HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Mar 2003 to 5 Mar 2003 (#2003-35)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:00:02 -0500
There are 8 messages totalling 398 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. PW on Dead Zone/HL-ish book?
2. Slash? (6)
3. Harry Potter meets HL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:47:00 -0800
From: mama bear <parisrose_2@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: PW on Dead Zone/HL-ish book?
Here it is - the "regular" book - not sci-fi/fantsy or romance that has definite HL references is "Forever" by Pete HAmill - currently on the NY Times best seller list. Unfortunately it didn't get the greatest reviews, as the critic described it as an "overblown tall tale". The major character is Cormac O'Connor, born 1723 near Belfast, Ireland and is currently a middle aged immortal and living in NYC.
PW definitely stole the show - he looked very comfortable seated there in that cockpit. Very believeable.
Parisrose
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:02:59 -0800
From: mama bear <parisrose_2@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
"John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> wrote:
However, after my recent visit to Mutant Enemy (shameless plug for Impact's
upcoming features on the Buffy finale due soon) I guess I could start up a
whole new variation thread on *spoilers* and how TPTB feel about those!!!
John
(compact and bijou Brit already packing for Oz)
I'm probably going to regret this, but how _do_ TPTB feel about spoilers? Some of us love them, some hate them and don't want even the slightest hint of what to expect. I would think that there's a certain amount of need for the pre-publicity in order to get people to go to the movies, or turn on the tv, or pick up a book. Unless of course you put out a trailer that has nothing to do with the content - such as we saw with Endgame.
Parisrose
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:44:16 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Slash?
Pat-
>>>The built in assumption is that all copyright owners don't want folks
writing fanfic. That's not a valid assumption. We know for a fact that
some copyright owners don't care, and some like people to write
fanfic. It's not unethical, or immoral, if the owner doesn't
care. >>>
Exactly how many copyright owners have stated publicly that fanfic of all
stripes (including slash, & worse--& there is worse) & however
distributed/sold is OK w/ them? I really think you are talking about a
minuscule percentage. And, how many fanfic writers know or care about
particular copyright owners & what their views are?
Pat--
>>>The copyright notice is a necessary legal notice asserting ownership.
I'm
not talking about their legal rights as owners. I'm talking about
individual owner's attitudes toward fanfic.>>>
But what makes fanfic any different from the many other encroachments that
copyright law, as that notice reminds us all, protects owners from? Why is
fanfic special, or less bad, or whatever?
Pat--
>>>I DO NOT WRITE FANFIC. I DO NOT READ FANFIC. I don't give a rats ass
about fanfic.>>>
Then why do you insist on talking about fanfic so much? Sounds like denial,
to me. Please, leave it alone already.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:15:01 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
Nina wrote:
>Pat--
>
> >>>I DO NOT WRITE FANFIC. I DO NOT READ FANFIC. I don't give a rats ass
>about fanfic.>>>
>
>Then why do you insist on talking about fanfic so much? Sounds like denial,
>to me. Please, leave it alone already.
As I said and you snipped "The question is one of principles and
logic. That's what I
care about." Apperantly you don't understand the concept.
Denial? You're either blathering nonsense again or you just called me a
liar. Either way, you're a waste of time and bandwidth. Name calling is
the last refuge of those who have no other argument.
Pat
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:41:48 -0000
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
Oh, I do enjoy a good debate.
> I didn't see any irony. Hacking my web site means electronically picking
> my locks, vandalizing and destroying my property, and perhaps stealing or
> changing confidential information including bank and credit card
> data. That's what web hacking is about. That's what you compare fanfic
to?
What I'm comparing fanfic to is someone gaining access to someone's website
and copying/altering the information contained therein. I wasn't talking
about the hackers who decimate people's websites. More the people who simply
don't see the distinction between their side of the fence and another's.
Again, not talking about fanfic writers in gerneral...only the more militant
obnes who bleat that they ahve a *right* to do so rather than seeing it as
quiet harmless fun for amateur writers.
> >Surely the analogy is more in someone
> >taking one of the cows and saying they're allowed to make a pie out of it
> >because the owner obviosuly doesn't care about the cow because it's
grazing
> >outside its pasture (and still a bad analogy unless you can define the
> >nature of the pasture).
>
> The cow isn't grazing outside it's pasture (see my previous post.) If you
> kill the cow and make a pie out of it, you've abused good beef and the
> rancher no longer has the cow. It's gone for good. If you write a
Duncan
> fanfic, DPP stills has all their movies, TV shows, and novels.
>
> What say we leave both of our bad analogies behind, ok?
See my previous post on the problems of actually defining what the 'pasture'
would be in your analogy.
> The built in assumption is that all copyright owners don't want folks
> writing fanfic. That's not a valid assumption. We know for a fact that
> some copyright owners don't care, and some like people to write
> fanfic. It's not unethical, or immoral, if the owner doesn't
> care. That's all I'm saying.
God help me I'm agreeing with Nina again. You HAVE to start with the
assumption that they don't. Otherwise we're heading onto moral and legal
chaos. If we live in a world where we assume that people don't mind us doing
things unless they strictly tell us not to then I have a list of things I'm
off to do with the solid defence: 'But, your honour, he didn't actually tell
me I couldn't (insert 'x'crime here). But let's be honest...most fanfic
writers don't shout about their work. They quietly get on with it and use it
as a writing exercise. Only a few tout their wares for cash and even less
wave it in front of the actors/TPTB doing a dance of indigantion that it
could ever meet with less than awe and utter endorsement. Why do people
generally keep under the radar unless they know that it's technically full
of legal/ethical problems. It's the difference between copying a CD album
for a friend and copying a CD album and selling it. The first isn't really
fair to the artist as it deprives them of a sale but may not be utterly
illegal everywhere, the latter clearly is and you could be prosecuted for
it.
> >Check out that pesky notice at the end of each episode. It
> >isn't there to fill screen space. I think you'll see their *official*
> >position on this.
>
> The copyright notice is a necessary legal notice asserting ownership.
I'm
> not talking about their legal rights as owners. I'm talking about
> individual owner's attitudes toward fanfic.
No, you're not. If you agree that the notice asserts ownership, then you
pretty much invalidate any argument you're making that fanfic writers have
any moral or legal right to use the characters, assuming they have vague
permission to do so. You can assert that little harm is done in the process,
but that's as far as it goes unless you say that someone owning an
article/concept/copyright/patent etc etc is meaningless. If you are saying
that such ownership doesn't mean the owner would disallow fanfic, then we're
back to that dangerous assumption again. If you are confident that a person
WOULD allow it, ask them officially. If you aren't prepared to ask
then...well,ironically, *that* silence speaks volumes.
> Here's another example; fan web sites. TV & movie companies attitudes
> toward fan web sites vary widely. A few have actively worked to shut them
> down. Most ignore them. Some have actively encouraged them. Many of
> those websites could be judged to be violation of copyright or trademark.
Yes. So there are differing views. All the more reason to check if you feel
confident a person/company doesn't mind or shut up and keep a vewy low
profile in the hope they'll overlook you.
> The point is that not all copyright owners feel the same way. Just as
> they don't all feel the same way about fanfic. The copyright notice is
> not an indication of their wishes in the matter.
Yes it bloody is. It's legal protection that says a person is the owner of a
copyright and the only reason to do that is to stop infringement. If the
notice is there it's fair to say that someone in that organisation
(creator/actor/writer/broadcaster) doesn't want use copying or altering
their material. For instance in Impact there's a column in the credits
section that clearly states that the copyright of all articles resides with
their authors/the publisher. I've lost count of the times I've seen my
articles copied word for word onto a website (or even altered or misquoted).
Did the person a) not read the notice? b) not care about the notice or c)
think 'oh, that's just legal stuff and doesn't mean that the
writer/publisher actually minds me copying it'? To quote a great thinker of
our time: 'D'oh!'
> > Given your perception of their silence as permission, I'm
> >also presuming from your argument that if the Powers That Be openly said
NO
> >more fanfic, you would happily stop doing so without complaint?
>
> :::sigh::: You're making assumptions again, and you're not alone on this
> one. Frankly it's getting tiresome and insulting. The assumption is
> that anyone who defends fanfic does so out of a self serving interest in
> justifying their own habit. Where of course those who object are high
> minded and principled. That's insulting b.s.
I have no idea whther you personally read/write fanfic or not. It's
irrelevant to your argument. I'm sorry you're tired and insulted, but if you
enagage in a discussion about fanfic and state a position that you think
there's nothing remotely wrong with fanfic writers who display their works
and then postulate that its somehow the problem of the creators' attitude,
then I take you at your word. You may well be high-minded and
principled...but you've openly stated don't have a problem with *others*
borrowing work.
> I DO NOT WRITE FANFIC. I DO NOT READ FANFIC. I don't give a rats ass
> about fanfic. The question is one of principles and logic. That's what
I
> care about.
So, I think you're trying to say you don't read fanfic, right? :) So let's
just pretend that I wrote the above paragraphand take it from there.
Again...anyone...fanfic away! Just remember that they are borrowed
characters. I won't tell anyone if you don't. But let's not pretend they
aren't borrowed and that they may have to be given back forever if so
required.
John
Mostly Harmless.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:29:05 EST
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Slash?
In a message dated 3/4/2003 8:33:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
> However, after my recent visit to Mutant Enemy (shameless plug for Impact's
> upcoming features on the Buffy finale due soon) I guess I could start up a
> whole new variation thread on *spoilers* and how TPTB feel about those!!!
>
>
Given how much homage Whedon and company give to things 'fannish' on the
show, I'd be very interested to hear your observations on this.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:36:07 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Slash?
John--
>God help me I'm agreeing with Nina again.
It's OK--have some chocolate & you'll feel better.
Pat shrieks before--
> > >>>I DO NOT WRITE FANFIC. I DO NOT READ FANFIC. I don't give a rats
ass
> >about fanfic.>>>
me before--
> >Then why do you insist on talking about fanfic so much? Sounds like
denial,
> >to me. Please, leave it alone already.
Pat--
> As I said and you snipped "The question is one of principles and logic.
That's what I
> care about." Apperantly you don't understand the concept.
Which concept--principle or logic? And--this from someone who says it can
be assumed that copyright owners don't mind fanfic? Neither principle nor
logic work for your side of the debate.
Pat--
> Denial? You're either blathering nonsense again or you just called me a
liar.
Actually, those in denial here may well be delusional, but your calling
Richie lovers liars is a bit harsh. And--I was quoting YOUR comment to me,
along w/ someone you chimed in w/ earlier. So, "blathering nonsense"?
OK--whatever you say.
Pat--
> Name calling is
> the last refuge of those who have no other argument.
I didn't call you anything. Now, you have talked yourself into a rather
silly corner & are flouncing off in a huff, to try to cover it up. And
THAT'S the last refuge of those w/ no good argument.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:48:13 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Harry Potter meets HL
Marina--
> I never said that I *wanted* to discuss fan-written masterpieces. I
> said I wanted to discuss authorial intent *in the show*.
Whatever THAT means....
> Maybe there's another Richie fan
> named Marina out there who's been discussing slash with you and
> feels ashamed of it, but it isn't me.
Please point me to any slash discussion by you here--or ANY related
discussion by you here--because I must have missed it. You keep saying you
WANT to discuss this or that--but you just CAN'T.... It's beyond boring.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Mar 2003 to 5 Mar 2003 (#2003-35)
************************************************************