HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Jul 2003 (#2003-136)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:00:02 -0400
There are 12 messages totalling 445 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Highlander in the news (4)
2. Fanfic & Morals (was Re: Disability) (2)
3. Immortal moral choices (2)
4. Fanfic & Morals (3)
5. failure delivery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:20:48 -0400
From: KLZ3 <KZIMMERMAN3@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
>
> I have no idea of the title, at this point, but there was an episode
> of Xena that was written by a person who started out in
> fandom--writing fic--and wound up working for the show. I believe it
> (the episode) was a season premiere late in the game.
Gillian Horvath has said publicly that she started out writing
f*nf*c.
ZK :::: crawling out from under pile of debris from too much
fireworks and potato salad ::::
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:38:34 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Fanfic & Morals (was Re: Disability)
At 01:04 AM 7/4/2003, beccaelizabeth wrote:
>And since you ask- the rule against fanfic is made up by money people and
>not backed up by law. It has no moral weight that I can figure. Fanfic
>is okay by me.
This is exactly the type of thing Wendy and I are referring to in the
Finances/Morals thread. To you, fanfic is morally OK. To others it is
not. Whose morals are correct? In this instance it's an individual thing,
and each person has valid reasons for their way of thinking about the
morality of fanfic. In the larger points we're discussing in the other
thread, morality is a societal thing, and each society has its own set of
rules.. or "morals".
>People profiting by it or claiming ideas for their own credit when they
>did not make them is not okay.
So if no money or credit is involved in the fanfic, it's OK because the
writer isn't usurping someone else's profit or credit. Do I have that
right? If so, this takes me back to that example of Duncan and the dead
immie's jewels in the desert. No one will be hurt if he just takes them,
but to you it would be morally wrong. So what's the difference between no
one being hurt with fanfic (OK in your eyes) and no one being hurt if
Duncan takes the jewels (not OK in your eyes)?
Is it that your idea of morals is only strict when it comes to a fantasy
universe (easy to be strict on non-existent beings), but a little more
loose when it comes to real life (a bit more difficult when you have to
actually live with the moral choices)?
Snipped the rest cuz I just don't want to get into the fanfic thing. <eg>
-- Sandy
For a limited time only! Save $1.50!!
Get 3 soaps for $9.00 (regularly $3.50 each)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/sksoaps
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:39:41 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
At 02:20 PM 7/5/2003, KLZ3 wrote:
>ZK :::: crawling out from under pile of debris from too much
>fireworks and potato salad ::::
ZK, you're not supposed to shoot off fireworks in your house.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 20:26:22 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals (was Re: Disability)
> >And since you ask- the rule against fanfic is made up by money people and
> >not backed up by law. It has no moral weight that I can figure. Fanfic
> >is okay by me.
Well, only to the extent that I've never met a poor government offfical or
judge. In most cases the 'rule' isn't a 'rule' it IS a law (at least here
in the UK). It's a law that says if someone spends time and money creating a
character/scenario they have certain moral ownership rights that are then
enforcable by that law. There are loopholes but the spirit of the law isn't
that difficult to see and it particularly stipulates that the owner can take
action if their profit or image has been affected. The law allows owners to
legally license use of said property to a second party, should that be
agreed. If the law said 'Well, that's fine but we're going to allow anyone
who feels like it to also do what they want' then it makes a mockery of the
law and the business agreement.
Not wanting to speak for anyone else, but....imagine Leah doing a cartoon
only to find out that someone colour- photocopied it and changed the
punchline in the word balloon and was subsequently selling the cartoon (the
price is irrelelevent). I'm guessing that she wouldn't like it. I'm not sure
if she'd have a problem with someone who took a cartoon copy, pinned it up
at work and changed the punchline for their own amuesement and got her
workmates to laugh at it with her.
The moral side of this argument is whether it is right to take another's
work and duplicate it or alter it to suit your own desires and then sell it
to others. Haven't heard any argument that makes me doubt that amounts,
techniclaly, to moral and legal theft, whether anyone takes action or not.
Now....writing your OWN fanfic and maybe showing it to a few of own friends,
I see as pretty damn harmless. As long as you don't get in a huff when
reminded the characters belong to someone else and you'd be willing to stop
writing it if you were *asked* to do so by the owner, I think there's no
harm done. Sometimes there are even benefits. The balance as it stands works
well for both sides and unlike Nina I see no reason to start a crusade to
change it.
I tape British Tv shows and have been known to send them to my US friends to
watch. I don't charge. But I don't need to read the quite explicit warning
on the end credits to know I'm technically on shaky ground. I send tapes to
the US.
However I don't and never have believed that that entitles me to a moral
share of Davis/Panzer profits.
John
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 16:04:05 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
I said:
>> It was once perfectly "moral" to marry your cousin.
Jette answers:
>Still is.
Not where I live.
Wendy(Which was my point<g>)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 15:27:12 -0500
From: Vicki Farmer <vickita1961@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
diamonique@comcast.net wrote:
> At 02:20 PM 7/5/2003, KLZ3 wrote:
>
>> ZK :::: crawling out from under pile of debris from too much
>> fireworks and potato salad ::::
>
>
> ZK, you're not supposed to shoot off fireworks in your house.
>
> -- Sandy
I had a cousin who did that. Shot a pop bottle rocket down the toilet.
Boy, was his mom mad.
ObHLR: I guess that's one way to declare your HL fandom. Stage a
quickening in the bathroom. *g*
Vickita
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 20:35:08 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
I particularly wanted to stay out of this go round, said it all before, seen it
all before. But then I got annoyed and said something too quickly and not
clearly enough. So here I am again.
I'm changing the order of his argument so I can say mine more clearly.
"John Mosby (Home)" wrote:
> The moral side of this argument is whether it is right to take
> another's work and duplicate it or alter it to suit your own desires
>and then sell it to others.
no, thats two arguments.
use and profit
profit bad, use can be okay. Like parody- people *do* change the
punchline on pictures all the time and it can be parody and fair use.
Theres fair use and transformative use and that more or less covers
fanfic. as I understand it. But I dont want to go round again and I
know theres arguments for both side of that law and I just chose the one that
seems fair to me.
Also I was saying moral more than legal and morally I still dont get
what the problem is if you dont mess up the original whilst making your
work.
> There are loopholes but the spirit of the law isn't
> that difficult to see
Copyright law is supposed to mean that creative people can profit from
their work. Thats the spirit of the law so
>it particularly stipulates that the owner can take
> action if their profit or image has been affected.
And here is where people complain about fanfic. It only affects the
image if you accept that things clearly marked 'not by X' will be
thought of as 'by X'. And it only affects the profit if you figure that having
all this free stuff around stops people paying for the paid for stuff. Like if
people wont buy officially licensed books because they can get their fix for
free on the net. Well, Buffy books seem to
coexist happily with their fanfic, so I dont actually believe that. If
some judge did, theres trouble. But if the stuff they're asking for
money for is actually better than the stuff you get for free then people will
buy it, right? And if it isnt better then why should it be
protected?
>The law allows owners to
> legally license use of said property to a second party, should that
> be agreed. If the law said 'Well, that's fine but we're going to
> allow anyone who feels like it to also do what they want' then it
> makes a mockery of the law and the business agreement.
no, because the business license lets them make money out of it.
you pay some money to make some money, or you pay no money to make no
money.
> Now....writing your OWN fanfic and maybe showing it to a few of own
>friends, I see as pretty damn harmless.
I really dont understand the quantity argument- if its right for a few
why is it not right for a lot?
>As long as you don't get in a huff when
> reminded the characters belong to someone else
I know people who sulk and beg but not ones who get in a huff :-)
Fanfic authors usually say up front they didnt invent the characters,
world etc and they arent theirs.
>and you'd be willing to stop
> writing it if you were *asked* to do so by the owner,
Erm, why should you stop writing if asked?
They control their work, you control yours, even if it uses some of the
same characters. Like, all the stories about Robin Hood. Should we
stop telling them if the original author turned up and asked? Sometimes the
later versions get more accepted than the earlier ones because people like them
better. Should the original author be able to say stop writing better stuff
than me?
> I think there's no harm done.
>Sometimes there are even benefits. The balance as it stands works
> well for both sides and unlike Nina I see no reason to start a
> crusade to change it.
That bit I agree with. Not broke, dont mess with it.
> I tape British Tv shows and have been known to send them to my US
> friends to watch. I don't charge. But I don't need to read the quite
>explicit warning on the end credits to know I'm technically on shaky
>ground. I send tapes to the US.
Taping is a different issue, because you arent creating something new at all,
you are taking what they are trying to sell and making copies
without paying for them. Which personally I figure is fair for TV shows that
arent available on other media, because all they're trying to make money from is
the broadcast bit so you arent cutting into their bit at all. If its on video
or DVD, then its cheating because it is cutting into their profits. If however
what you do is take the show, muck around with it, turn it into something new
like a parody or a whole new story, and then send it to people, then its like
fanfic with video and a whole different issue again.
Theres laws that cover it for music samples and using bits of tape from
other shows, yes? You pay so you can make your own and profit from that
creation you based on that other.
Hmmm... licenses to create fanfic? Pay little bit, be allowed to play
in their sandbox? But if you arent going to make money, why have to pay money?
> However I don't and never have believed that that entitles me to a
> moral share of Davis/Panzer profits.
Right to create and right to profit by other peoples creations are
different.
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:39:33 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
ZK (should I just whap her for old times' sake?) wrote:
>Gillian Horvath has said publicly that she started out writing
>f*nf*c.
Gotta love Gillian. She's the one who named three Forever Knight
characters after HL fans. Julie Beamer (the dead hooker), Lisa
Kadlec (the dippy psychiatrist) and Linda Wyatt (the murdered
researcher). (I think Julie is still around. Don't know about
Lisa, and Linda left long ago.) I always get a kick out of that,
that Gillian would find a way to acknowledge the fans. Guess it
takes one to know one. And IMNSHO, the episode "Fever" (Linda
Wyatt's episode) was one of the best of FK. Even if she didn't
manage to get Nick out of his shirt. :)
- Marina.
\\ "Good girls go to heaven. ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Bad girls go to Smallville." || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ - 'Sorority Boys' wallpaper ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=======tmar@sifl.iid.co.za========|| \\
\\=======Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=======//
"Just because a guy's in his underwear, you think the worst."
- Trip to T'Pol; Acquisition (Enterprise)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 16:45:12 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/5/2003 3:10:28 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
> >>It was once perfectly "moral" to marry your cousin.
>
> Jette answers:
> >Still is.
>
> Not where I live.
>
not that anyone asked, :) but in the Catholic Church, a marriage to a first
cousin would not be valid. One can marry a second cousin but only with special
permission.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:47:59 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
You know, this whole thing reminds me of a quote I read years
ago in reference to the titling of television episodes. The
question was, "Why do so many shows get titles from Shakespeare?"
And the answer was, "Because he's dead and can't sue."
- Marina.
\\ "Good girls go to heaven. ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Bad girls go to Smallville." || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ - 'Sorority Boys' wallpaper ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=======tmar@sifl.iid.co.za========|| \\
\\=======Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=======//
"Just because a guy's in his underwear, you think the worst."
- Trip to T'Pol; Acquisition (Enterprise)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 16:58:01 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
At 04:35 PM 7/5/2003, beccaelizabeth wrote:
>But if the stuff they're asking for money for is actually better than the
>stuff you get for free then people will buy it, right? And if it isnt
>better then why should it be protected?
Because it's their original work. Whether or not it's better is: 1) open
to individual opinion, and 2) irrelevant.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 16:42:25 -0500
From: Debra Douglass <ddoug@austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: failure delivery
On 7/5/2003, on HIGHLA-L@lists.psu.edu, FKMel wrote:
>>I'm not sure who the listmom is but if she reads this,
>>could she please set me to either digest or nomail? I
>>just tried and found out that I've forgotten how. Itll
>>make it much easier to keep my box cleaned out while
>>I'm coming here. Thanks.
Send the following command as the only line in the body of a message
to LISTSERV@LISTS.psu.edu:
SET HIGHLA-L DIGEST
or
SET HIGHLA-L NOMAIL
-Debbie
--
.------------------------------------------------------------------.
|Debra Douglass ddoug@catrio.org http://www.catrio.org|
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Jul 2003 (#2003-136)
***********************************************