HIGHLA-L Digest - 7 Jul 2003 to 8 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-144)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:13:41 -0400
There are 17 messages totalling 814 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Immortal moral choices
2. Square dancing! (2)
3. Fanfic & Morals (13)
4. Reformed Methos? (was) Re: Immortal moral choices
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:52:20 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/7/2003 12:04:03 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Jezebel615@aol.com writes:
> Highlander's Talmudic discussions wouldn't have been so interesting if
> everyone saw the world of immortals through the same social or religious
> lens.
>
true, but the reason they endured and struck such a nerve in us all is that
those stories reminded us that human nature and the central moral dilemmas
faced were the same for every age Duncan lived in, not just the present. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:23:13 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Square dancing!
I've been gone all day and now notice that this thread seems to be dying a=20
happy death. I'm not hoping to resurrrect it, but there were a few parting=20
answers I felt I had to give to some of Wendy's argument.
=20
Dotiran:
>Morality on the other hand involves the central core of what is "right"
>or fitting for humankind, of who we are.
Wendy:
>>Based on ...what?=20
Philosophy speaks of this as the natural law. For those who have not studied=
=20
philosophy, it means that it is a law that is "naturally known, innately=20
known, instinctively known by natural reason," and "that it is a law based=20=
on=20
human nature and for the flourishing and fulfilling of human nature."=20
The discovery of the natural law is a continuously unfolding enterprise. Jus=
t=20
as it took human beings a long time to separate out and clarify the laws of=20
physical nature, so too for the laws of moral nature. It is an ongoing=20
process. Take the example of slavery which has already been mentioned. Did s=
ome=20
people once *think* that it was moral/acceptable/ok? Surely. But people's=20
perceptions of the reality doesn't change the reality. In terms of morality,=
either it=20
was, is,and always will be "wrong," or it isn't. Whether I, or my socsiety o=
r=20
my "times," wind up right or wrong in our own perception of that "truth" in=20
any given time, culture, age or mood matters not one iota. Perhaps that is w=
hat=20
is meant by enlightenment. I, or my society, or my "times," didn't "get it."=
=20
But *it* didn't change. We did.
>>. "And am I correct in believing that the set of morals to which you=20
subscribe is the correct "universal" one?....... What you seem to be arguing=
is that=20
there is only One True Belief System (conveniently, yours)" =20
::::rolls eyes :::::There you go again introducing religion and belief into=20
what you had insisted would be a rational intellectual discussion ! You seem=
to=20
prefer to debate religion not philosophy. I'm not going to take that bait.=20
But I find it very interesting that you make the above statement, attributin=
g=20
an arrogance to me that I don't remember possessing, having completely=20
overlooked my statements that " I would not presume to state that all humans=
at=20
every point in history or even any of us in this discussion either know or w=
ill=20
agree on what that truth is, " and " Perhaps none of us should attempt to=20
assert that we know with certainty what is and is not moral"=20
I will I will just take your own words to heart. "There is probably little=20
point of further discussion...because the two sides of the debate will never=
=20
agree on the starting point of the discussion."
Oh, as to your earlier "question" [again on Religion :)]=20
>>
"If 50% of the world's population in Religion Y believes that sex outside of=
=20
marriage is immoral and 50% of the population in Religion Z believes that se=
x=20
outside of marriage is the pathway to God...which action -sex outside of=20
marriage or no sex outside of marriage - is moral??? Explain."
One answer is just to smile and plant my tongue firmly in my cheek.
Sex outside of marriage has to be immoral because Y is a chomosome and knows=
=20
all about sex.=A0 However Z is not a chomosome and is therefore a false=20
religion.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:53:20 -0500
From: Ginny <RED57@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Square dancing!
<br>
<br>
<span type="cite">Earlier, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Dotiran@AOL.COM">Dotiran@AOL.COM</a> wrote:</span>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite" > <tt>However
Z is not a chomosome and is therefore a false <br>
religion. <br>
</tt></blockquote>
Blasphemer! Z is the true religion of cute fuzzy things of various
genetic backgrounds. All hail the power of Z. <br>
<br>
(Question - if religion Z turned itself partly inside out, it would be
X and therefore a chromosome, non?)<br>
<span>--<br>
Ginny<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RED57@aol.com">RED57@aol.com</a><br>
Fresh out of .sig lines</span>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:02:32 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
In a message dated 7/7/2003 6:24:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tunnack@webone.com.au writes:
> I stated that D-P themselves encourage fanfiction on their Official site.
I know the actors and production crew who wrote the stories in AN EVENIGN AT
JOES, but the entire concept of the book had an onionskin's division between
pro and fanfic. If D-P could be guilty of anyone's accusation of stealing
fanfic, it would be this example of where they acknowledged that the HL fans enjoy
the collateral tales written about their universe, and are willing to pay for
a batch of them that D-P legitimizes. It must have worked; they contemplated
putting out a Volume 2.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:14:00 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
In a message dated 7/7/2003 9:02:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Ashton7@aol.com
writes:
> Hmmm. Star Wars (Starlog did a whole spread of them and I think we can
> assume
> George Lucas doesn't mind since he bought one), Babylon 5 (I think we can
> assume JMS doesn't mind since he's seen them, commented on them, signed some
> of
> them), Buffy, Angel, Blakes 7 (Terry Nation didn't seem to mind all the
> times
> he saw them, auctioned them at art auctions...and of course the actors in
> question... hmmm. There were the ones who bid on them at the auctions and
> bought
> them...), various and sundry Westerns... and then there are several pro
> SciFi
> books that were illustrated by Leah with original illustrations and
> cartoons.
> And all of the cat and dog magazines she's done work for over the years. And
> the
> Jewish children's books she used to illustrate... yadda yadda yadda. Yes,
> damn Leah. She's just everywhere. Damn her.
>
> Annie
>
Well...not *all* of these might be out of approval. When Mark Ryan recognized
my name on the badge at his autograph session, he enthused about how he had
one of my cartoons hanging in the bathroom, at home. At least Marcus Testory
put *his* up in the bedroom...
And to be technically accurate, it was SW producer Gary Kurz who bought one
of my cartoons at a Worldcon artshow to *give* to George Lucas. Speaking of
which, didn't Lucasfilms purchase and collect up a couple of copies of every SW
fanzine that came out, years back?
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:19:49 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <tunnack@webone.com.au>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Hi all
John said: <<..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...>>
Carmel: Absolutely agree with this John.
John: <<<...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>>>
to which Nina responded: <<..You DO know what they say about assuming? If
you MUST assume something, why not assume that DPP _only_ will tolerate HL
fanfic publicly at their own site, so that this "official word" is trying to
discourage fanfic being distributed elsewhere?...>>
Carmel: Because if DPP *only* tolerate HL fanfic on their own site then I
would assume that they would take 30 seconds to put up a statement saying
so. "Please feel free to post your Highlander fanfic here on our Official
site. Please also note that this is the only place that we will tolerate
the posting of Highlander fanfic and will issue cease and desist notices to
owners of any site hosting Highlander fanfic." That sentence took me 30
seconds to type. If I felt as strongly as you suggest DPP might feel, Nina,
then why would I not take the time to put such a statement up????? In its
absence, John's and my assumption and the assumptions of all HL fanfic
writers is a legitimate assumption. The fact that DPP have allowed posting
of HL fanfic to numerous websites indicates that it is not something, at
this stage, which they care to pursue. We do know that they are willing to
issue cease and desist orders on other matters because they did so to the
owner of the site that hosted the leaked copy of the EndGame script. So -
fact. DPP are not unwilling to use the weight of the law on topics that
they feel strongly about. They have not done so with HL fanfic. Ipso
facto, they do not, at this stage, feel strongly about the writing or
posting to one's own website of fanfic.
Nina: <<..I didn't get an answer to my question to you on that--about DPP's
website feature for fanfic & all the HL fanfic on YOUR site--& I played
along w/your scenario so nicely.... Very disheartening....>>
Carmel: Was this your question? "Maybe DPP have no clue about that feature
on the site;"??? If so, I thought it too silly to even comment on. It is
their Official website therefore I feel it is perfectly reasonable to assume
that they know what is on it. It's just lazy to attempt to throw aside what
you cannot give a sensible answer to. The fact remains that DPP publicly
condone the writing and posting of HL fanfic on their own site. Fans are
encouraged to write HL fanfic. I'm sorry that this cuts right across your
wishes but it is a fact. In one universe, HL, fanfic is publicly endorsed
and encouraged by the copyright owners. I know it pains you but if the
copyright owners don't mind, why do you? Why not take your arguments to a
fanfiction list and universe where the owners *do* mind??
Nina: <<..Situational ethics? Like relative morality? I'd think certain
folks here would object to that idea. Rottie? Dawn? Oh--maybe it's OK for
fanfic, or for Carmel. ..>>
Carmel: Yes - I've already admitted that I am a situational ethicist. I
don't seek to excuse it and admit that I am a flawed being. If, for
example, we all saw a person shop-lifting would we turn that person over to
the law? Yes?? What if that person was our aged Mother?? There is a
wonderful book called 'Riding the Waves of Culture' by Fons Trompenaars
which explores this very issue and is well worth reading.
Carmel: <<..We often saw Duncan break into property, steal, - we even saw
him assassinate the mortal head of a foreign power!..>>
Nina: <<..However, we never saw him boffing Methos. Or heard him extolling
the virtues of distributed fanfic...>>
Who mentioned Duncan boffing Methos?? I certainly didn't. I'm not
discussing slash so please don't turn this into a slash discussion. I also
never saw Duncan on the toilet or peeling an onion. I did see him as a
situational ethicist yet I still regard the man portrayed on our screens as
a highly moral person. Like all of us, he is flawed.
Carmel: <<..Life and its choices is very complex. I obey the law in
virtually everything but..>>
Nina: <<..But you think it's fine to distribute fanfic w/o permission. It's
fun & you like it. OK, I made a note...>>
Yep - I do. I don't lose a minute's sleep over it. In the global scheme of
things it just doesn't rate on my scale of things to toss and turn about.
Nina: <<...Unauthorized use of someone else's property IS stealing.
Copyrighted material is no different from anything else. You seem to want
to thinkmfanfic is _nice_ stealing, but there's no magic, personal exception
for fanfic or for you. If you _really_ need to do it, then I guess you
have to rationalize it, but don't expect me to go along....>>
Carmel: but haven't I already admitted that I breach DPP's copyright? My
reference to stealing was in response to your wonderment as to whether I
steal from shops. You asked: <<.. At the store, do you give walking out w/o
paying a
shot, just in case no one will stop you?..>> No - I don't steal from
shops. I write fanfic. As I said, I have a spectrum of immoral and/or
illegal actions with some that I regard as so trivial if breached that it
wouldn't turn a hair on my head or any other rational and sane person.
Nina: <<..The only "signal" you cited was the fanfic feature ON DPP'S OWN
SITE. How does that give you the green light for distributing fanfic
_elsewhere_? It's surely more reasonable to think DPP's trying to control
it, rather than
encourage it...>>
Carmel: Why? Gosh - you are so *desperate* for this to be so but all the
logic is against you for reasons cited earlier in my post.
Nina: <<..You stated fanfic is unauthorised use of someone else's property,
then decided it was a fine thing to do. I'm
just trying to connect the dots...>>
Carmel: It's really easy. I'm a flawed human being. I've already admitted
that. If the owners ask me to stop, I will do so willingly. But I sure
won't stop because 'you' make assumptions on their behalf.
Nina: <<..But, fanfic's a "don't ask, don't tell" thing, so you're pretty
safe, aren't you?..>>
Carmel: Not at all. There is no reason at all why DPP would be averse to
telling us to stop writing fanfic if that is what they wanted to do. I can
see the "Don't ask" on our side but can't follow your "Don't tell" on DPP's
side????
Kind regards
@ Carmel Macpherson
<<<@{}=================>>>
@ carmel@hldu.org
http://www.hldu.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HLDU6: 29 April - 1 May, 2005. Sydney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:04:37 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
I
> Nina: <<..Situational ethics? Like relative morality? I'd think certain
> folks here would object to that idea. Rottie? Dawn? Oh--maybe it's OK for
> fanfic, or for Carmel. ..>>
>
You can leave me out of this. I don't *do* fanfic so I'm under the radar of
your ire on *this* issue. Of course since "opinionsRus" I do have an opinion :)
Fanfiction is not my cup of tea and slash is abhorrent, but I see no harm in
people playing with the characters as long as they don't distort them [e.g.
slash] or sell their work for money. To me it is no different than high school
art students "copying" a Michaelangelo in order to learn how to paint. It
isn't like forgery where they are trying to pawn off their work as the work of the
master and get money for it. Now *that* would be wrong. [see I still believe
in right and wrong. absolutely :)]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:17:46 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Out&About)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dotiran@aol.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Fanfic & Morals
> I
> > Nina: <<..Situational ethics? Like relative morality? I'd think
certain
> > folks here would object to that idea. Rottie? Dawn? Oh--maybe it's OK
for
> > fanfic, or for Carmel. ..>>
> >
>
> You can leave me out of this. I don't *do* fanfic so I'm under the radar
of
> your ire on *this* issue. Of course since "opinionsRus" I do have an
opinion :)
> Fanfiction is not my cup of tea and slash is abhorrent, but I see no harm
in
> people playing with the characters as long as they don't distort them
[e.g.
> slash] or sell their work for money. To me it is no different than high
school
> art students "copying" a Michaelangelo in order to learn how to paint. It
> isn't like forgery where they are trying to pawn off their work as the
work of the
> master and get money for it. Now *that* would be wrong. [see I still
believe
> in right and wrong. absolutely :)]
While slash leaves me cold (and I really don't understand the attraction of
changing an established character's sexuality, be they male or female) it
equally doesn't bother me unless it crosses my path. I'd be equally
uninterested in Duncan's Adventures in Teletubbieland, though it might be
less inclined to attract attention. To each their own and all that. I don't
think it takes much to see why some actors/PTB dislike it, but even most of
them would rather just be kept away from it. I would stand up for someone's
right to write it for themselves for their own amusement, but I couldn't
look them in the eye if I found out I or someone I knew featured in it.
Nina seems to think all fanfic is sad and immoral. Other than the above
important distinction, I'd rather tend to agree with Rottie and the official
Highlander site: it's all in *how* it's done, not in the fact it's *done at
all* - it's only a problem if people seek to profit for something they
haven't purchased the rights for (with the mentioned parody/individual
cartoon excepion under law) and seem unwilling to understand the laws
relating to trademark and ownership.
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:33:51 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Reformed Methos? (was) Re: Immortal moral choices
Wendy:
> >> 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.)
Me:
> >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.
Wendy, again:
>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?
Um. No, not really. But I do think that people in general are less
likely to change the older they get. There are real growth periods
between, say, 18 and 30...and certainly people change between 30 and
60, but I think someone is less likely to make a *major* change in
their life as they age. We get comfortable.
Is it fair to apply the same rules to immortals? I don't know.
Maybe their "youth" is 100-500. Maybe it's everything under 1000.
Either way, Methos was long out of it by the Bronze Age. He would
have been, what? 2000?
Now, okay...that doesn't mean that he *couldn't* change at any given
point in his life. I just...have a hard time getting my head around
a)that length of time (5000 years in one body) and b)the cultural
norms and mores of the Bronze Age/Copper Age that would have shaped
his early views on life.
me:
> >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.
Wendy:
>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.
And why is it different that an immortal man has "that capacity
within him"? I mean, isn't the capacity there, regardless of the
life-span?
> 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.
a)Methos wasn't 200 in the Bronze Age. He was 2000-something.
b)Why should it be viewed differently? The ratios of age are
approximate to your 20 and 50 scenario.
> 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.
I'm not sure I can *acquit* him of them. I might be inclined to, um,
over-look them...but acquit implies that he wasn't guilty or that
there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that he was. Neither, IMO,
is true. He *was* guilty of rape and torture and wrongful
imprisonment--and that's just with Cassandra.
And this is what I meant when I said that I'm still trying to
reconcile BA Methos with Adam Pierson. It's easy for me to
conveniently forget about Death on a Horse and focus on Cute Boy on
Bar Stool...but when I am reminded of his past, I cannot dismiss it,
no matter how much I would like to.
Liser
--
Lisa Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
--
The difference between truth and fiction: fiction has to make sense
--Mark Twain
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 18:51:55 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
John wrote:
>To each their own and all that. I don't
>think it takes much to see why some actors/PTB dislike it, but even most of
>them would rather just be kept away from it. I would stand up for someone's
>right to write it for themselves for their own amusement, but I couldn't
>look them in the eye if I found out I or someone I knew featured in it.
And, as with most things, some actors and PTB mind and some don't. I
remember when K/S (that's Kirk/Spock for the clueless) was huge, and
Gene Roddenberry attempted to deflect interest from it by putting a
passage about how Kirk likes women in his novelization of "Star Trek:
The Motion Picture". Needless to say, it didn't work, but notice that
GR didn't sue anybody or anything like that (and K/S was sold openly
at cons in those days). I know William Shatner doesn't like slash; have
no idea what Leonard Nimoy thinks of it.
Paul Gross (the executive producer as well as star) of Due South
made comments on the record about fanfic, and that he thinks it's a
legitimate expression of a fan's love for the show and characters.
He even put slashy moments into the third season of Due South *on
purpose* because he knew the slashers would like that. This is all
documented on various DS sites. He also admitted to looking for
slash fanfic on the Net. David Marciano, though, just stated that
Ray liked women.
Garett Maggart said he didn't mind slash but he wanted it clearly
labelled so his nieces would know to stay away from it, and there
were some aspects of it that made him feel Blair wasn't getting
his due. I haven't heard what Richard Burgi thinks of slash or
even fanfic, but he did state that he thought Jim and Blair would
end up in bed before long (yes, he actually said that).
Saint Michael (Michael Shanks to the uninitiated) just shrugged and
said, "Whatever stirs your coffee," when asked about slash. Richard
Dean Anderson, though, did not like the idea at all.
So there's a spectrum of opinions about the whole thing. A person
can't say that all actors/PTB are disgusted by slash or think it
demeans their characters. Some do; some don't. As with most things.
- Marina.
\\ "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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 18:42:49 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
> 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.
And Blake's 7. That's where I first met Leah's talent. About <mumble>
years ago!
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 18:47:15 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@BTINTERNET.COM>
> 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.
This analogy makes the occasional "C&D" notice that the odd
(and usually OTT fanfic writer) gets equivilent to land owners
who let you use a path across their land for 363 days a year,
and shut the gate for two days, so as not to "establish a
precident" - they don't *mind* you using the path, but they
can't afford to let everyone get a Right of Way. (this is a
fairly common practice in some parts of the UK)
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 19:07:35 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
> Carmel: Because if DPP *only* tolerate HL fanfic on their own site then I
> would assume that they would take 30 seconds to put up a statement saying
> so. "Please feel free to post your Highlander fanfic here on our Official
> site. Please also note that this is the only place that we will tolerate
> the posting of Highlander fanfic and will issue cease and desist notices
to
> owners of any site hosting Highlander fanfic." That sentence took me 30
> seconds to type. If I felt as strongly as you suggest DPP might feel,
Nina,
> then why would I not take the time to put such a statement up????? In its
> absence, John's and my assumption and the assumptions of all HL fanfic
> writers is a legitimate assumption. The fact that DPP have allowed
posting
> of HL fanfic to numerous websites indicates that it is not something, at
> this stage, which they care to pursue. We do know that they are willing
to
> issue cease and desist orders on other matters because they did so to the
> owner of the site that hosted the leaked copy of the EndGame script. So -
> fact. DPP are not unwilling to use the weight of the law on topics that
> they feel strongly about. They have not done so with HL fanfic. Ipso
> facto, they do not, at this stage, feel strongly about the writing or
> posting to one's own website of fanfic.
Indeed, DPP are well aware of fanfic and only *once* that I am
aware of have issued C&D notices to fans - a little matter of
some fanfic of an adult nature that was *handed* to one of the
stars at a con, then the fanzine was being sold as "as read
by X". A few people got C & D notices over that one, but DPP
were *only* interested in pursuing *those* cases - and after
a short while there was an *unofficial* amnesty. DPP continue
to be aware that fanfic exists AND are aware of where it is
to be found and have already shown that *in the right circumstances*
they will act - yet they do NOT act. It may not constitute "permission"
but it does show a tacit acceptance.
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:50:04 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Tmar:
>>I know William Shatner doesn't like slash; have
no idea what Leonard Nimoy thinks of it.<<
Shatner actually asked Nimoy what he thought of it during a radio interview (off-mike). Nimoy: (shrugged) "Whatever floats your boat."
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:53:19 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Further to Marina's anecdotes on the subject, when Bill Hupe was running this enormous fanzine distribution network for dozens of fanzine publishers, he related to us that one of the actresses from DR. WHO had a standing order with him to save a copy of every new slash zine that came out, and to box them up and send them to her regularly.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:02:22 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
>>And Blake's 7. That's where I first met Leah's talent. About <mumble>
years ago!
Jette<<
I believe my first media cartoons started to appear in WARPED SPACE, back in the mid-70's. STARLOG started to run them in the 80's, and has, in fact, been running media satire cartoons for sci-fi and fantasy movies and tv shows for decades. STARLOG is notoriously leery of upsetting or insulting the studios that provide them with their source material and interviews; if STARLOG isn't worried about all the cartoons it's run over the years, I seriously doubt it's a legal problem in any way.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:13:25 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Out&About)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
> From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@BTINTERNET.COM>
>
> > 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.
>
> This analogy makes the occasional "C&D" notice that the odd
> (and usually OTT fanfic writer) gets equivilent to land owners
> who let you use a path across their land for 363 days a year,
> and shut the gate for two days, so as not to "establish a
> precident" - they don't *mind* you using the path, but they
> can't afford to let everyone get a Right of Way. (this is a
> fairly common practice in some parts of the UK)
>
> Jette
Yup
The UK law states that if there is continued access over a long enough
period, the law *can* (not automatic) recategorise the path as legal public
access against the wishes of the owner because of his lack of action to stop
access . Similar to squatting rights where if the owner doesn't challenge
squatters within something like 5 years, the squatters can claim a precedent
and legally refuse to move. Now, that doesn't mean the squatters have any
moral rights, but they are covered legally.
If the ground-breaking legal action that Nina hopes is in her Christmas
stocking ever comes about, the fanficers may have a hard time proving they
have the right to profit from established characters, but TPTB may have a
fundemental problem with the permissive stance they've taken to date. Which
is exactly why, with a few blips, both sides - with a little common-sense -
have established a balance.
John
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 7 Jul 2003 to 8 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-144)
*****************************************************************************