HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Mar 2003 to 7 Mar 2003 (#2003-36)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:00:01 -0500
There are 2 messages totalling 424 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Slash? (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:38:51 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
John wrote:
>Oh, I do enjoy a good debate.
So do I, particularly on matters of morality. The process helps to
clarify issues.
>What I'm comparing fanfic to is someone gaining access to someone's website
>and copying/altering the information contained therein. I wasn't talking
>about the hackers who decimate people's websites. More the people who simply
>don't see the distinction between their side of the fence and another's.
Ok, I understand what you're saying but I still don't think it's a valid
analogy. Let me explain. The hacker is electronically breaking and
entering, then modifying the contents of my server. That's equivalent to
breaking into DPP's vault and re-editing a certain episode so Richie keeps
his head. Writing fanfic stories wherein Richie lives doesn't change
squat and there's no b&e involved.
>You HAVE to start with the assumption that they don't. Otherwise we're
>heading onto moral and legal
>chaos. If we live in a world where we assume that people don't mind us doing
>things unless they strictly tell us not to then I have a list of things I'm
>off to do with the solid defence: 'But, your honour, he didn't actually tell
>me I couldn't (insert 'x'crime here).
Hmm, there's another whole discussion topic in what you said. I'll resist
the temptation to go off that tangent. ::: listens to sighs of relief :::.
>But let's be honest...most fanfic
>writers don't shout about their work. They quietly get on with it and use it
>as a writing exercise. Only a few tout their wares for cash and even less
>wave it in front of the actors/TPTB doing a dance of indigantion that it
>could ever meet with less than awe and utter endorsement.
That's true. I don't see how that relates to the "is it moral/ethical"
question. Unless you're saying "what they don't know doesn't hurt them."
>Why do people generally keep under the radar unless they know that it's
>technically full
>of legal/ethical problems.
You'll have to ask those who write fanfic. My guess is there are multiple
reasons. Most amateurs may be reluctant to display their work to
pros. I don't assume it's because they believe they're doing something
unethical.
>It's the difference between copying a CD album
>for a friend and copying a CD album and selling it. The first isn't really
>fair to the artist as it deprives them of a sale but may not be utterly
>illegal everywhere, the latter clearly is and you could be prosecuted for it.
Let me digress for a moment here. I know you're in the UK. Are you aware
of the major political and legal battles currently underway in the US
surrounding copyright in general and "fair use" in particular? Recent and
near future legislation and court rulings are very important, especially
regarding electronic media. Decisions are being made which will control
what you can do with movies & cd's you purchase, and even who has control
of the development of many consumer electronics.
Buy a movie or music cd. Can you make a back-up copy for yourself? Can
you play it on multiple systems. Can you convert it from one media to
another? Have you committed a federal felony by doing so? Is your new PC
approved by Disney? Pay attention folks, it's going to affect you. :::
steps off soapbox :::
> > The copyright notice is a necessary legal notice asserting ownership. I'm
> > not talking about their legal rights as owners. I'm talking about
> > individual owner's attitudes toward fanfic.
>
>No, you're not. If you agree that the notice asserts ownership, then you
>pretty much invalidate any argument you're making that fanfic writers have
>any moral or legal right to use the characters, assuming they have vague
>permission to do so.
Again, I'm not talking about the legal question.
>If you are saying
>that such ownership doesn't mean the owner would disallow fanfic, then we're
>back to that dangerous assumption again.
We're talking at tangents. Yes, the copyright grants legal ownership and
the right to control his property, with certain "fair use"
exceptions. I've never said otherwise.
What I heard you saying was "Getting a copyright means you *dislike* all
unapproved uses". All copyright owners, all uses. Therefore, fanfic is
immoral/unethical because it violates the owners wishes.
That's my point of disagreement. I don't believe *all* copyright owners
*dislike* all unapproved uses. Period.
Logically a conclusion, "fanfic is immoral", is invalid if the premise,
"they all hate it", is not valid.
Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not expecting you to agree, but I hope you
understand I'm only talking about logic here.
> > Here's another example; fan web sites. TV & movie companies attitudes
> > toward fan web sites vary widely.
>
>Yes. So there are differing views. All the more reason to check if you feel
>confident a person/company doesn't mind or shut up and keep a vewy low
>profile in the hope they'll overlook you.
That's the second time you've said that, and frankly I find it
peculiar. If writing fanfic, or websites, without permission is
immoral/unethical, keeping a low profile doesn't make it better.
>It's legal protection that says a person is the owner of a
>copyright and the only reason to do that is to stop infringement. If the
>notice is there it's fair to say that someone in that organisation
>(creator/actor/writer/broadcaster) doesn't want use copying or altering
>their material. For instance in Impact there's a column in the credits
>section that clearly states that the copyright of all articles resides with
>their authors/the publisher. I've lost count of the times I've seen my
>articles copied word for word onto a website (or even altered or misquoted).
>Did the person a) not read the notice? b) not care about the notice or c)
>think 'oh, that's just legal stuff and doesn't mean that the
>writer/publisher actually minds me copying it'? To quote a great thinker of
>our time: 'D'oh!'
I left that entire paragraph because I understand the subject is personally
important to you. Still, I don't see it's relevance to the subject at
hand; fanfic.
You're talking about unauthorized copying, distribution and
alteration. Fanfic writer's aren't changing what's actually in the
episodes, movies or novels. It's not the same as distributing pirated
copies. It's playing in the universe and, in some cases, playing with the
characters. There can be hundreds of fanfic stories writen where Richie
lives, and when that episode airs he's still, unfortunately, dead.
Dare I ask? How exactly does writing and sharing Highlander fanfic hurt DPP?
It's repeatedly suggested that fanfic writers should ask permission
first. Have we ever discussed the ramifications?
Let's assume there's a sea-change in attitude and most fanfic folks always
ask permission. The copyright owner may be anyone; a mid-list writer
with no staff, a small production company, a large corporation. The get
letters; dozens, hundreds, or thousands of letters. They have to spend
time and money to handle that mail, processes it, and perhaps answer
it. This costs the owner money. Then there's the occasional
lawsuit. "I told you I wanted to write a story about how Methos left the
Horsemen. You had episode sorta like that. You used my idea and I want
credit &/or money." Nonsense and nuisance, yes. Still takes time and
money to deal with.
Which system is better for copyright owners?
Pat
Mostly Curious
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:18:26 -0000
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
> >You HAVE to start with the assumption that they don't. Otherwise we're
> >heading onto moral and legal
> >chaos. If we live in a world where we assume that people don't mind us
doing
> >things unless they strictly tell us not to then I have a list of things
I'm
> >off to do with the solid defence: 'But, your honour, he didn't actually
tell
> >me I couldn't (insert 'x'crime here).
>
> Hmm, there's another whole discussion topic in what you said. I'll
resist
> the temptation to go off that tangent. ::: listens to sighs of relief
:::.
Pity, because I think that paragraph sums up the moral dilemmas's
interection with the legal one.
> >But let's be honest...most fanfic
> >writers don't shout about their work. They quietly get on with it and use
it
> >as a writing exercise. Only a few tout their wares for cash and even
less
> >wave it in front of the actors/TPTB doing a dance of indigantion that it
> >could ever meet with less than awe and utter endorsement.
>
> That's true. I don't see how that relates to the "is it moral/ethical"
> question. Unless you're saying "what they don't know doesn't hurt them."
I've said several times that though no-one has the 'right' to use characters
without permission, it's probably mostly harmless if done for amateur and
personal enjoyment. The nearer it gets to being 'distributed' or 'sold' the
less potentially harmless it becomes. Though an iota of common sense helps
in the situation, the point where 'harmless becomes harmful' is open to
debate. But that's why we have lawyers (Can't think of any other reason!).
They (and judicial outcomes ) can tell you where society has decided the
moral boundaries are (and henceforth can legally instigate them). Or ar you
saying that legal and moral are in NO way interconnected?
> >Why do people generally keep under the radar unless they know that it's
> >technically full
> >of legal/ethical problems.
>
> You'll have to ask those who write fanfic. My guess is there are multiple
> reasons. Most amateurs may be reluctant to display their work to
> pros. I don't assume it's because they believe they're doing something
> unethical.
Well, first, you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that anyone post their
fanfic to TPTB for comment. What I'm saying is that if a fanfic writer feels
their rights are so carved in stone, they could - if they felt sufficently
confident of that - approach any PTB and ask them if they had any problem
with them writing fanfic and possibly distributing it on principle. I don't
see that happening and given that any reply would almost certainly be in the
negative for legal reasons, I think that sums up the position.
My guess is that it's also easier to ask forgiveness than permission. In all
my time on-line I've heard ten times as much debate on the ethical/legal
situation than anyone ever raising the fact that TPTB might pick up a sloppy
writer on their syntax or iambic pantameter. Some writers wish to keep their
fanfic as a writing exercise, but distributing it (and especially beyond a
small group) suggests that they want others to read it. Selling it means
that income (even if it just covers costs) is generated on the back of a
character/title that someone went through the courts and legal system to
protect the rights to/for. Up to you if you don't find the ethical dilemma
in that. If so, I'd be happy for you/anyone to spend time, money and effort
creating a character/concept that I'll come along next week and use for my
own purposes because I jolly well feel like it.
> Let me digress for a moment here. I know you're in the UK. Are you
aware
> of the major political and legal battles currently underway in the US
> surrounding copyright in general and "fair use" in particular? Recent and
> near future legislation and court rulings are very important, especially
> regarding electronic media. Decisions are being made which will control
> what you can do with movies & cd's you purchase, and even who has control
> of the development of many consumer electronics.
> Buy a movie or music cd. Can you make a back-up copy for yourself? Can
> you play it on multiple systems. Can you convert it from one media to
> another? Have you committed a federal felony by doing so? Is your new PC
> approved by Disney? Pay attention folks, it's going to affect you. :::
> steps off soapbox :::
I am partly aware of this - it's an ongoing thing. The law - as it stands in
the UK - means that it is not unlawful to make a back-up copy of a music
CD/tape for your own use. Just as it's not illegal to make a back-up copy of
a video cassette for similar reasons. Technically, though, the minute you
hand that copy to a friend, you are muddying the waters because you are
distributing it. Should you charge for that copy or use it for entrtainment
in front of a large audience, you are completely breaking the law and could
be prosecuted if the copyright owner wished to do so. Though in some cases
it may seem petty and pedantic, I would still have to say that I see no
ethial reason why technology SHOULD'T be employed to make sure a person's
trademark/copyright isn't enforcable if they so wish. I think the fact that
CDs are so expensive/companies' profits so high in the UK doesn't help the
situation, but no-one forces the consumer to spend more than they can
afford.
>
>
> > > The copyright notice is a necessary legal notice asserting ownership.
I'm
> > > not talking about their legal rights as owners. I'm talking about
> > > individual owner's attitudes toward fanfic.
> >
> >No, you're not. If you agree that the notice asserts ownership, then you
> >pretty much invalidate any argument you're making that fanfic writers
have
> >any moral or legal right to use the characters, assuming they have vague
> >permission to do so.
>
> Again, I'm not talking about the legal question.
Ultimately you are. Because, as said above, the law is there for a reason.
Usually to legally enforce the moral boundaries of that society. Such laws
are there because some people don't perceive the same moral boundaries as
others and when those actions conflict with another's there has to be a
majority-agreed standard by which the members of the society are judged. If
a law of a society has been decided (which encompasses the effective wording
you see at the end of an episode for example) it exists to reinforce the
moral boundary with legal repercussions and punish those who seek to ignore
that majority-agreed standard. That's why this discussion has to involve the
ethical and the legal. A world without such a declaration is the
aforementioned chaos.
> >If you are saying
> >that such ownership doesn't mean the owner would disallow fanfic, then
we're
> >back to that dangerous assumption again.
>
> We're talking at tangents. Yes, the copyright grants legal ownership and
> the right to control his property, with certain "fair use"
> exceptions. I've never said otherwise.
And yet your argument about the legal 'right to control his property' would
be that these in no way touch base with his moral rights to do the same?
Ultimately which moral right is more moral? The original writer who created
a concept/character or the fanfic writer's to demand that they can then do
whatever they want with it under 'fair use'.
> What I heard you saying was "Getting a copyright means you *dislike* all
> unapproved uses". All copyright owners, all uses. Therefore, fanfic is
> immoral/unethical because it violates the owners wishes.
>
> That's my point of disagreement. I don't believe *all* copyright owners
> *dislike* all unapproved uses. Period.
Again, fine. Some probably don't. But I see not one jot of proof that this
is a majority opinion. In fact the legal notices used all the time indicate
the opposite. You are attempting to use logic to prove a negative and that's
tricky. My logic says: 'hey, there's a legal notice there forbidding
use...ya think that might be there for a valid reason... and if convinced
otherwise, might it not be a good idea to check?' Again, not generically
checking indicates a doubt that permission would be granted.
> Logically a conclusion, "fanfic is immoral", is invalid if the premise,
> "they all hate it", is not valid.
>
> Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not expecting you to agree, but I hope
you
> understand I'm only talking about logic here.
I'm not sure I do understand. My position is not so much that fanfic is
immoral (too grand a word for a mostly harmless exercise) but simply that,
despite some writers'claims, it has no real moral highground either.
> >Yes. So there are differing views. All the more reason to check if you
feel
> >confident a person/company doesn't mind or shut up and keep a vewy low
> >profile in the hope they'll overlook you.
>
> That's the second time you've said that, and frankly I find it
> peculiar. If writing fanfic, or websites, without permission is
> immoral/unethical, keeping a low profile doesn't make it better.
No, but it enables TPTB to ignore it as a thing which ultimately doesn't do
much harm if kept under the radar. I'd fully admit that I (and they) see the
advantage of a creatively gufilled fanbase. Few PTB would go after an fanfic
writer (unless they were to widely distribute and sell their work) because
it would look petty and self-defeating. However (and it's an all-important
HOWEVER) that tactful and somewhat faux ignorance should not be mistaken for
any shift in attributing moral rights or blanket permission to do whatever a
fanfic writer feels they want to. Just because I see the advantages of my
work being made more widely available doesn't mean that I hand over the
moral rights of anyone to do whatever they want. It just means I stay
tactfully quiet if I think it's in my best interest. This is WHY we're
discussing it here...because that faux ignorance is a double-edged sword (no
pun intended). It's a very fine line which TPTB walk carefully and which
some fanfic writers fail to recognise the fragile quality of. Simply: NO
*rights* have been assigned to a fanfic writer simply because TPTB make sure
they are lookign in the other direction at the time. It's discretion not
permission. That works just fine until someone loudly extols their moral
rights as fanfic writers (and most fanfic writers I've met agree that they
wish such magaphoners would shut the Hell up and stick to quietly writing).
> Dare I ask? How exactly does writing and sharing Highlander fanfic hurt
DPP?
>
> It's repeatedly suggested that fanfic writers should ask permission
> first. Have we ever discussed the ramifications?
>
> Let's assume there's a sea-change in attitude and most fanfic folks always
> ask permission. The copyright owner may be anyone; a mid-list writer
> with no staff, a small production company, a large corporation. The get
> letters; dozens, hundreds, or thousands of letters. They have to spend
> time and money to handle that mail, processes it, and perhaps answer
> it. This costs the owner money. Then there's the occasional
> lawsuit. "I told you I wanted to write a story about how Methos left the
> Horsemen. You had episode sorta like that. You used my idea and I want
> credit &/or money." Nonsense and nuisance, yes. Still takes time and
> money to deal with.
>
> Which system is better for copyright owners?
Given that we take the copyright situation in legal/prosectuable terms...you
are kinda wondering whether a victim bother to report a crime because of all
the paper-work rather than whether it has a right to do so? It depends on
how you feel about being the victim really. Whether you are a victim of
slander/burglary/assault/rape you always have the choice to do nothing about
it depending on a) how much of a victim you feel, b) the stress of going
through such a process and c) the final result/cost at the end of the day.
For instance, with slander/libel some people may shrug off a comment and
know it will be in tomorrow's trash - others might feel as violated as a
rape. Hard to tell. But let's be honest here...whatever your feelings on
such a process it often doesn't effect whether a crime/immoral act actually
took place or not in the eyes of the law. So your argument here is not one
of morality. Quite the opposite, the suggestion that inaction is simply the
easier process of the two is one of : 'sh*t happens, get a life.'
John
Weapon of Mass Deconstruction.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Mar 2003 to 7 Mar 2003 (#2003-36)
************************************************************