HIGHLA-L Digest - 7 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-142)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:07:30 -0400
There are 15 messages totalling 814 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Immortal moral choices (6)
2. Fanfic & Morals (7)
3. Highlander in the news
4. Highlander Moment and Musings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:46:07 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
> > For example, it may be moral to smoke cannabis, especially
> > if one suffers from glaucoma or multiple sceloris, but it
> > isn't *legal*, in most parts of the world. (though that is
> > changing) It is the only treatment that gives relief from
> > the condition - and it only became *illegal* half way
> > through the last century - before that it was legal AND
> > moral.
> >
>
> Who says it is moral to smoke cannabis? No one I've ever heard and I
still
> think that the definition of "moral" is being misused/misunderstood here.
If a man has a disease with only one treatment, is it *moral*
to deny him that? Is it moral for him to take the treatment?
(and this one can be thorny ground indeed - suppose the
treatment that saves one life means the death of another?
or many others? ) at least smoking hash doesn't harm
anyone else.
Here in Europe even senior Judges now question the legality
of the anti-cannabis legislation. When you think that until
the 1950s smoking cannabis was neither illegal nor immoral
- if anyone even thought about it at all - but only became
both illegal and *immoral* when one crazy American newspaper
baron used his personal influence to impose *his* personal
ethics on the world around him......... and when you pay attention
to the sleazy racist tactics he used to do so - how can anyone
consider the laws against cannabis to be anything BUT immoral?
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:58:59 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Me:
>>The question is not whether you, today, look back (or ahead) and
>>say "Rape is wrong". <snip> That has no effect, however, on what the
>>people living XXX number of years ago in some different part of the
>>world might have believed just as fervently.
Liser:
>This is true. Though, I do wonder what the women who lived in those
>societies where rape was acceptable behavior thought of it--whether
>they agreed that it was okay simply because the men doing it to them
>did.
It's probable that some thought it was an acceptable act and some didn't. That is how these things change over time- enough people decide that a previously acceptable act is no longer acceptable.
>>They*, however, were actually living the events and saw the issue
>>differently. Their religion may have set different standards of
>>morality than yours. Unless we want to say "their religion was
>>wrong" (something I am unwilling to say about anyone else's
>>religion) we have to accept that the morals of their time may have
>>condoned or encouraged behavior that the morals of our time find
>>abhorrent.
>But, again, I have to wonder if ALL members of feudal England thought
>it was okay for the Lord to rape their wives. Or if the wives
>thought it was okay to be raped. Two wrongs, three wrong, five
>thousand wrongs do not necessarily make it right.
Well, in most situations involving morals, some people are more fond of the outcome than others. Even if you think something is "right" in a general sense, you might not think it is "right" when it applies to you personally. And there aren't many situations where 100% of the people agree with whatever moral standard is being enforced. If, by the standards of the day, women were chattel, then their opinions on matters of morality didn't need to be considered.
>Yeah. Okay. Not ALL cultures think it's bad to kill someone. Some
>even condone it in certain circumstances. But I believe that those
>circumstances are always to "right" a given "wrong" than has been
>done.
I don't know as I would have said "always" but humans do tend to like to frame things in terms of "right" and "wrong". But they don't agree on what those terms encompass. "Right" may be nothing more than "I'm the biggest and so whatever I do is right"..or "My father is the chief and so I can do whatever I want" or "He looked at me 'funny' so I had to kill him."
> That is, some cultures allow a member of your family to seek
>revenge upon the man who killed you--their actions are just but HIS
>are not. And back in the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Stone Age, it
>wasn't ever just fine and dandy to go kill your neighbor because you
>were in a bad mood.
I'm not sure. How far back do we want to go? And how minor can the acceptable reason be?
> *Something* in human nature suggests to us what
>is "right" behavior and what is "wrong" behavior and I think that
>this elusive something is the base of religion and the moral
>structures that can grow from it.
Something in us encourages us to justify our actions. I'd guess the urge appeared at about the same time as man first decided that some spirit made the rain come. If there is a rain spirit, that spirit might make the rains fail because I did something "wrong". The last time the rains failed it was just after Urg stole that wheat from Ard. Stealing wheat from your brother offends the rain spirit, therefore stealing from your brother is "wrong". Multiple that "logic" by a few hundred thousand years and..voila! moral standards!
>>Bronze Age Methos was behaving badly by his own Age's standards. I
>>don't see why it is hard to reconcile the idea that a man might be a
>>raping, pillaging bastard in 2000 BC and a mildly amusing lay-about
>>in 2000 AD. He got over it. He grew up. He moved on with the times.
>>I don't even see why it should be hard to like a man in 2000 AD who
>>had been a very bad man in 2000BC. It was 4000 years ago.
>Cassandra aside, for the moment...I'm afraid I can't draw the nice
>crisp lines that you do when it comes to holding Methos accountable
>(or not) for his past actions. You know I love the guy to pieces.
>But those episodes really changed my views about him. I still love
>him in a non-shoulder-punching fictional character sort of way, of
>course. But I can't say that it's the same sort of emotion as it was
>pre Horseman/ Rev 6:8.
I suspect I liked him more when I discovered he had such a evil past. The idea of a 5000 year old man who has always been an idle layabout isn't as appealing to be as a 5000 year old man who was once a very bad man and who has transformed himself into an idle layabout. I respected who he was much more knowing where he had come from. This isn't a "bad boy" fetish...Methos of the BA is *not* attractive to me. It's rather a "truly reformed bad boy" fetish <eg>
>> I don't want my actions of 30 years ago held against me<g> I can't
>>imagine holding >something that happened 4 millennia ago against
>>someone.( Unless one was actually >there.)
>I wish I could explain it. You'd think I would be able to by
>now...but all I can come up with is that my views on his
>accountability are tied to his immortality, somehow. I am more
>likely to forgive you for bad behavior in your teens than I am to
>forgive him the same.
Hmmmmmm....I'm trying to understand that. Do you think that Immortals are less likely to really change over time so that he is still the man he once was regardless of how he acts now? That he is ..as unchanging on the inside as he is on the outside?
> Partly, I'm sure, because you weren't raping
>and pillaging your way across the Mid-West.
How little you know <EFG>
>If I found out that a man I know had, in fact, been a serial rapist
>30 years ago, I doubt I would feel the same about him as I did before
>the knowledge came to me. Some things are just not easily dismissed.
Oh yes... I can certainly see where discovering that about a mortal man would be extremely off-putting. ..knowing that he had that capacity within him even if he no longer did such things and had paid whatever price society demanded for the crimes. While a man at 20 and a man at 50 can be very different men ...it would indeed be hard to dismiss being a serial rapist as a boyish fling. OTOH, what a man might do at 200 and what he might do at 4800 should be viewed at least somewhat differently *if* one believes that Immortals continue to change over time. Given no evidence that Methos was ever again that raping pillager of the Bronze Age, and given the evidence of what he *had* done with his later life, I think I would be tempted to acquit him of the taint of the crimes committed 3000 years before.
Wendy(On my way out of town..must stop reading email and pack!)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:09:57 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Leah invokes the "Cassandra Clause":
>This was one of my problems with the arguments of those fans who dismiss
>the ancient acts of rape and murder that Methos and his Horsemen performed
>on Cassandra and her village. Methos (and those fans) argue "The times
>were different. I was different." That's a valid excuse for why it
>happened AT THE TIME. But as Methos and Cassandra have both managed to
>survive the unimaginably long 30 Centuries since that time when things
>were different, what does he owe her now?
As the only remaining victim of his crimes, and given that there are no courts available to set an appropriate punishment (if any) for crimes committed 3000 years ago, I'd say that Cassandra is the only available judge of what he owes her.
> How much forgiveness is he
>entitled to, when by the Middle Eastern standards of 3000 years ago, he
>was, by his own admission, a criminal?
He is entitled to the same forgiveness or lack of forgiveness as any other criminal years after the crime has been committed. Maybe none. Maybe full forgiveness. Maybe somewhere in between.
>How can anyone ask Cassandra to
>forget about it, when the moral issues in question were rape, abduction,
>torture, enslavement and murder?
I don't ask Cassandra to "forget" about it. And if Cassandra had wanted to take Methos' head, I would not have said she was unjustified. What I have said before is that 3000 years is a long time. 3000 years is a long time to hold onto that much pain and anger. Admittedly, she thought Methos was dead and so it was brought back to her anew when she discovered that he wasn't. Still, 3000 years. Asking a mortal woman to "move on" after even 30 or 40 years is a lot but many do manage it..asking an Immortal woman to move on after 3000 doesn't seem totally unreasonable. Cassandra seemed like one of those Immortals who is "stuck" in time..either reliving past glories or nursing old hurts. The "healthier" ones managed to let go of the distant past and focus on the here and now.
Wendy(I have *got* to stop reading my mail!)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:19:54 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Wendy wrote:
>I suspect I liked him more when I discovered he had such a evil past.
>The idea of a 5000 year old man who has always been an idle layabout
>isn't as appealing to be as a 5000 year old man who was once a very
>bad man and who has transformed himself into an idle layabout. I
>respected who he was much more knowing where he had come from. This
>isn't a "bad boy" fetish...Methos of the BA is *not* attractive to
>me. It's rather a "truly reformed bad boy" fetish <eg>
You know that I love the ROG, but in CAH/Rev6:8, he doesn't show
the least bit of remorse for what he did. He doesn't apologise to
Cassandra; he doesn't apologise to Duncan. He only stops Caspian
from killing Cassie because he knows Cassie matters to Duncan, and
Duncan matters to him (sheesh, not *that* way; I can get my mind
out of the slashy gutter sometimes you know!). He said to Duncan
that he wants to keep him alive - at what seems to be all costs.
So it begs the question: IS Methos reformed? Or did he just get
bored with pillaging and fighting?
I think Methos would be amused by this thread. He, more than
anyone, knows just how relative morals, mores and cultural values
can be.
- Marina. (I liked the long hair and the blue face paint.)
\\ "And we are scatterlings of Africa on a ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// journey to the stars. Far below we leave || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever dreams of what we were." - Juluka ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=============|| \\
\\============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
I have adandoned my search for reality and am now looking for a good
fantasy... preferably with a Mountie in it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:35:26 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
> >Pat--
> > > Whose purpose is served by backing them into a corner and
> > > forcing them to take a public position? To what end, Nina?
> >
> >I'm out of time & posts for the day, so see above.
>
> I did, and there was nothing above that addressed my question. You talked
> about parody. You responded to John's "sandbox" analogy, sorta. You
> didn't come close to addressing my question. Fortunately you can answer
> tomorrow or the next time you're here. I look forward to it.
Oh, dear. Pat feels ignored. Can't have that.
OK, John said this--
> You can of course hope that the owner
> pretends he doesn't see you playing in the sandbox because he likes you're
> havign fun - but he's not obliged to.
And I commented--
>>>No, he isn't obliged to, & the arrangement you quite accurately describe
is
patently ridiculous. How anyone could see it as reasonable or even
desirable remains a mystery.>>>
Pat, your questions were--
> Whose purpose is served by backing them into a corner and
> forcing them to take a public position? To what end, Nina?
That's basically saying why disturb John's sandbox, so my reply to you is
the same--it's a ridiculous situation & I don't see the charm or sense of
looking away so it can continue. Happy now?
John before--
>> Leah's carttons clearly falls under 'parody' and 'commentary'
Me before--
>Really? I'd be interested to see that tested.
Marina--
>I would say that it already has been. Starlog magazine printed
>some of them.
That's not a test. DPP or another aggrieved party suing the mag &
Leah--THAT would be a test.
Returning to the point I made about Leah's cartoons & for that matter, so
much fanfic. This, in particular--
>>>But, fanfic "writers" or "artists" just grab from the same one, two or a
few
TV shows over & over as tried & true basis for "their" work. Of course,
there's a very good & practical reason for that--how many people would
bother to read stories written by fans or buy calendars made up of Leah's
cartoons if the drawings featured unfamiliar characters? No, fanficers
clearly see the ready-made market for Duncan's brawny chest & Methos'
sardonic grin.>>>
I do think that's a real problem w/ fan-created material trying to squeeze
into the parody exception. In addition to the fact that most fanfic clearly
is not using humor or ridicule to make a point, in the nature of parody.
They are simply telling stories.
Way back when, Saturday Night Live did some fabulous Star Trek skits. They
also did countless spoofs of various other shows. But, SNL _also_ did other
things, & their original material was, along w/ the spoofs, brilliant. What
if SNL had decided their ratings would benefit if they ONLY did Star Trek
bits--one after the other, every week, on & on. Still protected as parody?
Or abusive misappropriation of copyrighted material for profit? Same w/
fanfic, cartoons, whatever.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:41:32 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Marina:
>>So it begs the question: IS Methos reformed? Or did he just get
bored with pillaging and fighting?<<
It can't be regarded as canonical, because although it was filmed, it was never aired. The Ancient Greece scene in CAH has Methos breaking the news to Kronos that he's leaving him, because he's bored with pillaging and robbing. Bored, bored, bored. And he wants to pursue intellectual things. Kronos doesn't take this very well, and Methos poisons him, tosses him down a well and locks him in. It was the intent of the writers to show that it wasn't an attack of developing conscience that made Methos drop the Horseman crap.
I love the character, amorality and shifting worldview and all, because he's interesting. Cassandra is interesting to me as a means of highlighting one of the 'many things' Methos has been; a monster of mythic proportions. I'm sure she's pretty static as Immortals go, without the conflict with her ancient nemesis.
Just one of the many things to love about the whole CAH/Rev mythos.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:13:54 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Carmel--
> I don't understand why the discussion keeps on and on about the legalities
> when it is obvious that Davis-Panzer own the characters. I certainly
> acknowledge that and that fanfiction is unauthorised use of someone else's
> property. If asked to cease and desist by the owners, I would cease and
> desist because I acknowledge that the owners have that right.
Well, you're special. Everyone doesn't feel that way. I believe it was
beccaelizabeth here who clearly saw no reason to stop if asked.
But, your attitude seems a bit odd to me. Do you generally go around doing
things, intruding on the acknowledged ownership rights of others, UNLESS &
UNTIL they protest? At the store, do you give walking out w/o paying a
shot, just in case no one will stop you?
> At present however, the owners have made no such request. Indeed, the
> owners openly invite fanfiction on their own official site:
> http://www.highlander-official.com/
> and there you will find a category called: "Highlander Chain
> Stories/Fanfiction: The place for fans to collaborate on Highlander-themed
> stories."
Saying that means anything assumes so very much. Maybe DPP have no clue
about that feature on the site; after all, they repeatedly claim ignorance
of their store's merchandising tactics, creative billing, & shipping snafus.
Or, maybe they see it as a cheap source of movie plots--they certainly need
all the help they can get. And--is stuff posted there owned by the poster
or the site owner? Maybe it's just their way of doing damage
control--keeping it at _their_ site. It certainly doesn't give anyone the
go-ahead to post HL-related material on any OTHER website, publish it in
fanzines, or to sell it elsewhere.
> The analogy I would use is that there is a property in my street, clearly
> owned by Mr Kefups. He has a wonderful large front lawn with trees, a
> garden and play equipment. I walk in and play in his front garden even
> though I know that I have no legal right to do so. I know that Mr Kefups
> knows that I am playing there and that he doesn't tell me *not* to do so.
So
> I continue to play. Indeed, I notice that there is a sign tacked to a
tree,
> signed by Mr Kefups, telling all that playing in his front garden is
> welcome. It doesn't specify that certain forms of play are not allowed,
> whilst playing in his garden.
Another folksy tale. (At least this one doesn't feature The Dixie Chicks.)
Charming scenarios don't make infringing on others' rights any prettier.
And, YOU, I believe have HL fanfic on your own website. That's not playing
in DPP's yard (on their website)--that's taking DPP's nice swing-set &
dragging it down the street to YOUR yard. And hoping DPP never comes for it
or calls the cops on you. I'm looking forward to how you pretty THAT up for
us.
> As I swing high and low on Mr Kefups' apple tree, I could be forgiven by
my
> fellow playmates for shouting over the fence to my neighbours that they go
> wandering further afield to find an owner who cares.
And, if you hurt yourself falling off of the doddering old fool's swing, I
bet you'd sue him to the poorhouse. Then, you'd have his lovely yard all to
yourself.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:20:29 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Leah--
> Finding that
> Starbucks was unlikely to prevail on the copyright portion of its lawsuit,
> Judge Chesney later ruled that Dwyer was free to display the parody on his
> website."
And how does this relate to...anything? (Other than making me get up for a
nice cup of coffee?)
> Pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, Parody is protected as
> "Fair Use." There are four criteria which designate "Fair Use:"
>
> The purpose and character of the use, including whether use is of a
> commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
>
> The nature of the copyrighted work.
>
> The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
> copyrighted work as a whole.
>
> The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
> copyrighted work.
>
> But then again, maybe American law is different in Hawaii...
No, it's the same. Has been since 1959, actually.
Yes, of course, there are exceptions to copyright protection. No one has
said otherwise. But what in the above definitions protects _fanfic_? Your
cartoons? Be specific.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:35:45 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
John--
> Well, happy to explain in simpler terms if needed. We cater for all.
> I'm driving a car that could be described as promoting the State I'm
driving
> through.
It's not a question of simplification. But why is it necessary for you to
fantasize about driving through America w/ The Dixie Chicks? That's
just...odd.
> It's a legal imperative vs. moral imperative debate which dove-tails
nicely
> into another thread, doesn't it?
Not so much. Try explaining the legality OR morality of fanficers. They
depend on TPTB to let them continue doing wrong, whether it's because those
in charge really don't know what is going on, don't care because fanfic is
so very inconsequential, are desperate for any promotion of their property,
are scared to make waves & look mean-spirited, or whatever. Tell me how
fanficers have either the law or morality on their side--anything other than
it's fun & they like it. Preferably w/o police chases, idyllic playgrounds,
or musical accompaniment to cloud the issues.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:55:27 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <tunnack@webone.com.au>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Hi all
Nina said: <<..But, your attitude seems a bit odd to me. Do you generally
go around doing
things, intruding on the acknowledged ownership rights of others, UNLESS &
UNTIL they protest? At the store, do you give walking out w/o paying a
shot, just in case no one will stop you?...>>
Nope. I have a spectrum, like most human beings. Nina your arguments come
close to reductio ab adsurdum. Of course if we were computers we would live
our lives in the non-hypocritical way you describe. We would be totally
consistent in our moral, amoral and immoral choices. However, what makes us
much more interesting as a species of living, breathing beings (as opposed
to programmed machines) is that many of us are very situational in our
choices. We saw this in the show many times - is Duncan a write off as a
moral being because he not only tolerates but at times encourages Amanda's
theft of others' property. We often saw Duncan break into property,
steal, - we even saw him assassinate the mortal head of a foreign power!
Yet many of us admire him as one of the most moral men we know.
Life and its choices is very complex. I obey the law in virtually
everything but occasionally I walk across the road against a NO WALK
sign....I have this little spectrum that I refer to that alerts me as to
what the repercussions for others is of my choices. Thus, I don't steal; I
don't kill etc etc. Yet the very life I live does in fact have dire
consequences for those living in less fortunate countries. Writing
Highlander fanfic is so far down at the end of my situational ethics
spectrum that it doesn't even set off an alarm. It brings happiness to many
people. It can't bring unhappiness to any Highlander fan since I don't
force them to read my work. This would be their choice and I can't control
that. It is certainly not a necessary eventuality unless the individual
knowingly sets out to read something that they know beforehand will upset
them.
I stated that D-P themselves encourage fanfiction on their Official site.
Nina responded: <<Saying that means anything assumes so very much. Maybe
DPP have no clue about that feature on the site; after all, they repeatedly
claim ignorance
of their store's merchandising tactics, creative billing, & shipping snafus.
Or, maybe they see it as a cheap source of movie plots--they certainly need
all the help they can get. And--is stuff posted there owned by the poster
or the site owner? Maybe it's just their way of doing damage
control--keeping it at _their_ site. It certainly doesn't give anyone the
go-ahead to post HL-related material on any OTHER website, publish it in
fanzines, or to sell it elsewhere....>>
I think that this is getting disingenuous. I can only go on the signals
being sent to me and those signals suggest that the owner doesn't mind
Highlander fanfiction. Until they tell me otherwise this is all I can go
on. Certainly you would accept that a signal from Uncle Bill carries more
weight than a signal from you???? So I prefer to use my energy to worry
about my moral choices that are really affecting the planet's viability, the
quality of life etc etc.
Nina: <<.,.And, if you hurt yourself falling off of the doddering old fool's
swing, I
bet you'd sue him to the poorhouse. Then, you'd have his lovely yard all to
yourself...>>
Sue him!! Oh my goodness. No Nina, - despite Australia becoming
increasingly litigious, I abhor the trend and am an old fashioned believer
in one accepting responsibility for one's own actions. If I fall over in
the street, I get up, dust myself off and keep going. So Mr Kefups is quite
safe. I am thankful for his allowing me to use his garden and act
accordingly. As soon as he asks me to stop using his garden, I will stop.
Kind regards
@ Carmel Macpherson
<<<@{}=================>>>
@ carmel@hldu.org
http://www.hldu.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HLDU6: 29 April - 1 May, 2005. Sydney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:58:31 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
NIna wrote:
>Pat, your questions were--
> > Whose purpose is served by backing them into a corner and
> > forcing them to take a public position? To what end, Nina?
>
>That's basically saying why disturb John's sandbox, so my reply to you is
>the same--it's a ridiculous situation & I don't see the charm or sense of
>looking away so it can continue.
What it boils down to is you think John, in his capacity as a professional
writer, should do an "expose" and force the various PTB to take a public
position wrt to fanfic. Not because they want to. Not because the fans
want it. Solely because *you* want it, to serve your purpose.
It's nice to be clear about things, don't you think.
Pat
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:16:47 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Let's not just address these issues, but parcel them up, pay air mail and
lick (and maybe even push) the envelope...
> John before--
> >> Leah's carttons clearly falls under 'parody' and 'commentary'
>
> Me before--
> >Really? I'd be interested to see that tested.
>
> Marina--
> >I would say that it already has been. Starlog magazine printed
> >some of them.
>
> That's not a test. DPP or another aggrieved party suing the mag &
> Leah--THAT would be a test.
No. I think you're wrong on that. You're saying that nothing is proven
unless an action (and one you specify, at that) is taken and you don't
believe an action was. Isn't the decision to not take a certain action an
action/choice in and of itself per se? You...'decide not to read fanfic',
Sure, that's a negative, but it's still a choice - a decsion you made. But
you're saying that until the day Davis/Panzer sue someone, they aren't
making any choice at all. Surely the minute they say 'we don't mind fanfic'
it is also a statement and test. Given that Carmel recently pointed out that
their offical site welcomes fanfic, I think we can do more than just
'assume' their position on fanfic, we can take them at their offical
word.(albeit not encompassing the paid distribution which is another matter)
>From that I think we can *assume* if they don't mind fanfic, they don't mind
a simple humorous cartoon which has been openly on show in a magazine I
personally know they've seen. Equally, I'm not sure they could sue, anyway.
Plenty of political cartoonists simply feature George W.Bush ona regular
basis and I don't see him threatening to sue when they make him look
stupid(er).
> Way back when, Saturday Night Live did some fabulous Star Trek skits.
They
> also did countless spoofs of various other shows. But, SNL _also_ did
other
> things, & their original material was, along w/ the spoofs, brilliant.
What
> if SNL had decided their ratings would benefit if they ONLY did Star Trek
> bits--one after the other, every week, on & on. Still protected as
parody?
> Or abusive misappropriation of copyrighted material for profit? Same w/
> fanfic, cartoons, whatever.
Leah can correct me if I'm wrong (and undoutedly will! ;) ) but her cartoons
have covered Star Trek, Xena, Highlander, SG-1, The Sentinel and Quantum
Leap. Well, yes, Nina...damn Leah for concentrating on only a *few* cult
shows. Where shall we set the definition of restrictive is? 1 show, 5
shows, 25 shows? See,s pretty diverse, so far, but I've only seen about 30
of her sketches.
John--
> Well, happy to explain in simpler terms if needed. We cater for all.
> I'm driving a car that could be described as promoting the State I'm
driving
> through.
>It's not a question of simplification. But why is it necessary for you to
fantasize about driving through America w/ The Dixie Chicks? That's
just...odd.
I was injecting some topical cultural humour into my basic analogy. if you
don't get the cultural reference and recent news item, don't worry. Focus on
the important bit. I'm sure most people knew which that bit was.
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:38:58 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
All this talk about other peoples sandboxes has pretty good precedent, Larry
Niven called fanfic proper use of playground equipment, and his bit of writing
as setting up the playground.
The trouble with the playground/sandbox/garden/swing set analogy is that all of
these are physical objects with limited size that can only be used by one person
at a time.
Making up stories is none of those. Making up stories isnt like playing with
someone elses toys, its building your own that look just the same because you
like what you can do with toys like that. Everybody gets a set, sandbox, garden
of their own, they're just all looking like the original.
Which is why I dont get why the original owner can control your version of the
sandbox, because theres as many to go round as you like. I know thats where it
gets all money and image related and I've said what I think about those things
already, but to me stories are an infinite resource and so dont need to be
rationed.
The audience is finite. Up to about six billion at the moment. So is rules
about fanfic about rationing the audience?? Puzzling.
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:01:32 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Highlander Moment and Musings
I was watching a History Channel show called Conquest
last night and on the first ep the subject was the
broadsword. I had to giggle when I saw that one of the
contestants was named Adrian....he didn't get very far
in the contest though. (the contestants learn about
the weapons or whatever the topic is that week and
then have a contest to try out their skills after they
train with them)
It was hard to watch and not wonder "hey why aren't
you going for the head? No kills? no quickenings?"
LOL.
It did get me thinking though...fights back in the
middle ages must have taken quite a long time since
you would either have to try to find a chink in the
armor or to stick your sword into or tire your
opponent enough to get his sword away from him and/or
get his helmet off. And I think a fully armored Immie
would've been a formidable opponent to someone caught
without armor.
Ancient history would've also been
interesting....different cultures finding different
weapons at different times.....but except for the
occasional Methos memory, no one was around back then
to really allow many flashbacks.
Mel
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:07:25 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
> Which is why I dont get why the original owner can control your version of
the
> sandbox, because theres as many to go round as you like. I know thats
where it
> gets all money and image related and I've said what I think about those
things
> already, but to me stories are an infinite resource and so dont need to be
> rationed.
> beccaelizabeth
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
I think you misunderstand the analogy. The adventure/story is not the
sandbox, it's the set of pieces/landscape you play with. The sandbox is a
description of any universe created that includes a specific * toys*
(Duncan, Methos, Richie etc) that have been created by another person. It's
not a question of whether you're dressing them up in barbie outfits, soldier
gear or enacting any specific adventure, it's the actual use of those
specific characters that sees you enter the sandbox. You write about
Dracula, it's the Dracula sandbox. You reascend Daniel Jackson, it's the
SG-1 sandbox.
Fanfic writers may be (and usually are) welcomed into the sandbox as long as
they promise to play fair and not damage the sandbox, but they shouldn't
mistake the granted access for a public right of way.
John
.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 7 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-142)
***************************************************************