HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Jul 2003 (#2003-147)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:00:04 -0400
There are 18 messages totalling 719 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Fanfic & Morals (7)
2. Take Back The Night/Methos (2)
3. Today's Ep:Testimony
4. Philosophy! (And square dancing!) (8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:14:19 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <tunnack@webone.com.au>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Hi all
Thanks for your response Nina. I'm sorry that you find my responses
insulting and *belligerant* (sic)....they were certainly never intended to
be so and had I realised that you feel so fragile about these issues I would
have tempered my responses accordingly. I shall certainly commit to taking
that fragility into account when framing any future responses :-)
Kind regards
@ Carmel Macpherson
<<<@{}=================>>>
@ carmel@hldu.org
http://www.hldu.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HLDU6: 29 April - 1 May, 2005. Sydney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:42:26 EDT
From: Robin Tidwell <Robinchristine79@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
In a message dated 7/8/2003 5:23:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com writes:
> Mel, who doesn't like the idea of Nick and LaCroix
> togther (and who's hoping no members of the Unnamed
> Faction heard that LOL)
>
Oh, Mel, Really?!
Cousin Robin
Cousin, UF, Cerk Perk
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:43:47 EDT
From: Robin Tidwell <Robinchristine79@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Take Back The Night/Methos
In a message dated 7/8/2003 6:01:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rshelton2@earthlink.net writes:
> Did those that hadn't seen it like it? Or is there anyone here who
> hadn't seen "Methos" yet?
>
> Rachel
>
Oh, I've always liked Methos! I kept saying "Today's the day! " and my
husband is like "What's so good about him?"
Robin
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:33:55 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
I couldn't remeber if there were any of you here or
not LOL. I certainly don't condemn or dislike anyone
who feels that way, that was just MHO. My usual
philosophy is 'to each their own' and 'if you don't
like it, don't read it'. That way, no one gets into
bit arguements.
Mel
(NNPacker, Knightie....but that's not even the right
show so maybe we better put it aside....)
--- Robin Tidwell <Robinchristine79@aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 7/8/2003 5:23:40 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > Mel, who doesn't like the idea of Nick and LaCroix
> > togther (and who's hoping no members of the
> Unnamed
> > Faction heard that LOL)
> >
>
> Oh, Mel, Really?!
>
> Cousin Robin
> Cousin, UF, Cerk Perk
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:16:29 -0500
From: Shirley Nemec <sanimator@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
I've been reading all the back and forth about fanfic being LEGALLY
wrong and there have been some very intersting points made. I'm just
curious. Does anyone know if this has ever been tested in court yet?
--
Shirley Nemec
sanimator@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:37:25 -0400
From: Gregory Mate <gmate@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Shirley Nemec:
> I've been reading all the back and forth about fanfic being LEGALLY
> wrong and there have been some very intersting points made. I'm just
> curious. Does anyone know if this has ever been tested in court yet?
An interesting question. I have heard that Lucasfilm is probably the most aggressive copyright holder when it comes to quashing fanfiction, but from what I have read here recently it's likely that some leniency had been granted to some fanfiction writers.
Likely most cease and desist orders regarding fanfiction never make it to court due to various reasons: legal costs, paltry (if any) profit made by the writer, and generally the ease of the copyright holder winning the case in court (i.e. a "slam-dunk") and any lawyer worth their salt would tell you if you didn't have a hope in heck of winning the case. Most companies and individuals will only pursue legal action if they feel they are losing substantial profit. No one wants to spend five dollars to make two. (The RIAA is a notable exception to this rule, but that's another story entirely).
Far more likely to be seen in court are cases of plaigarism where one author actually tries to publish work and label it "original."
....Greg....
gmate@rogers.com
He Who Thinks It's Better To Settle Out Of Court And Not Make Lawyers Rich
1
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:37:56 -0700
From: "R. Shelton" <rshelton2@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Take Back The Night/Methos
At 04:29 PM -0700 7/8/03, FKMel wrote:
>*raises hand* Over here. I think I'm going to like him.
Oh yes. :)
>But I did think that the whole suicidal Methos
>"Please take my head" thing sounded an awful lot like
>suicidal Connor in Endgame. Wonder if that's where it
>came from.
Probably, but personally I don't think Methos was suicidal as much as
he really believed Duncan might lose & needed their combined strength.
>TBTN-Interesting ep...I don't think female warriors
>were all that common back then. And gotta love the
>shirtless scene.
I don't know much about very early England (wasn't it like, before
100 A.D.?) but most of the women in her 'tribe' (for want of a better
word) looked like they were fighting women. Any History majors out
there? <g> I'm only an English [language] major so that doesn't help
much.
>I wonder how Richie really did sneak all the way
>across town like that...What do they do with a dead
>person's clothes after they take them off in the
>morgue anyway?
Good question. They probably throw them away of they're trashed. If
they're not trashed, I bet they hold them for the 'next of kin'.
How do you think Anne's going to take the news tonight in Testimony? <bg>
Rachel (love that scene of D&C by the fire talking about mortals)(&
the BPCharlie scenes too, of course!)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:48:24 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Today's Ep:Testimony
Well, only one more day until we're rid of
Anne...unless you count The Blitz. Musta been the
head-whacking in Mortal Sins that changed her mind
about the whole thing. And I can see why she
would...not everyone can handle loving an Immie...it
takes someone special.
I think Connor got it wrong....I haven't liked him
with anybody except Tessa so far. Connor had more good
women (Heather, Brenda...then I can't remember the
chick in HL3 and not sure I wanna sit through it again
to see if she was any good or not.) than Mac, I think.
But YMMV
I think this ep cemented what Duncan first realized in
Under Color of Authority, that Richie didn't need his
help anymore and that he could take care of himself.
Of course he never really did leave the nest
altogether...he kept coming back to Mac all the time.
Mel (now counting down the eps until Something Wicked)
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:42:46 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
Dotiran wrote:
>I've been gone all day and now notice that this thread seems to be dying
>a happy death. I'm not hoping to resurrrect it, but there were a few parting
>answers I felt I had to give to some of Wendy's argument.
And, of course, having been away 2 1/2 days, I have to answer <eg>
Dotiran:
>>Morality on the other hand involves the central core of what is "right"
>>or fitting for humankind, of who we are.
>Wendy:
>>>Based on ...what?
>Philosophy speaks of this as the natural law. For those who have not
>studied philosophy, it means that it is a law that is "naturally known, innately
>known, instinctively known by natural reason," and "that it is a law
>based on human nature and for the flourishing and fulfilling of human nature."
Ah...... philosophy. :-)
> "And am I correct in believing that the set of morals to which you
>subscribe is the correct "universal" one?....... What you seem to be
>arguing is that there is only One True Belief System (conveniently, yours)"
>::::rolls eyes :::::There you go again introducing religion and belief
>into what you had insisted would be a rational intellectual discussion ! You
>seem to prefer to debate religion not philosophy. I'm not going to take that bait.
:::rolls eyes right back ::::::
*You* seem to see philosophy as some kind of absolute "truth" . . . as if there are not multiple branches and theories of philosophy. Are we talking Hellenistic Philosophy? Humanism? Neostoicism? Empiricism? Metaphysics? Nihilism? Transcendentalism? Pragmatism? I can have a rational discussion of philosophy so long as we both agree that "philosophy" is no more based on "fact" that is any religion. There is no Universal Philosophy. The Philosophy of Natural Law is just one of a hundred branches of philosophy.
>having completely
>overlooked my statements that " I would not presume to state that all
>humans at every point in history or even any of us in this discussion either know or
>will agree on what that truth is, " and " Perhaps none of us should attempt to
>assert that we know with certainty what is and is not moral"
I don't overlook such statements at all. I am looking at what follows- the idea that whether humans know or agree about "moral truth" , that "truth" does, in fact, exist in a pure form. I disagree with that assertion.
>Oh, as to your earlier "question" [again on Religion :)]
>"If 50% of the world's population in Religion Y believes that sex outside
>of marriage is immoral and 50% of the population in Religion Z believes that
>sex outside of marriage is the pathway to God...which action -sex outside of
>marriage or no sex outside of marriage - is moral??? Explain."
>One answer is just to smile and plant my tongue firmly in my cheek.
>Sex outside of marriage has to be immoral because Y is a chomosome and
>knows all about sex. However Z is not a chomosome and is therefore a false
>religion.
And yet *again* you refuse to answer the question. Would it help if I changed it to Philosophy A and Philosophy B? Or are you just able to formulate a rational answer that addresses the actual question asked?
Wendy(Avoidance Philosophy?)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:48:55 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Marina--
> Right, that's the "creative urge"/"art for its own sake" argument
> that Nina hates so much.
Moi? Marina, I'm sorry to see you resorting to the misleading shorthand
that others find so useful. I'm all for creativity--people can indulge
their creative urges at will, writing whatever they want. They just don't
have the right to sell or distribute it if other folks happen to own the
underlying material it is based on, as w/ fanfic. If they want to
distribute their work, then they should write original stuff.
Marina--
> but I would argue that
> the creative urge that *some* people have makes it that they
> *have to* write or paint or whatever. They can't *not*. You get
> an idea and you have to get it down on paper or canvas or a
> sculpture or whatever just to get the idea *out* of you. If
> you don't, you can't rest.
Are you also arguing that these poor people are _forced_ to distribute &
sell it, too? Scary. Perhaps they should seek professional help.
me before (to Carmel)--
>If you can take a break from insulting me,
Rachel--
>I didn't see any insulting done in that post.
Well, if I were to call _you_ "silly," "lazy," "desperate," & less than
"sensible" I bet you would see my point.
John--
>>>Oh. come on, Nina. You want a great and passionate debate, that's peachy
and there are plenty of people here who are happy to engage in passionate
and extensive debate - but don't complain that people take potshots>>>
It wasn't a complaint; it was an observation. Carmel's tactical use of
insults was getting in the way of the discussion.
John--
>>>But, hey, it's 'vastly easy to paint it that way' because
you've consistently insulted people who write fanfic without making that
important distinction clear. >>>
Here, I have to wonder what you mean by "insulted." I think people who
distribute fanfic are doing something wrong, & I say so, & why. Where is
the insult in that? Carmel admitted that she breaches DPP's copyright &
that her fanfic is (in her own words) "unauthorised use of someone else's
property." That nicely defines stealing. I pointed that out. No
insult--it's fact.
As for the distinction between fanfic kept private & fanfic that is
distributed, w/o specifics from you, I can only suggest that you misread
what I wrote, or took it out of context. On the other hand, by its very
nature _undistributed_ fanfic is a non-issue, since, of course, it is
private. _That_ is nothing to discuss, so fanfic discussion here probably
isn't about that.
People can do all sorts of things in private that they cannot legally or
morally do publicly. For instance, people can have all manner of sex
privately. In public--not so much. That doesn't mean that what we do
privately is wrong--just that it should stay private.
>>>Many fanficers don't make a profit from their
work and may only show it to friends (rather than 'distributing' it), so -
to be clear - they're okay, right?>>>
As I believe you have said yourself, it's a matter of degree or drawing a
line. Showing a story to one friend? That may not be distributing it.
Posting it on a website that gets 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 hits per year?
That IS distribution, paid or not, under any sensible definition.
Carmel before--
> Why not take your arguments to a
> fanfiction list and universe where the owners *do* mind??
me before--
>>>Are you telling me to shut up, Carmel? Why ARE you so insecure about
this
issue as to get so very worked up & belligerant? It's unbecoming.
Relax--this is just a discussion.>>>
John--
>Oh - and again with the slights. That just tends to lend weight to the idea
>you like provoking rather than debating.
Well, maybe it's easy for YOU to turn the other cheek, but she was telling
me to shut up because I was expressing a view she didn't like. It's a
telling mark of insecurity, & it's a cheap way to debate.
John--
>>>You comment on the lack of interest I'm showing in promoting
your cause,
I commented that your shhh/let's keep it quiet/don't rock the
boat/half-truths are peachy attitude may be understandable for a fan (though
I don't agree w/ it), but it is strange for a journalist. I still think it
is strange for a journalist. BTW, I don't consider distributed fanfic as my
cause. I see it as an oddity of genre fandom, & a rather shameful one, as
well as an example of one of the downsides of the Internet.
John--
>We haven't heard what NINA is doing to make things right only .
Again, it's not a personal crusade, but let's see. The con organizers ban
fanfic-related questions to TPTB. Genre journalist (if YOU are
representative) won't breach the subject w/ TPTB. What do you suggest I do?
Disguise myself as a case of Scotch & infiltrate DPP's offices, demanding to
be heard? Maybe I'll just continue making it clear here that there IS an
issue re: distributed fanfic, & that not everyone considers "it's fun & I
like it" to be reason enough for any & all behavior.
John--
> C'mon Nina, are you suggesting the SaveDanielJackson ladies can do
something
> you can't?
Right.... Shanks obviously found out he wasn't as hot an item, outside of
SG-1, as he'd hoped. Who cares? The show, w/ or w/o him, bores me.
me before (about selling HL stuff)--
> Like Leah's HL calendars?
John--
>Actually, that's an interesting and fair point.
Egads.
John--
> I honestly don't know where
> I'd draw the line. SNIP
<<<However, I might compare it to the 'Unauthorised Episode
Guide books' that are out there and are absolutely legal (and usually very
good) and get around the copyright law by not using any official photos or
press material, while still being a good read.>>>
Ep guides are commenting on the shows. Talking & writing about creative
works is allowed--like we are doing here, like people do at water fountains
& in reviews, etc. That's not changing anything, taking anything further,
or in any way manipulating the created work. So, as you say, that doesn't
cover fanfic, & it doesn't cover Leah's cartoons either since she uses the
characters' images, the fictional universe's rules, etc., to tell a little
HL story.
In the interest of fact-checking, I looked at Leah's HL calendars sold on
her website. I don't have the time or inclination to review each cartoon,
but one jumped out at me. It shows a stunned Duncan gaping over a mountain
of Amanda's pricey purchases. He protests that her credit cards were maxed
out & she (predictably) retorts that his weren't. That's not parody (unless
Leah is using HL to tell the world that women do or should mooch off men).
It's basically a missing scene, one set up in a couple HL eps, where Amanda
is broke & eyes Duncan's credit card. It's cute, but it's not parody or any
other fair use that gets around copyright law. It's fanfic, only w/ a
picture (being worth 1,000 words) & a couple dialogue bubbles. And she's
selling it. So, there's a very specific example. Which side of the line?
I also clicked on their Stargate calendars. Several are collections of
photographs, rather than drawings. Copyrights to the candid shots taken at
cons are stated in the fine print as belonging to Annie--certainly wouldn't
want anyone stealing those! However, most shots used look like production
stills from SG-1 episodes, & no mention of _their_ copyright is made. How
in the world did Leah/Annie get rights to reproduce & sell THOSE photos, I
wonder???
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:59:44 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Carmel--
> Thanks for your response Nina. I'm sorry that you find my responses
> insulting and *belligerant* (sic)....they were certainly never intended to
> be so and had I realised that you feel so fragile about these issues I
would
> have tempered my responses accordingly. I shall certainly commit to
taking
> that fragility into account when framing any future responses :-)
So, you aren't able to discuss this further in a calm & rational manner?
Whatever works for you--I totally understand. Too bad, though--so many
interesting issues left unresolved.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:01:47 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
In a message dated 7/9/2003 6:41:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
> The Philosophy of Natural Law is just one of a hundred branches of
> philosophy.
>
Perhaps. But we should not be too quick to dismiss it. All of the freedoms of
western society and all of the *beloved* "rights" so advocated in it are
based upon the natural law.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:12:05 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
At 08:01 PM 7/9/2003, Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
>Perhaps. But we should not be too quick to dismiss it. All of the freedoms of
>western society and all of the *beloved* "rights" so advocated in it are
>based upon the natural law.
I think you just proved our point, Dotiran. "Western society"? There's a
whole world out there that isn't a part of western society. What about
*their* morals? Are the westerners the only ones that get the genetic
morality code that you feel is the one real moral truth? What about eastern
society? They have many laws and beliefs that are totally opposite of ours.
Do they get a different genetic morality code? So which code is the real
morality for all humans?
And what about third world countries? Or the Asian countries? What
morality code are they born with?
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:28:31 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
In a message dated 7/9/2003 7:14:06 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
diamonique@comcast.net writes:
> Are the westerners the only ones that get the genetic
> morality code that you feel is the one real moral truth?
Of course not. Using that logic you would be saying that only westerners have
rights. Why then should we worry ourselves over all the oppressed people of
the world, they have no rights anyway, they are westerners???? It just so
happens that the western world has more often structured and attempted to
articulate some of these truths of our humanity.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:52:10 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
In a message dated 7/9/2003 7:29:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Dotiran@aol.com writes:
> they are westerners????
typo. make that they are *not* westerners???
It just so > happens that the western world has more often structured and
> attempted to articulate some of these truths of our humanity.
>
[talking back to myself :)] Notice that I say "more often attempted to
articulate". I would not want to imply that only westerners have done so.
Confucius occasionally mentions the "Mandate of Heaven." As one Confuscius
scholar wrote "He appears to interpret this to mean the natural law or moral
order within things. Men must seek to live within this order."
(Analects 3:13)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:52:44 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
Wendy:
> > The Philosophy of Natural Law is just one of a hundred branches of
> > philosophy.
Dotiran:
>Perhaps. But we should not be too quick to dismiss it. All of the freedoms
>of western society and all of the *beloved* "rights" so advocated in it
>are based upon the natural law.
Me:
Are the westerners the only ones that get the genetic morality code that
you feel is the one real moral truth?
Dotiran:
Of course not. Using that logic you would be saying that only westerners
have rights. Why then should we worry ourselves over all the oppressed
people of the world, they have no rights anyway, they are westerners???? It
just so happens that the western world has more often structured and
attempted to articulate some of these truths of our humanity.
Me again (shaking head in befuddlement):
I give up.
So... how's HL5 coming along?
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:01:59 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
At 08:52 PM 7/9/2003, Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 7/9/2003 7:29:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>typo. make that they are *not* westerners???
I understood what you meant. :-)
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 02:29:12 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Out&About)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
I tend to believe that there is a general balance to nature and the
universe, but that most religions' need to give that force a 'human' face or
philosophy tends to show that while there is a lot to be said for the power
of faith, there's a less to be noted about religion and its evolving (to fit
the times) interpretation. It'd be wonderful to see what the likes of
Methos, Kronos and Cassandra made of certain pivotal moments of religious
significance and how belief-systems evolved over time. I think I might well
be as cynical as Methos by this point.
I have huge respect for Christianity, Buddhism and ever other religion under
the sun. I just keep noting that it's worth studying how close they really
are/aren't to the original belief-systems that created them and how much
blood need not have been spilled in the process of an interdenominational
pissing contest over the centuries.
A vicar once told me that it didn't matter how I lived my life...I wouldn't
go to Heaven *unless* I embraced Jesus as the Son of God. Since that point,
I've noted that too many people are doing things simply to secure a decent
place in the afterlife and far too little to be earning one in this.
So, with the greatest respect to any and all devout people here, I'll forgoe
the religious or spiritual motivation and just do the best I can and what I
feel is the 'right thing' as many times as the world lets me believe I can.
Meanwhile, I'll be at the bar where I intend to put some money in the
collection tin, debate the important issues of the day (not fanfic this
week) and compare club-membership invites with Grocho Marx. The first round
is on your deity of choice.
John
He's not the Son of God, he's just a very naughty journalist.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Jul 2003 (#2003-147)
***********************************************