HIGHLA-L Digest - 22 Jul 2001 to 23 Jul 2001 - Special issue
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 21:42:29 -0400
There are 14 messages totalling 814 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Inspired stories
2. Inspired stories (Was: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic Wr
3. French Highlander (2)
4. bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) (4)
5. whoops.
6. Lily-white characters ( was CAH and the down-slide of HL (2)
7. bootleg tapes & more (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:58:35 -0400
From: Janeen Grohsmeyer <darkpanther@erols.com>
Subject: Inspired stories
Nina wrote about WDG:
>The excerpts I have read do seem to fit w/in a reasonable definition of
>"parody."
Perhaps we're reading different excerpts. The ones I have read didn't seem
to fit within my understanding of the word "parody." But then, I haven't
read the whole book, and I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to understand
how words are legally defined, or what "reasonable definition" is, because
lots of times words and phrases don't mean what I thought they meant, in a
legal sense. Which is one reason people hire lawyers.
>
>> Jo Raumo recently said something about it being absurd to consider fanfic
>> parody.
NOTE: I've since been informed that Jo said that it was absurd to consider
*all* fanfic parody. Sorry about any confusion my misquote may have caused.
>>Is it? Or should we maybe take another look?
>
>Because it's an easy out?
No. I'm not finding any of this easy, either to read about or to
understand.
> Or, do you really think most fanfic is parody,
>intended or not by the writer?
Two weeks ago, I would have said no. Now, I'm not sure what parody means in
a legal sense. I will say, though, that the stories about Itchie and
Demander and Meefus are parody as I understand the word, and so is the story
about the Stone Chicken. (Though doing a parody of Monte Python seems to be
me to be darn near impossible. <g>) So, imho, those would be protected
under the parody rule, and could legally be sold for profit.
Also, essays about HL (such as those that appeared in the HLDU conbooks) are
protected under the "comment" part of the copyright laws, and so the essays
are legal and could also be sold.
Yes? Or no? Anyone?
> I do not see fanfic that way at all, but....
Nor do I see it that way. I suggested we take another look because the
definition of the word "parody" seemed (in my strictly non-legally aware
opinion) to have been expanded by this recent decision. Since I have no
training in this area, I thought I would mention it on list so that we might
have the benefit of the opinions of those familiar with law and with
"reasonable definition."
Janeen
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:04:58 EDT
From: CatatonicZ@aol.com
Subject: Inspired stories (Was: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic Wr
I didn't read the first few posts on this so if I ask what has already been
offered I'm sorry. First of all, Nina do you or have you read fan fic? I'm
just wondering if you came to your opinion (or as I see your opinion) that
its morally and legally going against the rights of TPTB before or after
viewing (enjoying or hating) fanfic? Information purely so that I better
understand the position that you are coming from. Secondly does anyone know
what the stance taken by the writers/creators of any show about the fan fic
based on their show? After reading everyones debates it just got me
wondering what the people this would actually be doing potential harm to,
think on the matter.
Thanks,
~Monica <First time poster ducking her head, not wanting to get in the
middle of anything.>
"Plenty of people did not care for him much, but then there is a huge
difference between disliking somebody -- maybe even disliking them a lot --
and actually shooting them, strangling them, dragging them through the fields
and setting their house on fire. It was a difference which kept the vast
majority of the population alive from day to day. "-Douglas Adams
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:13:37 -0400
From: joanne <jojoann@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: French Highlander
Bonsoir,
Kenneth Culpepper a écrit :
> This is a question for all of you French Highlander
> fans. I have been trying to learn French recently in
> preparation for doctroal studies and ahve found it to
> be very useful to pratice by watching shows with which
> I am familiar in Francais. Do any of you have shows
> you have taped off television in French that you might
> be able to copy for me or do you have any information
> where Highlander shows could be purchased in French.
HL cannot be bought in French (oh how can one get tapes then without copy!).
But Z, a network in Quebec, broadcast HL in French 6 days aweek, uncensored
and unedited and all 48 minutes - in French. Constantly, except for the
first season whose legal rights belongs to a different producer than the
others ones. So find someone living in Quebec (that is the French speaking
province of Canada and where people speak French in North America) with
cable, willing to make copy. (I do not have the time now to copy, make ,
send tapes -sorry). Or join highlander-france (at yahoo.group),practice your
writing french, and ask someone in France.M6 is still broadcasting (it is a
network in France) but I hear they do not air all shows and the French would
make pal tapes.
The pilot was available in French however - as a movie-type. TheGathering
and another episode; copies of this are extremely rare and hard to find.
All the movies are available in French; the fourth with different
editing,voice,dubbingand title.
Hope you can get those tapes,
JoAnne
jojoann"videotron.ca
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:13:56 -0400
From: joanne <jojoann@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: French Highlander
Bonsoir,
Kenneth Culpepper a écrit :
> This is a question for all of you French Highlander
> fans. I have been trying to learn French recently in
> preparation for doctroal studies and ahve found it to
> be very useful to pratice by watching shows with which
> I am familiar in Francais. Do any of you have shows
> you have taped off television in French that you might
> be able to copy for me or do you have any information
> where Highlander shows could be purchased in French.
Z-a network in the province of Quebec - broadcast HL in French - nearly
daily. Find someone who has this channel or get your cable-distributor
to
carried it. Episodes are completed and unedited of course !
Else get hold of someone of highlander-france(join the list for practice
if
you wish at yahoo.group) M6 is broadcasting still I believe - but some
of
the episodes are not shown and les francais would tape in Pal while in
Quebec it would be north american standard.
French episodes have never been sold that I know of - except for
thepilot
episode. (Since NOT available - how bad is it to copy tapes!)
JoAnne
jojoann"videotron.ca
I do have Z.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 20:26:10 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <Carmel@stuartfieldhouse.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Nina said ..
aaaaah....forget it....:-))))
my kindest regards to all
Carmel
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:05:33 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
> No, you weren't clear at all. You quoted me saying this--
> >>>> Yes, & they include DISTRIBUTING fanfic on the Internet, which takes
it
> completely out of the personal scrapbook category you evoked above.>>>
>
> And you immediately responded w/ this--
> >>Not sure it does.
>
> I was specifically talking about distribution on the net, & you STILL
stuck
> to the scrapbook comparison.
My exact reply was:
Not sure it does.And it does depend on what IS found to be disturbing (which
I'm sure you will agree is a personal thing - that's the problem -... even a
quick scan of this list shows that different people have different
interpretations of what they find acceptable). A person can write ANYTHING
they want in ANY way they see fit if it's for personal use. Just the same
way I could paint a portrait of one of the characters without the law
banging on the door. Now... when we get to the issue of selling/distributing
material then we get to the subject-matter that I think we've covered
extensively and I'm sure you can check my (and others') previous posts on
the LEGAL side of that if you wish to see opinions.
Perhaps the snipping was too tight, but I was actually trying to say that
writing fanfic doesn't automatically infringe copyright if it is for the
sole use of the writer themselves. So writing fanfic (even including
homo-erotic content should you feel inclined) might not AUTOMATICALLY lead
to the bigger issue of distribtion. Apologies if that wasn't clear. But I
think that this paragraph clearly explains my opinions on why fanfic (for
personal use) is like creating a scrapbook...whether it be a balanced,
idealised or highly personal view of the subject-matter at hand and it is
when it is distributed that some of the legal ramifications can be addressd
(if anyone should want to). Hope that's clear.
>
> > I still say that whatever a lawyer may feel, it would need a
> > modern case to cast the definitive legal standpoint in stone (hence the
> > reason we have trials?). AS I said, I think such a case WOULD lead to a
> > fanfic writer losing, but I don't see a rush to take people to court.
> Well, there are lots of reasons for that, aren't there? Fanfic writers
try
> to keep TPTB from knowing what's going on (except to the extent this goal
> interferes w/ them getting to strew their work across the Internet), a
> lawsuit would cost money & could harm the franchise in terms of publicity
> (the David/Goliath thing, or if a slash writer is sued, of course, the
term
> "homophobic" will be used), etc. None of that has anything to do w/ the
> legal merits of the case, though. Really, your admission that fanfic
> writers would lose any case is at odds w/ your insistence that a case is
> necessary.
Firstly, while I think the common-sense of most writers to know that
charging for their work or waving it under the nose of TPTB would be crass
stupidity and eventually likely to cause official response, I'm in no doubt
that TPTB are not naive. Indeed at the recent ComicCon, a host of tv writers
had a panel about fanfic writing and its place in the world. Fanfic is
common knowledge and no-one is inclined to do anything about it unless it
becomes so prominent that a legal case is the last resort. Many fanfic
writers would take that as a taciturn endorsement to do whatever they want.
Personally, I think that may be over-stating the 'endorsement' and, again, I
think TPTB don't WANT to make mention of it because they need to avoid
setting a precedent in case they ever DO decide to act. Right now, it's
clear that a 'Don't ask, Don't tell' situation exists which sems to suit
both parties. As long as fanfic writers don't overstate their 'legal' rights
(none when it comes to previously copyrighted characters) and TPTB don't
decide to crack down on every fansite, seize every unofficial badge/button,
t-shirt etc, then everyone seems to be happy. At least legally.
And the fact that I think a fanfic writer would lose if she went into court
against TPTB means squat, for the very reason stated: I'm not a judge.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your job as a lawyer would be to go into court
and defend/prosecute by whichever side you had been hired, using as many
facts as possible which backed up your viewpoint. Presumably, the oppossing
council would go into court with just as much enthusiasm. It would be for
you to fight your case but you could not guarantee the outcome. So, again,
your opinion (all fanfic is wrong and should not be written) and my opinion
(that fanfic is technically illegal but usually harmless) on the
possible/likely/unlikely outcome are worth nothing until a judge decides.
> Relax, I didn't say the factual nature of your articles made them less
> legally protected. Me & my gut just think that creative work is even
_more_
> deserving of such protection.
Hmmmm. (Well first, I'd like to think that my articles require some
creativity if it involves more than just a few facts in a list.)So all
copyrighted work is protected, but some should be more protected than
others? I see what you're saying, but given that opinion and how it would
affect the legal process...does that result in losing a blanket legal
standpoint or create a sliding scale on a moral or legal level?
> When the "new work" is soundly based in a unique fictional universe like
> HL's (w/ Quickenings, buzzes, beheadings & the like), & populated w/ the
HL
> characters we're familiar w/ from the official products, then there's very
> little "new" at all. Try stripping away everything the fanfic writer
> "borrowed," & 99% of the time what you've got left is very little--&
nothing
> HL fans would be interested in reading.
By definition, it's still a new work, if it relates to new stories, those
that have not already been depicted or referred to on screen/page. I agree
that there would be a clear case for having the original work inspire
(obviously!), but technically, it's new material inspired by old, not a
direct copy of the original - unless dialogue/events duplicated. Different
legal definition, surely.
The short of it: TPTB could possibly act whenever they wanted and would
probably have a strong chance of winning. But just because they can, doesn't
mean they should or would want to. As long as fanfic writers don't get too
pompous, I doubt TPTB will do so either.
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:08:46 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@BTINTERNET.COM>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [HL] bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
> > Yes, & they include DISTRIBUTING fanfic on the Internet, which takes it
> > completely out of the personal scrapbook category you evoked above.
>
> Not sure it does.And it does depend on what IS found to be disturbing
(which
> I'm sure you will agree is a personal thing - that's the problem -... even
a
> quick scan of this list shows that different people have different
> interpretations of what they find acceptable). A person can write ANYTHING
> they want in ANY way they see fit if it's for personal use. Just the same
> way I could paint a portrait of one of the characters without the law
> banging on the door. Now... when we get to the issue of
selling/distributing
> material then we get to the subject-matter that I think we've covered
> extensively and I'm sure you can check my (and others') previous posts on
> the LEGAL side of that if you wish to see opinions.
>
>
> > Or just look at the law as it stands to date (which is all anyone can do
> in
> > any area), & you'll see there's no grey at all. Distributing fanfic is
an
> > illegal infringement of intellectual property rights.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, so I can only sit back and watch those wth better legal
> knowledge explain. I am under the impression that various people on this
> List have extensively quoted from legal books which maintain their stance
on
> the standing of fanfic. I don't dispute the validity of either side's
> points. Personally, given my understanding of the law, I don't think
fanfic
> writers would have a LEGAL chance (if anyone BOTHERED to take it to
court),
> but (as quoted) it seems that as there has never really been a test-case,
so
> we can only speculate how a judge/jury would respond to the
interpretation
> of the law. So far, that doesn't affect your view or Leah's view... it
just
> proves that no judgement has been handed down and everyone's arguing over
> the wording. Hence that LEGAL grey area. You and Leah can argue all you
> want, but neither of your opinions means squat until a judge sets a
SPECIFIC
> precedent - particulalrly under the problematic nature of 21st Century
> cyberspace legal jurisdiction.
>
> > > And Nina? You've made some good points. Don't let them get lost by
> > > presenting them as a challenge rather than a question - because
people,
> > > understandably, get defensive and respond to tone rather than words.
> >
> > Like you?
>
> Now this is what I mean. I can ask a question... I can say 'I think that's
a
> flawed argument...blah,blah, blah' or 'I don't think you've understood,
etc
> etc etc' and most people here will tell you that it's not a personal
attack.
> It's expressing an opinion of disagreement. You are entitled to your
opinion
> on ANYTHING, Nina, and I'll defend your right to post it here whether I
> agree with you or not. But Listers might feel that SOME of your posting is
> the equivalent of jabbing people with your finger, whether you think
that's
> true or not. But it's not what's true, it's all about 'perception'. Ask
> people on the list how they perceive your style of posting and then decide
> if that's something which might affect the way you're being answered in
> turn? I consider that before every post I make.
>
> >I just want to know how you can
> > reasonably distinguish distributing w/o permission
> > copied-Impact-articles-with-original-artwork from distributing fanfic
w/o
> > permission.
>
> Well... because it's not really the same thing. Someone photocopies the
> Impact article, it copies my work and it's not creating a new version.
> Adding some pages of artwork to it (homo-erotic or not), doesn't alter the
> basic fact that you've duplicated my work without permission and that
would
> be my air-tight legal argument. My articles are a bad example because they
> are factual and I can't see anyone ever being inspired by my articles to
> actually go away and write fiction - using my piece as a source. If they
> did, I'm not sure I could prove that my interview was a source for a
novel.
> I guess some films have been inspired by news-stories and no-one sues them
> for that.
>
> Your comparisson might be better suited to a person duplicating a tape and
> then designing a Highlander box-cover and distributing it, which I agree
> would clearly breach the letter of an existing law.
>
> John
> Walking Tall, speaking softly and carrying a large stick-boy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:10:50 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: whoops.
Apologies for original bootleg e-mail being resent. Laptop hiccuped and sent
everything open on screen.
*sigh* Modern technology!
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:00:34 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Whatever your viewpoint...people still following the copyright issue might
find this article somewhat interesting...
http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,168508~5~6~continuingsagaofwind,00.html
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 20:13:46 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Lily-white characters ( was CAH and the down-slide of HL
Andrea wrote:
>>The fact that Methos was such a baddie during the Bronze age made me like
>him even more. In RL I certainly don't condone rape, pillaging (sp?) and
>>destruction but sometimes I like fictional characters that do really bad
>>things. Methos is one of them. I also like Vampires and am happiest when
>they are biting people and causing mayhem. Having said that, I also thought
>that Cassandra was perfectly justified in staying angry and "holding a grudge."
So...just how bad could Methos have been and still been likeable to you? If finding out he had killed 10,000 and raped and pillaged for centuries makes him more attractive..would finding out he was still a raping pillager today have made him more/less/the same on the attraction scale? I'm serious...where do you draw the line? Would any action he took be OK so long as he still appeared to be world-weary, somewhat sarcastic, lay-about on the surface? If he had whacked Cassandra the first time he got her alone...would that have improved or diminish your feelings for him?
For myself, finding out that Methos had a deep dark past made the character more interesting....but not more attractive.
Marina says:
>Hey, another fan of non-lily white characters! There is something to
>be said for evil characters. I mean, without them, we wouldn't have
>many drama and action shows, would we? And very often they are the
>most interesting. I've read how actors often enjoy playing evil
>characters.
Oh...I agree that the villains are often written to be much more interesting than the hero. I've never understood why writers feel this is necessary. Way too often the villain gets a great backstory and layered motivation- and the hero is a cardboard cutout. If it takes a dozen different factors to turn a shop keeper into a villain...surely it takes a dozen factors to turn a farm boy into a hero. Too often the hero simply decides to be heroic based on someone telling him he is supposed to be hero. Bleech!
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.
Wendy(Conflicted wishy-washy vampires just annoy the hell out of me.)(I like my vampires evil...and then I like them staked.)(Except Spike.)(I don't want him staked.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 20:29:14 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
Carmel wrote:
>Gosh - it's like watching a train crash isn't it!
No...a train wreck involves severed limbs, crushed skulls, bodies strewn about, and toxic chemicals running into the local water supply. This is just a discussion list tiff.
Nina:
<<..Well, I AM a lawyer,... I'm much more truth-based than
>perception-based. ..>>
Carmel:
>Well if ever there was a profession that was socialised to be more
>interested in process than outcome then you are in it, dear Nina.
All the lawyers I know are *very* interested in outcomes.(Of course, Australian lawyers ..barristers? solicitors? could be very different.)(The Australian system probably mirrors the British one, eh?)(And the British system gave us "Bleak House"<eg>) The "process" is just something one subverts while attempting to achieve total annihilation of the opposing side..um...what I mean is...lawyers like process *and* outcomes. What kind of lawyer *doesn't* worry about outcomes? What are lawyers paid for ..if not outcomes? If you've been paying a lawyer for something other than an "outcome" ... you've been had.
>I'm
>happy
>to say that not all lawyers are so afflicted, by the way and fortunately I
>know some who manage to rise above the affliction that is so desperate to
>win a point that they are completely uncaring of the human effects on the
>people they deal with or whether justice has truly been served.
Any lawyer who isn't interested in outcomes is probably working on his novel full time. <g> And..as far as I have been able to discern...an uncaring disregard for the human effects on the people on the opposing side of an argument is not in any way limited to lawyers. I have seen the same disregard shown by law enforcement people, writers, housewives, computer geeks, grad students, etc. We all like to "win"..we all hate to be caught making a nonsensical argument..we all want to be seen as intelligent articulate people, we all like to get the last word in, even if that last word is only "I quit!" or "You've just been killfilled!"
>What is
>that great line from Billy Budd - "We're not talking about justice, Mr Budd.
>We're talking about the law!"
I was taught "In the Halls of Justice...justice is in the halls."..but maybe that was just my law school? <eg>
>If you were
>genuinely interested in intellectual engagement, and not game playing, then
>you wouldn't adopt a style of argument that puts so many people off side -
>to the extent where they will simply kill file you rather than read your
>arguments and respond.
Ah..the dreaded killfile<g>
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. I, myself, don't killfile anyone. I read everyone..even if I *think* I can guess what that person might say on any given issue, Sometimes people surprise me..and sometimes they don't... but at least I bothered to read what they said.
>You have now managed to insult, berate, misconstrue, misunderstand or
>ignore many of some of the nicest people on this list
Well *I* wasn't insulted, berated, misconstrued, misunderstood or ignored. Oh...wait. I guess I don't qualify as one of the "nicest" people on this list. (As if there was any question:::snicker:::.)(BTW: Could you send me a list of these nicest people?)(I wonder if I know anyone on it?)(I wonder if it would match *my* list of the nicest people here?)
>and to be frank it's beyond me why it is put up with.
Ah hell, Carmel. We all put up with so much around here..why single out any one person for censure?
> It does nothing for Highla-l, nothing to
>encourage new members to post and little to encourage old members to be
>bothered.
Wait! It's not time for the "mean old-timers frightening newbies into silence" argument yet! I *know* it is scheduled for September..in honor of the days when new Highlander episodes started in September and List volume picked up accordingly. (I can't believe you trotted out *that* old horse!)
> It's like trying to work out whether you will go for a swim in
>shark infested waters or go for the lagoon around the corner that offers a
>great crowd on the beach, challenging waves, good discussion, and an even
>tan versus a roasting. Hmmm....which one will I choose. Some of us are
>masochists but that doesn't negate my point.
Give me sharks and an open roasting pit any time. If a bottle of tequila is handy, I'll take it..but ..I can manage without if needed.
>In terms of the fanfic argument, my own view is that most of us just don't
>care. Yep - I actually said that. I think that we are all rule breakers
>and law breakers in many aspects of our lives.
Not to answer for Nina, but I suspect she could "live" with that attitude much more easily than she can with those who deny that they are doing anything illegal in the first place. It is one thing to say "Smoking pot is illegal but I do it anyway" and another to say " Smoking pot is legal as long as no one catches me." I can live with the rationalizations...we all break a few laws now and then for our own convenience or benefit. It's another thing entirely to pretend that you *aren't* breaking the law because 1) you really enjoy the activity and 2) no one has arrested you yet.
>So, who cares if it is illegal.
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. Society can handle a little "don't ask, don't tell" when it comes to "minor" laws..but it leads people (some people) to adopt the same attitude toward less minor offenses. 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.
>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. 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. So...sue us <EFG>
>Once you
>have accepted that you are a tarnished soul then it is all relative.
Which is why I just renounced that whole "soul" thing.
Wendy(We haven't had such a blatant attack on weasels since Marty was here <eg>)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 02:12:45 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
In response to Wendy....
Carmel doesn't need me to defend her, but I think what she may have meant
was that Nina's style of posting is reminiscent of a lawyer in action....
out to WIN/PROVE an argument rather than have a discussion where it's
perfectly okay for both sides to have different viewpoints - or, at least,
diffeent conclusions from the same set of facts. There are no winners to be
seen here, just participants. I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of
thinking, just happy to state my views and explore others.
And hey, I know several lawyers. No better or worse than film producers. ;)
I still say that:
- - - - generic fanfic is fun and creative, rarely hurts people, but is
(technically) likley to infringe copyright
- - - - slash fanfic can cause extreme reactions and that is something to
always consider.
- - - - fanfic prob has sensible 'unofficial ignorability' until some idiot
starts to do it for profit.
- - - - it's stupid to think you can use prev-copyrighted characters, then
could sue someone yourself.
- - - - this argument boils down to: what is LEGAL or what is only
'unlikley to be acted upon'.
- - - - this is a great discussion, but unlikely to have any lasting
effect. Never thought it would.
It was fun. But now I have to start packing for Reunion. ;)
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 02:17:34 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Lily-white characters ( was CAH and the down-slide of HL
This explains a lot. I'm as pure as the driven snow. Need to get (more)
scars.
John
() :)
(Who enjoys heroes and villains, but thinks that morally complex situations
make the hero have to work harder to be a hero and make the villain more
creative... and makes their conflict worth it!!!)
----- Original Message -----
From: <jjswbt@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:13 AM
Subject: [HL] Lily-white characters ( was CAH and the down-slide of HL
> Andrea wrote:
> >>The fact that Methos was such a baddie during the Bronze age made me
like
> >him even more. In RL I certainly don't condone rape, pillaging (sp?) and
> >>destruction but sometimes I like fictional characters that do really bad
> >>things. Methos is one of them. I also like Vampires and am happiest when
> >they are biting people and causing mayhem. Having said that, I also
thought
> >that Cassandra was perfectly justified in staying angry and "holding a
grudge."
>
> So...just how bad could Methos have been and still been likeable to you?
If finding out he had killed 10,000 and raped and pillaged for centuries
makes him more attractive..would finding out he was still a raping pillager
today have made him more/less/the same on the attraction scale? I'm
serious...where do you draw the line? Would any action he took be OK so
long as he still appeared to be world-weary, somewhat sarcastic, lay-about
on the surface? If he had whacked Cassandra the first time he got her
alone...would that have improved or diminish your feelings for him?
>
> For myself, finding out that Methos had a deep dark past made the
character more interesting....but not more attractive.
>
> Marina says:
> >Hey, another fan of non-lily white characters! There is something to
> >be said for evil characters. I mean, without them, we wouldn't have
> >many drama and action shows, would we? And very often they are the
> >most interesting. I've read how actors often enjoy playing evil
> >characters.
>
> Oh...I agree that the villains are often written to be much more
interesting than the hero. I've never understood why writers feel this is
necessary. Way too often the villain gets a great backstory and layered
motivation- and the hero is a cardboard cutout. If it takes a dozen
different factors to turn a shop keeper into a villain...surely it takes a
dozen factors to turn a farm boy into a hero. Too often the hero simply
decides to be heroic based on someone telling him he is supposed to be hero.
Bleech!
>
> 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.
>
> Wendy(Conflicted wishy-washy vampires just annoy the hell out of me.)(I
like my vampires evil...and then I like them staked.)(Except Spike.)(I don't
want him staked.)
> Fairy Killer
> jjswbt@earthlink.net
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 20:46:37 -0500
From: Bridget Mintz Testa <btesta@firstworld.net>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more
John Mosby said:
>I still say that:
> - - - - generic fanfic is fun and creative, rarely hurts people, but is
>(technically) likley to infringe copyright
Yes. It is an infringement, since copyright covers all derivatives
of a work, and fanfic definitely falls under the category of
"derivative." Even if the words a fanfic writer writes are original,
the concept, the characters, etc., are all derived from the
Highlander movies and series. So, however original the fanfic writer
is, he/she is infringing copyright.
> - - - - slash fanfic can cause extreme reactions and that is something to
>always consider.
Yep.
> - - - - fanfic prob has sensible 'unofficial ignorability' until some idiot
>starts to do it for profit.
Yes. When some fanfic writer starts selling his/her works derived
from copyrighted works (HL movies and series), then it actually
starts to hurt the pocketbooks of TPTB. They won't stand for this
and they really can't, because if they do, they will lose their right
to sue for copyright infringement. If they don't act, their act of
omission makes it very difficult to prove copyright infringement in
more serious cases (such as where another movie house tries to rip
off the HL concept). Trademarks have been lost in just this
way--once upon a time, "aspirin" was a trademarked name. Writer's
Digest Magazine is practically subsidized by trademark owners
advertising for writers to make sure they capitalize the names of
trademark holders and not use the trademark inappropriately (so it's
been repeatedly stated, for example, that you don't "Xerox"
something; you photocopy it because "Xerox" is a trademark). The
failure of the owners of the "aspirin" trademark to protect it in
court meant they eventually lost their trademark privileges; the same
thing can happen with copyright if it isn't protected.
Even if the fanfic writer selling his/her works for profit is only
making a few bucks, it is really the principle of the thing. As long
as fanfic is not making any money, it does have "unofficial
ignorability." As soon as money enters the picture, it's a whole
'nother situation. One of the main criteria for evaluating loss due
to copyright infringement is how much money the infringement cost the
copyright holder. As long as fanfic costs TPTB nothing, there's no
reason to sue.
Fifty years from now, it won't matter, but today, it matters.
> - - - - it's stupid to think you can use prev-copyrighted characters, then
>could sue someone yourself.
Yes. If your "original" material is really an infringement itself,
then you can hardly sue somebody else for infringing upon your
infringement. You'd both be guilty. And a Federal court--which is
where copyright cases get prosecuted--would notice this.
> - - - - this argument boils down to: what is LEGAL or what is only
>'unlikley to be acted upon'.
Yes. Fanfic could be said to increase the interest in and ultimately
the financial revenues to TPTB, but this would be very difficult to
prove. We might feel that we'd have all lost interest in HL long ago
if fanfic didn't keep it alive for us, but that's a very subjective
argument. John is quite right when he says that fanfic isn't legal,
but as long as it doesn't affect TPTB in any noticeable or
significant way, its creation won't be acted upon. Such action would
create too much animosity in the fan community, and TPTB knows it.
However, if they have to take legal action because someone is trying
to make a profit from their intellectual property, I'm sure they
wouldn't bat a cigar ash.
> - - - - this is a great discussion, but unlikely to have any lasting
>effect. Never thought it would.
Yep. And John seems to have summed it all up very nicely.
Bridget Mintz Testa
ConnorList co-moderator (ConnorList@yahoogroups.com)
--
Bridget Mintz Testa
btesta@firstworld.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 22 Jul 2001 to 23 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-215)
*******************************************************************************