HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Jul 2003 to 6 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-137)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:52:20 -0400
There are 17 messages totalling 823 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Disability
2. Highlander in the news (5)
3. Fanfic & Morals (2)
4. Immortal moral choices (8)
5. 33 seconds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 16:24:53 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Disability
John--
> Yup. because SOOOOOOOOOO many Impact readers are women
Ah--so that's why the only thing in Impact I care about is the Highlander
coverage. Maybe you should pitch the fanfic story to Dreamwatch or
Starburst.
> I doubt 5% of our regulars have ever read fanfic and couldn't care less.
Gotta love the real world.
Nina (maybe Impact should change its name to Spike--The Magazine for
Men....)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 16:40:00 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
John--
> Because, quite simply I don't believe the boat particularly need rocking.
As seems to be in vogue here today--Wow. Are you _sure_ you are allowed to
say that, AS a journalist? I'd have thought the journalistic view would be
more along the lines of boats were made to rock.... Or at least, that all
hulls should be regularly checked for leaks.
> The current situation usually suits TPTB and fanfic writers alike.
And you, as well, apparently.
> Legally, if your wish was granted and they HAD to state a
> definitve position they'd HAVE to protect their property and issue a
> blanket-ban.
Yes, they could & would do so because distribution of fanfic is legally &
morally wrong. So, how can an objective 3rd party (that's supposed to be
the journalist among us), be a willing party to the continued state of
affairs?
> The minute that someone shouts too loudly, the house of cards
> will fall in and the result wouldn't be pretty or useful.
Well, that's _your_ opinion. I imagine the result would be just. But,
you've made it clear you have no interest in raising _your_ voice.
> For the record, several key interviewees put the
> editing decision at Davis/Panzer's feet (they denied it) and the marketing
> at Miramax (they declined to answer).
Yes, I know. It was all very unsatisfying, as a reader. Or course, the
movie was the same, so....
> frequent contributions on this list hardly
> suggests you are devoting any *less* social time to the fictional
Highlander
> world than any fanfic writer currently lurking here.
I think you exaggerate how much time this takes. But, I did recently break
my foot rock-climbing, so I'm a bit sedentary right now. What's your
excuse?
Nina (OK, I was mopping the kitchen floor & it's just a toe, but still)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 16:50:02 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
> > ZK, you're not supposed to shoot off fireworks in your house.
Vickita--
> I had a cousin who did that. Shot a pop bottle rocket down the toilet.
Well, I hope you didn't marry him. Probably best if NO ONE married him....
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:40:28 -0400
From: Julie Beamer <jbeamer@infionline.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
Marina wrote:
>
> 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'm still here and so is Lisa. Lisa K. is notable that she's the only
character that lived <g>. (I only lived for 33 seconds.)
Julie
Founding Geezer
Dead Hooker, etc.
--
jbeamer@infionline.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 17:52:52 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
John--
>Not wanting to speak for anyone else, but....imagine Leah doing a cartoon
OK, but I need more information. Is this a cartoon based in the Highlander
fictional universe & using its characters w/o permission, or a cartoon based
in the Stargate fictional universe & using its characters w/o permission,
etc.? Is she slashing characters who were always depicted by the creators
as straight? And, how much is she selling this cartoon for?
be--
> Theres fair use and transformative use and that more or less covers
> fanfic. as I understand it.
Really? Exactly WHO told you that, what are their professional
qualifications, & what are the legal citations? Or, is it just another case
of fanficers & what they want to think? (And I use the term "think"
loosely.)
be--
>But I dont want to go round again
So, you just want to state that fanfic is legally valid & not have anyone
disagree?
be--
>and I
> know theres arguments for both side of that law
Actually, there's nothing to support your side, legally, except that it
would be nice for you. Good luck w/ that in court.
be--
>and I just chose the one that
> seems fair to me.
"Fair"? Or nice & easy?
be--
> 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.
Arguably, any fanfic DOES mess w/ the original, if anyone else ever reads
it. The original is forever changed, added to, taken in a new direction,
etc., by someone other than the creator & in ways he or she did not
necessarily intend. Slash is the extreme example, but ANY fanfic changes
the original, to some degree, just by adding to it. And the original--the
creator's vision--is protected by law.
be--
> Copyright law is supposed to mean that creative people can profit from
> their work.
snip
> 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'.
The law protects more than just monetary rights. I'd think you'd agree that
creators have more than a $$$ stake in their work. Fanficers take other
people's created universes & characters, using them for their own purposes
w/o permission or compensation.
be--
> 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.
But, if fanfic weren't so readily available, the real stuff would sell more.
So, the creators are being cheated by fanfic.
be--
> 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 is _theirs_--the original creators' work. If people don't like
it, they won't buy it. If people really can write better stuff, they should
use their own characters & fictional universe (& then we'll _see_ if it's
better).
be--
> Fanfic authors usually say up front they didnt invent the characters,
> world etc and they arent theirs.
Which is admitting they are doing something wrong, but demanding the right
to do it anyway because it's fun & they like it. How nice....
be--
> Erm, why should you stop writing if asked?
Because you are in the wrong. Because you got caught. Because you have a
shred of decency. Because it's the law & one of those rules you said you
like to follow. Because there's some sanity left in the world.... [See,
John--it's a story!]
be--
> Should the original author be able to say stop writing better stuff
> than me?
He can say--"Write your _own_ damned stuff!" It isn't _your stuff_ unless
it is based on _your_ fictional universe & uses _your_ original characters,
etc. That original material is what is vital to any story, it is hard as
hell to create in the 1st place, & it is usually the lion's share of what
makes any story work. What gives fanficers the right to take all that
creative stuff someone else slaved over, tack on a (frequently silly)
character, situation, or sexual position (in the case of slash), & publicly
call it "theirs"?
be--
> 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.
Well, as long as YOU get to decide the rules & laws you like & want to
follow, today at least--society will do just fine that way, right?
Nina (it's Mai Tai time)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 18:11:50 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Dawn--
> Everyone knows that taking a human life is wrong -
Aren't there exceptions? Self-defense, wartime, slash....
Wendy--
> Yeah...and everyone once knew the world was flat<eg>
I was going to go w/ the one about how it used to be morally required that a
guy marry his dead brother's widow, but now it's sometimes considered kinda
icky. Not innately considered kinda icky, but still.
Dawn--
> > those who do not "know" this have a mental defect and they are
exceptions to the rule and have to
> >be handled in a different manner.
What about those who know it's wrong but do it anyway, after a neat little
disclaimer?
Wendy--
> If this knowledge of right and wrong is so innate, why do parents have to
spend so much time teaching children not take each others toys, not to pull
the cat's tail, not to smother the baby?
I _knew_ I was supposed to be teaching the rugrat something....
Wendy--
> It was once perfectly "moral" to own slaves.
> It was once perfectly "moral" to marry your cousin.
> It was once perfectly "moral" to leave a deformed baby on a hillside to
die.
> It was once perfectly "moral" to kill yourself to protect the honor of
your family.
> It was once perfectly "moral" to stone a prostitute to death.
> It was once perfectly "moral" to drive sick people out into the
wilderness.
> It was once perfectly "moral" to have older family member induct younger
members into the "mysteries" of sex.
> It was once perfectly "moral" to draw and quarter your enemy.
> It was once perfectly "moral" to sail to a distant land and claim it for
your king regardless of how many people already lived there.
> It was once perfectly "moral" to set old people on ice flows to die.
> Wendy(I suspect that all the items listed above are *still* considered
"moral" somewhere in the world today)
Yes, but how about we each pick one & see if we can bring it back in
wide-spread popularity? (My mom's getting on my last nerve lately, but
Hawaii's a bit short on ice flows, so maybe I could have her stoned on a
technicality....)
> It might give one a nice, cozy, superior feeling to think that one's
morals are innate and correct while everyone else is
> either a mental defective or a moral degenerate but even a cursory
examination of history will show that it just isn't true.
Even a cursory examination of history will turn up a whole raft of mental
defectives & moral degenerates, though. Scary, really.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:18:22 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
Nina wrote:
>John--
> > Because, quite simply I don't believe the boat particularly need rocking.
>
>As seems to be in vogue here today--Wow. Are you _sure_ you are allowed to
>say that, AS a journalist? I'd have thought the journalistic view would be
>more along the lines of boats were made to rock.... Or at least, that all
>hulls should be regularly checked for leaks.
>
> > The current situation usually suits TPTB and fanfic writers alike.
>
>And you, as well, apparently.
>
> > Legally, if your wish was granted and they HAD to state a
> > definitve position they'd HAVE to protect their property and issue a
> > blanket-ban.
>
>Yes, they could & would do so because distribution of fanfic is legally &
>morally wrong. So, how can an objective 3rd party (that's supposed to be
>the journalist among us), be a willing party to the continued state of
>affairs?
To what end? If TPTB want to make a statement about fanfic they have many
opportunities to do so. They can issue a statement, bring it up in
interviews, publish it on a web page, Joss could mention it when he visits
fan forums, etc. Whose purpose is served by backing them into a corner and
forcing them to take a public position? To what end, Nina?
Pat
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:32:51 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
Nina:
> As seems to be in vogue here today--Wow. Are you _sure_ you are allowed
to
> say that, AS a journalist? I'd have thought the journalistic view would
be
> more along the lines of boats were made to rock.... Or at least, that all
> hulls should be regularly checked for leaks.
I think my poistion on the fanfic can best be explained thus:
I'm driving down a fairly empty Texas highway in my car. On the side of my
car is a sign that says *Visit Texas Today! Home of the Dixie Chicks!* If I
go three 3 miles over the speed-limit and a cop pulls me over, it's my own
damn fault. He is entitled to do so, the law allows him to and the law on
speeding is there for a reason. Is he being pedantic? Possibly. Maybe he had
a slow day. Maybe he simply feels the law is there for a good reason and
that it's his moral and ethical duty to stop me speeding before I cause an
incident in his State - despite the lack of other traffic. Should be off
responding to that alarm call that just came in about the local bank is
being robbed and people being shot or arresting that child-abuser who's
been tracked down? Because in the grand scheme of things those actions
would mean more than giving me a ticket?
Probably, but whatever he does he *is* entitled to give me a ticket because
the law says he can. I'd respect him more if he looked at the big picture
and went to one of the other major incidents (as most officers probably
would) because I'd feel they were more important and serious, but I couldn't
use that excuse to quibble the ticket's legality.
Equally, the headline in the next day's paper is more likely to read: *Bank
Robbed!* or *Pervert Captured* than *Man Gets/Avoids Ticket*
It's all perspective.
John
"Just because a man can, doesn't mean he must."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:34:13 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: 33 seconds.
> I'm still here and so is Lisa. Lisa K. is notable that she's the only
> character that lived <g>. (I only lived for 33 seconds.)
>
> Julie
> Founding Geezer
> Dead Hooker, etc.
> --
> jbeamer@infionline.net
But looked what you managed to pack in to it!
John
Lived 35 years and still working on it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:09:47 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
John--
>>Not wanting to speak for anyone else, but....imagine Leah doing a cartoon
>OK, but I need more information. Is this a cartoon based in the Highlander
fictional universe & using its characters w/o permission, or a cartoon based
in the Stargate fictional universe & using its characters w/o permission,
etc.? Is she slashing characters who were always depicted by the creators
as straight? And, how much is she selling this cartoon for?
Leah's carttons clearly falls under 'parody' and 'commentary' (open today's
paper and you'll see countless examples of such) and has been openly
welcomed by both those in the HL and SG1 communities. Someone duplicates her
stuff (or alters it only slightly) without permission then it would more
akin to someone completely copying a book and channging one character's
name. Legally I don't have to ask permission to print a charicature or
one-frame cartoon in a magazine as long as it's my creation or I have the
artist's permission. I'm not allowed to simply publsih another's work and
give it a new title, particularly if I intend to charge.
be--
>> Theres fair use and transformative use and that more or less covers
>> fanfic. as I understand it.
>Really? Exactly WHO told you that, what are their professional
qualifications, & what are the legal citations? Or, is it just another case
of fanficers & what they want to think? (And I use the term "think"
loosely.)
Parody is pretty much covered. That's why no-one sues MAD and the Sunday
funnies are the safest section. But Fair Use doesn't mean a blank slate to
do what you want. Again: especially if you charge.
be--
> >Copyright law is supposed to mean that creative people can profit from
> their work.
snip
> >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'.
>The law protects more than just monetary rights. I'd think you'd agree
that
creators have more than a $$$ stake in their work. Fanficers take other
people's created universes & characters, using them for their own purposes
w/o permission or compensation.
I'd agree. If I write a story about elves, pixies and magicians and someone
comes along and writes a story in which my characters indulge in peadophile
activities and then starts selling it, I'm not going to be going after them
for purely financial reasons. That's why the law says that if someone
indulges in an activity that may affect the perception of my original work
(whether the new work be clearly my work or not) , I can sue (at least in
the UK) if I so wish.
be--
>> 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 is _theirs_--the original creators' work.
Again, I'd agree in principle. Otherwise it's all too like saying 'if if he
lived in a nice house we'd leave him alone, but he lives in a rundown house,
so we're entitled to steal from him.'.
be--
>> Fanfic authors usually say up front they didnt invent the characters,
>> world etc and they arent theirs.
>Which is admitting they are doing something wrong, but demanding the right
to do it anyway because it's fun & they like it. How nice....
Again, I agree. I've had my stuff reproduced on the Net and the webmaster
thinks they are protected by saying 'This appeared in Impact and was written
by John Mosby'. They're not. I wa spaid for my original owrk. they just
hi-jacked it. Now, fanfic isn't exact duplication, but acknowledging other's
work is not the same as getting permission from them. It's the difference
between 'Authorised' and 'Unauthorised'.
be--
>> Erm, why should you stop writing if asked?
>Because you are in the wrong. Because you got caught. Because you have a
shred of decency. Because it's the law & one of those rules you said you
like to follow.
Yes. She's right. If you sneak into someone else's sandbox and the owner
asks you to go back to your own, you are obliged to do as asked. Otherwise
you could be trespassing. There are two course of action: Screaming that the
mere fact it's a nice sandbox gives you the right to be there... or going
and building a new sandbox elsewhere. You can of course hope that the owner
pretends he doesn't see you playing in the sandbox because he likes you're
havign fun - but he's not obliged to.
John
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:26:14 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 12:23:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mac.westie@verizon.net writes:
> Wendy--
> >It was once perfectly "moral" to own slaves.
> >It was once perfectly "moral" to marry your cousin.
> >It was once perfectly "moral" to leave a deformed baby on a hillside to
> die.
> >It was once perfectly "moral" to kill yourself to protect the honor of
> your family.
> >It was once perfectly "moral" to stone a prostitute to death.
> >It was once perfectly "moral" to drive sick people out into the
> wilderness.
> >It was once perfectly "moral" to have older family member induct younger
> members into the "mysteries" of sex.
> >It was once perfectly "moral" to draw and quarter your enemy.
> >It was once perfectly "moral" to sail to a distant land and claim it for
> your king regardless of how many people already lived there.
> >It was once perfectly "moral" to set old people on ice flows to die.
> >Wendy(I suspect that all the items listed above are *still* considered
> "moral" somewhere in the world today)
>
>
Where is it said that any of the above practices were "moral?" I don't know
of any being moral. They were all once accepted practices because they were
"in vogue" at the time, but I see moral actions and socially acceptable
practices as two different things.
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:34:55 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/5/2003 12:40:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
diamonique@comcast.net writes:
> So do I. And I didn't say it. That quote came from Beccalizabeth, not me.
>
> -- Sandy
>
Sorry! I forgot to dig for the originator; your E-Mail was the last one I
read with the statement I was replying to. Sorry again!
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:16:27 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 12:27:20 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
USTADAWN@aol.com writes:
> Where is it said that any of the above practices were "moral?" I don't
> know
> of any being moral. They were all once accepted practices because they were
> "in vogue" at the time, but I see moral actions and socially acceptable
> practices as two different things.
>
A hearty round of applause. Moral and legal are two different things. And
morality doesn't change no matter what relativism teaches.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:05:38 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Dotiran says
>
> Moral and legal are two different things. And morality
>doesn't change no matter what relativism teaches.
Oh no, this is one place where I HAVE to disagree with
you. Morality and legality are not the same thing, but
*both* are something that mankind imposes on the
world.
If "morals" were something unchanging and innate, then
we wouldn't need to be *taught* them - and they DO
change. They change according to the needs of the
society and according to ...... well, fashions!
For example, it may be moral to smoke cannabis, especially
if one suffers from glaucoma or multiple sceloris, but it
isn't *legal*, in most parts of the world. (though that is
changing) It is the only treatment that gives relief from
the condition - and it only became *illegal* half way
through the last century - before that it was legal AND
moral.
It may be legal for a woman to remove her burkha in
Afghanistan now, but it is not *moral* - to her, to the
men around her, by everything they have been taught.
YOU would feel it perfectly moral to walk around bare
faced - but in their world you'd be wrong.
In the times of Jesus of Nazereth, it was not just *legal*
to stone a woman to death for adultery, it was *morally
right* - and in some parts of the world even today those
same morals still apply. YOU may not think so, but if
you go there, you'd be wrong.
Forty years ago it was perfectly *moral* to drink half
a bottle of wine and then get in your car and drive
(and in many parts of the world at the time, perfectly
*legal* too) - but do the same today and face the
outraged morals of the people around you.
Morals are personal - they are the "rules of life" instilled
in us by society - our family, our teachers, our religious
leaders....... the morals taught to us by our parents and
religion may even place us at odds with the rest of
our society - but what society judges as *moral* depends
on the majority, not some innate and unchanging rule
from some mythical deity..... who seems to change his
mind about what is *moral* from century to century
anyway.
Jette
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
"Organised religion is a disease and the most dangerous symptom is that
those suffering from it believe that infecting others is a Good Thing"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:10:29 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
At 03:05 PM 7/6/2003, Jette Goldie wrote:
>Oh no, this is one place where I HAVE to disagree with
>you. Morality and legality are not the same thing, but
>*both* are something that mankind imposes on the
>world.
Jette I agree with everything you said, and I love the way you said it and
the examples you gave. I've been trying to think up a post to respond
about morals never changing, but you said it much better than I could have.
-- Sandy (love your sig quote too <g>)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:41:27 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 2:05:10 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
> what society judges as *moral* depends
> on the majority, not some innate and unchanging rule
> from some mythical deity
when everyone jumps off the next bridge, will you do so because majority
determines morality?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:53:10 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
> In a message dated 7/6/2003 2:05:10 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
>
> > what society judges as *moral* depends
> > on the majority, not some innate and unchanging rule
> > from some mythical deity
>
> when everyone jumps off the next bridge, will you do so because majority
> determines morality?
Now that is a total non-sequitor. In fact that's the tactic
a mother uses when her child gives her an arguement
that she CAN'T actually logically argue with. A loser's
arguement.
In any society one has the choice to be *moral* or *immoral* - and
it is unlikely that mass suicide would be considered *moral* since
it is anti-survival...... but then again there is always the example
of Masada <g>..... and the Romans did consider suicide to be
the *moral* choice when faced with disgrace (so did Victorian
gentlemen)...... personally *I* prefer life so if "everyone jumps
off the bridge" I'll just have to be *immoral* and stay here.
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Jul 2003 to 6 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-137)
*****************************************************************************