, whatever," I stop cold. Because why torture oneself?? >In this case, "the law" is that issue. Some people care about it in >the abstract...some people don't see what the fuss is. To someone who >cares about "the law", having someone say "I don't care that X is illegal" >is ... frustrating Laws aren't always right, either. South Africa had apartheid for 40+ years... all "law". Do you think I cared what the law said back then? Certainly not. I wonder if the law fanatics would have argued that I shouldn't have hung out with my friends of other colours because it was "against the law"? Or is that 'different', because it was clearly 'wrong'? There is more to life than the letter of the law. >Why is it a joke? In a discussion of the legalities of fanfic - which >was what a large portion of the discussion was about - why is it a joke? I never said it was. I asked if you were joking. As you said, it's way down on the list. It's a minor thing. >What gives me pause is the flippant attitude, expressed by *some* >writers, toward the legalities involved. I know why people break the >law...I just have never understood why people are proud of it. (Barring >those rare cases of true civil disobedience ) Oh, so my example of breaking the 'law' during apartheid was civil disobedience, so it's okay?? I don't have a flippant attitude towards fanfic. I know all the ins and outs. What I have a flippant attitude towards is people who want me to hide my fanfic away because they don't approve. Bad luck they're having. >How cold is it? You'll have to tell me in Fehrenhiet because I'm >Celsius illiterate <g>. I suppose Americans would consider it warm. It's about 2 degrees Celsius/Centigrade... which is about 36 degrees Farenheit. I'm South African! It's not natural for it to be this cold! We're in Africa! If I wanted to be cold I'd move to Canada! - Marina. \\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // // Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\ \\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // // said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\ \\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || // //==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\ Watching "Demons", an episode of Stargate SG-1: My brother: I need a trepanning ritual like I need a hole in the head. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:33:23 +0100 From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more Okay - once again playing the Dervish's Advocate.... Marina: > Laws aren't always right, either. South Africa had apartheid for 40+ > years... all "law". Do you think I cared what the law said back then? > Certainly not. I wonder if the law fanatics would have argued that > I shouldn't have hung out with my friends of other colours because it > was "against the law"? Or is that 'different', because it was clearly > 'wrong'? There is more to life than the letter of the law. That's a very good example of why laws aren't the be-all-and-end-all of the way we live our life. Sometimes a law is grossly unfair because it prejudices against a person's rights or beliefs. If a law contradicts the populace's underlying stance on morality, it often crumbles and the law changes to reflect a new moral stance. I'm just not sure that in the scope of the current strand of this conversation, it fits the argument about fanfic. Unless you are saying that not allowing a person to use a previously copyrighted character is a fundemental infringement of the fanfic writer's rights, then I can't see how the law could actually be *wrong* on this. It can be ineffectual, vague, hard to implement and maybe even pedantic, but I'm not sure that the law isn't there for very good idealogical reasons to begin with. While I have never advocated that fanfic should stop, the only convincing argument I've heard for people writing it is that 'I enjoy doing it and no-one seems to mind as long as it doesn't get too extreme or too in-TPTB's-face'. There's a logic to that which I can fully see working under ideal conditions. As far as I can see, only a small portion of fanfic falls under the dictionary definition of parody, so all other fanfic falls under that 'nobody seems to mind' remit rather than a 'I believe this to be completely within my rights' stance? Or am I wrong? John (back to packing, but can't resist a good, polite debate) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:35:57 -0700 From: K Swanson <swanson@telus.net> Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more >We're in >Africa! If I wanted to be cold I'd move to Canada! Yeah, cos as everyone knows, we all live in igloos here. ;-) Karyn swanson@telus.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:17:47 -0500 From: Bridget Mintz Testa <btesta@firstworld.net> Subject: temps (was bootleg tapes and more) Marine said: >I suppose Americans would consider it warm. It's about 2 degrees >Celsius/Centigrade... which is about 36 degrees Farenheit. I'm >South African! It's not natural for it to be this cold! We're in >Africa! If I wanted to be cold I'd move to Canada! 36 degrees F is definitely not warm in the US, although certain portions of the northern US might consider that "warm" in December or January. Not in Houston, though! And I suppose Highland Scots might consider that warm, too. Bridget -- Bridget Mintz Testa btesta@firstworld.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:37:50 -0500 From: Bridget Mintz Testa <btesta@firstworld.net> Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more John Mosby wrote: >begin with. While I have never advocated that fanfic should stop, the only >convincing argument I've heard for people writing it is that 'I enjoy doing >it and no-one seems to mind as long as it doesn't get too extreme or too >in-TPTB's-face'. There's a logic to that which I can fully see working under >ideal conditions. > >As far as I can see, only a small portion of fanfic falls under the >dictionary definition of parody, so all other fanfic falls under that >'nobody seems to mind' remit rather than a 'I believe this to be completely >within my rights' stance? Or am I wrong? I think this is a pretty good summary of the situation. Fanfic writers have no legal *right* to be doing what they're doing. However, even though they are technically infringing on the copyright-holder's rights, the infringement is harmless as long as it doesn't cost the copyright-holder either money or the right to their intellectual property. And this goes back to the "keep the fanfic out of TPTB's face" argument--if fanfic ever did start creating problems for TPTB, either financial or legal, they *would* sue. They'd have to or risk losing their intellectual property. However, TPTB's actions (and that of other Hollywood types) clearly show that they won't act to sue fanfic writers as long as those writers keep a low profile, don't try to sell their work for profit, and don't endanger the intellectual property rights of the real copyright holder. As I said in a previous post about this, in any such suit, a fanfic writer might be able to argue that fanfic actually maintains interest in the intellectual property and therefore benefits the copyright-holder--but that argument would be hard to prove and could probably only work if the fanfic writer hadn't done any financial or other harm to the copyright-holder. The truth is that fanfic can exist only so long as those who really own the copyrights are willing to tolerate it. That TPTB and other Hollywood types have been willing to tolerate it is simply a bonus, a gift to the fans. I also think it represents a kind of unspoken agreement between the fans and those who own the copyrights. This silent agreement is one wherein the fans promise not to try to make a profit off the object of their obsession, and the copyright-owners agree not to sue as long as that promise is kept. Another part of that silent agreement is that the fans also promise not to offend the copyright-owner--I seem to recall that the one case that George Lucas went after one or more fanfic writers was over slash fiction, and that he was offended by that. (I could be mistaken about that.) My point is that all fanfic is written with the unspoken consent of the copyright-holders, as long as we fanfic writers don't cost them money or offend them or do something that forces their hand. It is therefore up to fanfic writers to abide by this unspoken agreement. I think it is unlikely that any Hollywood creator would try to sweepingly eliminate fanfic, but I think they might be willing to make an example of someone who grievously harmed them. From my point of view, fanfic writers are like street people--we can live on the streets or write fanfic as long as the authorities let us. But as soon as they decide to move us along and stop us from living on the streets or writing fanfic, there is nothing we can do to stop them, legally or otherwise--the law is all on their side. I know of instances when a person or organization has agreed to be sued for the purpose of serving as a test case--this happened with the in-house reproduction of journal articles. I can't remember the journal involved, but the company involved was Texaco. Texaco's research staff routinely made in-house copies of journal articles for passing around to colleagues. The journal sued, and one researcher at Texaco agreed to be the defendant in the case. The journal won, and Texaco--and all other such organizations--lost the right to make in-house copies of journal articles. Texaco did have one subscription to the journal, but I think the ruling was that they had to have as many subscriptions as copies they were making or something along those lines. I bring this up because I can see something similar happening in the world of fanfic--where some fanfic writer agrees to be a test case. But it would be better if some sort of legal status could be awarded to fanfic, with the agreement of the copyright holders. However, as long as fanfic exists in its shadowy netherworld, that's not likely to happen. Bridget -- Bridget Mintz Testa btesta@firstworld.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:50:26 +0100 From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: temps (was bootleg tapes and more) Bridget says > Marina said: > > >I suppose Americans would consider it warm. It's about 2 degrees > >Celsius/Centigrade... which is about 36 degrees Farenheit. I'm > >South African! It's not natural for it to be this cold! We're in > >Africa! If I wanted to be cold I'd move to Canada! > > 36 degrees F is definitely not warm in the US, although certain > portions of the northern US might consider that "warm" in December or > January. Not in Houston, though! > > And I suppose Highland Scots might consider that warm, too. > No, not even in Winter would we consider that "warm" Tis currently about 65 - 70 F here in Scotland just now, and we consider that *barely* "warm". T'ain't likely to get that much warmer, but we do know it ain't "warm" <g> (might be warmer in the Highlands even, cos they don't have the sea breeze I'm suffering) Jette Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever! bosslady@scotlandmail.com http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:16:47 -1000 From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net> Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more Ah, what a refreshing change to find a sensible post that one can sit back & read, nodding the head. Joyous lack of whining in it, too. Of course, it's from Wendy. Life is good, chocolate is abundant. Wendy-- >>> My feeling is that when Person A killfiles Person B, A loses the "right" to respond to B and loses the right to comment on B's on-line conduct. After all..if A really isn't reading B's posts... A can't know whether B's conduct is good, bad or indifferent. Certainly A has no right to accept C's opinion of B's comments and then blast B for something A hasn't even read.>>> No comment on that. Some things just bear repeating. Wendy-- >>> Well....Nina for one <eg> . And...on a purely theoretical basis..I do...and society should. Not because fanfic is important..it surely isn't...but because that attitude ("I can do what I want regardless of what the law says") is.... anti-social.>>> It's a slippery slope. Like other forms of pain, guilt usually serves a purpose. People who don't feel a twinge of guilt about pilfering office supplies may well advance to embezzling the payroll. And, when people rationalize snitching a stapler because their rotten employer "owes" them that & more (or rationalizes fanfic because DPP whacked dear Richie or neglected Cassie's supposedly myriad layers, as examples), it's still anti-social & slippery. Leah-- >>>Relevant to this topic, the Federal courts today ruled that Dustin Hoffman could not have the right to sue a California magazine for publishing a computer-altered image of him wearing a dress and pumps (his face was not changed). They concluded that this altered image was protected under the First Amendment.>>> This isn't relevant to the fanfic issue. Public figures have had to put up w/ this silliness for years, unless the photo was intended to convey DH really is a cross-dresser in his spare time. The 1st amendment isn't going to save the day for fanfic, unless ALL copyright & trademark protection goes out the window. (And think how upset John would be about that.) Wendy earlier-- << I suspect *that* is the attitude which is driving Nina "crazy". To someone who sees the "Law" as an important, real thing - and not as a distant abstract to be ignored when inconvenient - the idea of open and notorious flouting of the law...even a minor law ...is irritating. Most people have the good graces to at least be embarrassed when they admit to violating the law. Those who celebrate their "badness" annoy me...and apparently annoy Nina too. >> Leah about the above from Wendy-- >>>There's a certain law firm in Texas that would find your comment particularly ironic and amusing, in light of the parties involved and certain recent events.>>> Huh? Wendy, I hate to bother you, but--considering--could you please ask Leah what she's raving about now? And, Wendy--I miss your Raven euros. (For all I know, the saving grace to that whole ill-advised show could be lurking in a euro bit in those otherwise drecky Paris eps.) Wendy-- >>>(I like my vampires evil...and then I like them staked.) Must have been your mention of Spike & my mind playing delicious tricks, but when I 1st read that, I was SURE you wrote "naked" rather than "staked." Nina (sure, I'm shallow, but James Marsters' cheekbones, et al, saved season 5) geiger@maui.net ------------------------------ End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 23 Jul 2001 to 24 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-216) *******************************************************************************