Levitz Pulped my Ebay sale!
Darker
me my auction was being cancelled for breech of copyright. Serves me right
for trying to sell that smut anyway!
------------------------
We regret to inform you that your auction:
423852320 Sexy Female Robin surf Supergirl ORIGINAL ART
has been ended at the request of DC Comics, a member
of eBay's Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program, because
they filed a sworn statement that it offers a product or contains
material which violates their copyright, trademark or other
rights. In the interest of protecting all eBay users, we end
such auctions to avoid any association with potentially
infringing or unlawful items.
We understand that sometimes mistakes can be made. If
you feel your auction was ended in error, contact the VeRO
Program Member directly by emailing them at kmw...@flash.net.
Of course, eBay is available to answer questions, but since only
the rights owner understands their products and policies, we
encourage you to contact them first. If we agree a mistake has
been made or the VeRO Program Member notifies us, we will
allow you to relist the item.
We also understand that even if your item is infringing, you may
have been unaware of that fact, and may have listed the item with
the best of intentions. Unfortunately, even if this is so, you still
could face potential liability, so ending the auction is still necessary.
Please review our Prohibited, Questionable & Infringing Items at:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-items.html
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-wordspam.html
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-importeditems.html
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-likeness.html
and Why Was My Auction Ended Early By eBay? at:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-endauction.html
to learn more. All Bidders have been notified and any associated
fees have been credited to your account.
**Keep in mind that listing of prohibited, questionable or infringing
items, or the re-listing of ended items without the approval of eBay,
can result in your suspension from eBay.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Regards,
Gwen (whye...@ebay.com)
eBay Inc.
-------------------------
If you want to see the offending smut (it was up to $26 bucks!!! MAN!)
you can check it out at http://www.hypnothetical.com/images/robin_sg.jpg
TAKEN DOWN BY THE MAN (user kmlaw made the request, I'll probably be
getting a cease and desist letter for my website too!)
Robert Bienvenu
>I guess my smut-peddling days are over! I got this today from Ebay telling
>me my auction was being cancelled for breech of copyright. Serves me right
>for trying to sell that smut anyway!
Oh man. I hope you were able to make a few bucks before the storm
troopers kicked in your door. Have fun while you can, cuz' the net's
getting cleaner every day.
NixKuroi
here...
Dear Ebay,
I'm confused as to why MY auction was singled out for removal when EVERY
piece of artwork listed under "Sexy Original Art" listed there is in the
same boat as I am. There are MANY Supergirl, WonderWoman and other DC
comics character sketches out there being sold on ebay. Further, I don't
believe anyone has ever gone up to a creator at a comics convention and
yanked their art out of their hand or forbidden them to sell a sketch of a
character that belongs to a comic company. Is there such an incredible
difference? I'm not selling comic books based on their characters, I'm
selling my interpretations of them like hundreds of other ebay sellers.
Up to this point, I have NO negative feedback and have worked hard to
maintain a good reputation on your service. There needs to be a dispute
policy that allows a user to challenge hypocritical claims before damage is
done to their reputation by the removal of the sale.
Thank you for your consideration.
----
Man, I'm a spoiled whiner.
NixKuroi - Nearly Former Evil Comic Smut Peddler
Nat Gertler
>
> Further, I don't
> believe anyone has ever gone up to a creator at a comics convention and
> yanked their art out of their hand or forbidden them to sell a sketch of a
> character that belongs to a comic company.
So? What does Ebay have to do with what goes on at comic conventions?
Besides, in my experience, there are few artists who advertise
that they will sketch specific characters. Generally, it's a
comissioned work, which puts it in a somewhat different category.
> I'm not selling comic books based on their characters,
No, you're selling art based on their characters. DC appears
to make a large portion of its income off of licensing out
their characters beyond the comic books.
> There needs to be a dispute
> policy that allows a user to challenge hypocritical claims before damage is
> done to their reputation by the removal of the sale.
"Hypocritical" is not a legal defense that I know of... not that
I've seen that it is the case. If DC were advertising art of other
people's characters without license, but take you to task for
doing the same, that would be hyopcritical... but I can't recall
DC ever doing anything like that.
BobKinDC
your embarrassingly badly-drawn wank fantasies, and the regulars of this
newsgroup don't want you advertising it here.
---------------------------
--Bob Kennedy Alexandria, VA
Elayne Riggs
> I guess my smut-peddling days are over! I got this today from Ebay telling
> me my auction was being cancelled for breech of copyright. Serves me right
> for trying to sell that smut anyway!
Sure does. Glad they cracked down on you, you copyright-violating
asshole. You're so clueless you think they did it because it was
"erotica" rather than because it was illegal!
- Elayne
Sten
D> I guess my smut-peddling days are over! I got this today from Ebay
D> telling me my auction was being cancelled for breech of copyright.
D> Serves me right for trying to sell that smut anyway!
Serves you right for wanting to use DC's trademarked
characters without permission. It's a tad hypocritical to complain
about DC objecting to your unauthorized commercial use of their
property, when you demand a contract for the commercial use of the
artwork that uses that property.
--
What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time
to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take
arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
Dementia
Actually I'd think it was due to the bondage aspect of it rather than
copyright violation. If I was DC I'd have to banned as well.
Elayne Riggs
Might be, insofar as the speed of the crackdown, but generally if you sell
or distribute copyrighted work and DC finds out about it they're legally
obligated to stop you.
- Elayne
COMICA ONE
So what does this mean if you want to sell original art? (Meaning original art
from books already published) I see a lot of that still up on the auction
block.
I guess DC was objecting to the crass way a lot of their characters were being
drawn by these, uh, artists.
Paul O'Brien
<comi...@aol.com> writes
>
> So what does this mean if you want to sell original art? (Meaning original art
>from books already published) I see a lot of that still up on the auction
>block.
That's not a problem assuming that the art derives from a legitimate
source. If it's work from a DC book then they authorised the use of
their trademarked character. No issue of copyright arises in the
sale of original art because (duh) no copies are being made.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
Rebekah Wade should be shot. (But not by vigilantes, of course.)
Elayne Riggs
> Re the art matter:
> So what does this mean if you want to sell original art? (Meaning original art
> from books already published)
Original art is fine, if it's gotten by legally. DC pays the freelancer
for *reproduction rights*, not for the art boards themselves. So the
boards themselves are the artists' property to do with as the artists see
fit. (The usual rule, for anyone who's interested, is that pencillers get
back 2/3rds of the boards and inkers get 1/3; for layouts/finishes it's
split 50/50. At least that's how DC is presently working it.)
When you get problems here are when dealers and others acquire original
art boards *illegally*, usually by stealing them, and then turn around and
sell them without the artist ever having been involved (or having sold
them in the first place!). It just happened to a friend of ours in
England, who sent out a mass e-mail warning people away from this outfit
that acquired art boards that were never returned to him and are now
selling them. I'm going to suggest he put his mass warning on the Comicon
boards, that seems to be the best way to reach the most pros who might
find themselves in similar straits. As situations vis a vis Neal Adams
and others have shown, this is still a fairly major problem on the
secondary market.
- Elayne
Carl Henderson
>Might be, insofar as the speed of the crackdown, but generally if you sell
>or distribute copyrighted work and DC finds out about it they're legally
>obligated to stop you.
No they are not. You are confusing copyright and trademark. Failure to enforce
copyright can not cause it lapse. Ten thousand pictures of Supergirl in
bondage sold on Ebay won't affect DC's copyrights on their various Supergirl
comics, posters, underoos, etc. However, failure to act on a known trademark
violation can--in some cases--weaken a company's claim to that trademark.
BTW--Under the law whatever erotic drawing the poster had pulled by Ebay is
copyrighted to him--not DC Comics. Just as copyright for the art to Supergirl
pages is owned by Leonard Kirk and Robin Rigs until they transfer it to DC via
a work-for-hire agreement. If DC automatically owned all copyright to any
artwork incorporating Supergirl (or any other DC-owned character) no
work-for-hire agreement would be required.
The poster's Supergirl drawing does however infringe on DC's existing
trademarks and copyrights--and they are well within their rights to make him
stop selling it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson rec.arts.comics/rec.arts.comics.misc FAQ
carl.he...@airmail.net http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/miscfaq.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The RFD for the removal of rec.arts.comics.other-media has been |
| posted to news.groups. If you don't participate in the discussion, |
| please watch for the CFV and vote. Vote to keep it, vote to remove |
| it, vote to abstain, but please express interest in this vote. A |
| copy of the RFD is at: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/racom.txt |
| (sig stolen from Mike Chary and Kate Hahn) |
LegionMoy
Nice response Elayne. Could you act more like a cunt for us in the back or the
room? :)
If what the guy did was so wrong, why the hell isn't DC coming after my ass for
doing smutty pictures of Legionnaires? The whole convention sketch legality
question is so gray. They are one of a kind works, not prints or copies. So
why does DC bother to just crack down on one guy and not the entire sketch
section on ebay? Because until they do, they should shut the fuck up and let
people have their fun.
Jeff
Grimbiskit
here) was that a third party complained to either DC or eBay.
Dale Hicks
> >Darker <dr...@technopiate.com> happened to mention:
> >> I guess my smut-peddling days are over! I got this today from Ebay telling
> >> me my auction was being cancelled for breech of copyright. Serves me right
> >> for trying to sell that smut anyway!
> >
> >Sure does. Glad they cracked down on you, you copyright-violating
> >asshole. You're so clueless you think they did it because it was
> >"erotica" rather than because it was illegal!
>
> a cunt for us in the back or the room? :)
Ah, the old insult with a smiley which is supposed to negate
the insult.
> If what the guy did was so wrong, why
> the hell isn't DC coming after my ass for
> doing smutty pictures of Legionnaires?
Ask, and ye shall recieve.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Kevin J. Maroney
Henderson) wrote:
>Just as copyright for the art to Supergirl
>pages is owned by Leonard Kirk and Robin Riggs until they transfer it to DC via
>a work-for-hire agreement.
Under US law, a work-for-hire argreement cannot be created for work
which is "finished" before the agreement--the agreement has to predate
the work. As such, I believe the work is copyright by DC as Kirk draws
it and Riggs redraws (*) it.
*What, you want I should say "traces"? ;-)
--
Kevin J. Maroney | kmar...@ungames.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
John McMahon
>
> LegionMoy <legi...@aol.com> wrote in article <20000902112810...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
> > >Darker <dr...@technopiate.com> happened to mention:
> > >> I guess my smut-peddling days are over! I got this today from Ebay telling
> > >> me my auction was being cancelled for breech of copyright. Serves me right
> > >> for trying to sell that smut anyway!
> > >
> > >Sure does. Glad they cracked down on you, you copyright-violating
> > >asshole. You're so clueless you think they did it because it was
> > >"erotica" rather than because it was illegal!
> >
> > Nice response Elayne. Could you act more like
> > a cunt for us in the back or the room? :)
>
> Ah, the old insult with a smiley which is supposed to negate
> the insult.
The humour comes from who he was replying too and how he did
so.
You're all a pack of insular morons with the intellect of
an 80's speculator :) I have evidence of this but I don't
need to share it with you scumfucks :)
J.
--
Blood & Spandex : Opinions on comics and the comic book industry
Carl Henderson
>On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 21:04:12 GMT, carl.he...@airmail.net (Carl
>Henderson) wrote:
>>Just as copyright for the art to Supergirl
>>pages is owned by Leonard Kirk and Robin Riggs until they transfer it to DC
>>via a work-for-hire agreement.
>Under US law, a work-for-hire argreement cannot be created for work
>which is "finished" before the agreement--the agreement has to predate
>the work. As such, I believe the work is copyright by DC as Kirk draws
>it and Riggs redraws (*) it.
You are correct. That's the way it is supposed to work. However, in the comics
industry, it very often doesn't. Most freelancers work without a contract, and
sign away their rights via the pay vouchers they submit for the check for
their work.
This, of course, is why Paul Levitz made an example of former DC editor
Maureen McTiegue (sp?) over her forging creator's signatures on pay vouchers
in order to expedite checks to them--a common industry practice. Forged
signatures on pay vouchers could put a company's ownership of characters and
stories in question, should a creator litigate the issue years down the line.
Balvenanco
> LegionMoy <legi...@aol.com> wrote in article <20000902112810...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
> > >Darker <dr...@technopiate.com> happened to mention:
> > >> I guess my smut-peddling days are over! I got this today from Ebay telling
> > >> me my auction was being cancelled for breech of copyright. Serves me right
> > >> for trying to sell that smut anyway!
> > >
> > >Sure does. Glad they cracked down on you, you copyright-violating
> > >asshole. You're so clueless you think they did it because it was
> > >"erotica" rather than because it was illegal!
> >
> > Nice response Elayne. Could you act more like
> > a cunt for us in the back or the room? :)
>
> Ah, the old insult with a smiley which is supposed to negate
> the insult.
Perhaps it's a rhetorical question, and he already knows she's fully capable of acting more like a
cunt. That's how I read it.
>
>
> > If what the guy did was so wrong, why
> > the hell isn't DC coming after my ass for
> > doing smutty pictures of Legionnaires?
>
> Ask, and ye shall recieve.
This isn't a continuation of that "Any Studs Wanna Fuck My Whiteboy Virgin Ass" thread, is it?
Balvenanco
> >>>>> Darker writes:
>
> D> I guess my smut-peddling days are over! I got this today from Ebay
> D> telling me my auction was being cancelled for breech of copyright.
> D> Serves me right for trying to sell that smut anyway!
>
> Serves you right for wanting to use DC's trademarked
> characters without permission. It's a tad hypocritical to complain
> about DC objecting to your unauthorized commercial use of their
> property, when you demand a contract for the commercial use of the
> artwork that uses that property.
It's still okay to put out the smut for free though, right?
Elayne Riggs
>>Might be, insofar as the speed of the crackdown, but generally if you sell
>>or distribute copyrighted work and DC finds out about it they're legally
>>obligated to stop you.
> No they are not. You are confusing copyright and trademark. Failure to enforce
> copyright can not cause it lapse.
You're absolutely correctly, but that's not why they'd be legally
obligated. It's because if they ignore one violation, a more egregious
misappropriation might occur and they would be susceptible to legal
accusations along the lines of "you didn't protect your copyright in that
case, why should we side with you here?"
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
>>Darker <dr...@technopiate.com> happened to mention:
>>> I guess my smut-peddling days are over! I got this today from Ebay telling
>>> me my auction was being cancelled for breech of copyright. Serves me right
>>> for trying to sell that smut anyway!
>>
>>Sure does. Glad they cracked down on you, you copyright-violating
>>asshole. You're so clueless you think they did it because it was
>>"erotica" rather than because it was illegal!
> Nice response Elayne. Could you act more like a cunt for us in the back or the
> room? :)
Geez, there goes THAT friendship.
> If what the guy did was so wrong, why the hell isn't DC coming after my ass for
> doing smutty pictures of Legionnaires?
I don't know, are you selling them on eBay? Last I heard you were doing
sketches for free.
- Elayne
Richard Pace
That's not the way copyright infringement suits work -- you're still confusing the
process with trademark protection.
If a small publisher reprints a short story of mine without my permission my not suing
them for any reason (likely that they aren't financially worthwhile to pursue
compensation) doesn't diminish my claim to copyright if I decide to seek compensation
from a larger publisher for reproducing my work without my permission.
Trademark and copyright are two very different things, though they are often confused by
those just outside the contract areas these things are negotiated in. In simplest
terms; copy right is the right to control reproduction (copy right, get it?) while
trademark is a legally registered graphic/image/whatever that represents your company or
product. DC holds copyright on the Superman stories in Action Comics and trademark on
the Action Comics logo, Superman's "S" symbol, Superman's costume (to a lesser degree,
as I understand it the classic image of Supes breaking the chains from around his chest
is the TM'd image ) and anything else their lawyers think constitutes a recognizable
trademark.
Most of Robert E. Howard's Conan stories are in the public domain, however, Conan
Properties Incorporated hold trademark on Conan the Barbarian and the furry loinclothed
image of the character. If I were to reprint Robert E. Howard's Beyond the Black River
and illustrate it without showing the trademarked image (easy since Howard never wrote
Conan dressed like that) CPI wouldn't (actually shouldn't -- being of the right side of
the law doesn't seem to be a defence after the Todd loss to Twist) be able to win a
lawsuit for either copyright or trademark infringement. Similar issues are at play with
the Fleisher Superman cartoons; they're public domain but any publisher is restricted
from creating new work, packaging, etc., around them that uses DC trademarks.
Wow, lotta writing for someone who won't even read this . . . .
Richard
--
The Gallery
- http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/
Justin Bacon
writes:
>Most of Robert E. Howard's Conan stories are in the public domain,
Actually I'm fairly sure they aren't. They were briefly for a span in the '70s,
IIRC, but unfortunately Disney keeps pushing back the goddamn copyright
duration and they fell under protection again.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
LegionMoy
>
I thought was making an uncalled for comment to someone else. Just trying to
dial you back a little. I still like seeing you at cons.
>> If what the guy did was so wrong, why the hell isn't DC coming after my ass
>for
>> doing smutty pictures of Legionnaires?
>
>I don't know, are you selling them on eBay? Last I heard you were doing
>sketches for free.
>
>- Elayne
Free? hee hee. Only at cons when I'm sitting at the booth, you can get a
lovely head sketch. Any more and it's time to pull out the wallet. Gotta keep
busy!
Here's a lovely nude for all to see...
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=418379169
Jeff
Richard Pace
No -- Weird Tales bought all rights back in the bad old days and when it came time
to renew three + years of material no one was manning the fort as it were and most
of Howard's Conan output went into the public domain. Lin Carter and L.Sprague
DeCamp's needlessly rewritten versions of the Howard stuff, completed fragments and
pastiche are in copyright but no one really wants those anymore.
T. Troy McNemar
>Here's a lovely nude for all to see...
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=418379169
You did a great job on that one.
I couldn't figure out how I missed it because I have a personal shopper alert
set up for your stuff on eBay. Turns out that the alert expired a month or so
ago and I apparently forgot to renew it. Needless to say, it's active again.
Based on your posts on rac*, it sounds like you're still doing commissions. I'm
still deciding what I want exactly, but I'll try to drop you a line soon.
Troy
--
T. Troy McNemar Tr...@McNemar.com
"cer.stra.scimoc.aidem-rehto si a eruliaf. Troppus sti lavomer."
-Zatanna
Favorite Comic of the Week: PREACHER #66
Runner-up: JLA #46
www.McNemar.com
Justin Bacon
writes:
>No -- Weird Tales bought all rights back in the bad old days and when it came
time
>to renew three + years of material no one was manning the fort as it were and
most
>of Howard's Conan output went into the public domain. Lin Carter and
L.Sprague
>DeCamp's needlessly rewritten versions of the Howard stuff, completed
>fragments and pastiche are in copyright but no one really wants those anymore.
Well, there are several stories that were never published during his lifetime.
And I wouldn't mind seeing the *uncompleted* fragments.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Richard Pace
>
> Well, there are several stories that were never published during his lifetime.
> And I wouldn't mind seeing the *uncompleted* fragments.
Go to AmazonUK and do a search on Conan.
There's a new two book series by Orion collecting just the Howard Conan. In the
next two years Wandering Star will be collecting a more thorough and less edited
set of editions for the North American market -- I believe their intent is to
release the fragments as left.
I've a few friends in Howard fan circles who may be able to provide copies of the
fragments -- lemme check.
Justin Bacon
writes:
>There's a new two book series by Orion collecting just the Howard Conan. In
the
>next two years Wandering Star will be collecting a more thorough and less
edited
>set of editions for the North American market -- I believe their intent is to
>release the fragments as left.
I am rubbing my hands together in anticipation, believe me. ;)
>I've a few friends in Howard fan circles who may be able to provide copies of
>the fragments -- lemme check.
That would be wonderful. I've tracked down a few over the years, but getting
Howard stuff is some of the most expensive collecting you could hope to do.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
John Savard
part:
>Hey, don't feel that way. I was just making an uncalled for comment to someone
>I thought was making an uncalled for comment to someone else. Just trying to
>dial you back a little. I still like seeing you at cons.
Apparently you seem to be unable to understand that comments of that
nature are *way* farther out of line than "uncalled for". They rank
with death threats.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>That's not the way copyright infringement suits work -- you're still confusing the
>process with trademark protection.
>If a small publisher reprints a short story of mine without my permission my not suing
>them for any reason (likely that they aren't financially worthwhile to pursue
>compensation) doesn't diminish my claim to copyright if I decide to seek compensation
>from a larger publisher for reproducing my work without my permission.
Well, that may be true *nowadays* (i.e. the _current_ copyright
situation is described by the essay "Copyright myths explained"), but
it used to be that if someone *both* printed a copy of your short
story without your permission _and failed to include your copyright
notice with it_
then anyone else could claim to have seen only that copy, and,
naturally, without seeing a copyright notice, they would have no way
to know that that story was copyrighted.
That was how the copyright laws used to work - if the illegal copy
lacked a notice, you _had_ to prosecute, and quickly. If, on the other
hand, it was a counterfeit, including the notice, prosecuting was
discretionary.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Brian H. Bailie
> On 05 Sep 2000 16:24:08 GMT, legi...@aol.com (LegionMoy) wrote, in
> part:
>
> >Hey, don't feel that way. I was just making an uncalled for comment to someone
> >I thought was making an uncalled for comment to someone else. Just trying to
> >dial you back a little. I still like seeing you at cons.
>
> Apparently you seem to be unable to understand that comments of that
> nature are *way* farther out of line than "uncalled for". They rank
> with death threats.
You rank an "uncalled for comment" on the same level as a *death threat*?!
No offense, but... have you seriously lost your mind? Think about what you just
said. I mean really *think*.
That specific insult is on the same level as a death threat.
That's so far over the line of oversensitivity that that's frightening.
Brian
--
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I've learned much from both of their styles.
- J. Buffett
Richard Pace
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:02:52 -0700, Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >That's not the way copyright infringement suits work -- you're still confusing the
> >process with trademark protection.
>
> >If a small publisher reprints a short story of mine without my permission my not suing
> >them for any reason (likely that they aren't financially worthwhile to pursue
> >compensation) doesn't diminish my claim to copyright if I decide to seek compensation
> >from a larger publisher for reproducing my work without my permission.
>
> Well, that may be true *nowadays* (i.e. the _current_ copyright
> situation is described by the essay "Copyright myths explained"),
Yeah, but I think it's been that way for nearly thirty years so I'm surprised that people
would think otherwise.
Though, I'm also surprised that people still think the "poor man's" copyright method has
legal weight (sending yourself a registered letter containing the material by way of
showing when you created it).
Elayne Riggs
>>Hey, don't feel that way. I was just making an uncalled for comment to someone
>>I thought was making an uncalled for comment to someone else. Just trying to
>>dial you back a little. I still like seeing you at cons.
> Apparently you seem to be unable to understand that comments of that
> nature are *way* farther out of line than "uncalled for". They rank
> with death threats.
I have accepted Jeff's apology privately; we've both acknowledged he has a
different barometer on that word than I and many others do. Let's move
on.
- Elayne
LegionMoy
nature are *way* farther out of line than "uncalled for". They rank
with death threats.>>
I understood perfectly what I was saying. If the reciever takes it more
offensively, than it seems to me, then that person shouldn't be using uncalled
for language either, if they don't want to be prepared to recieve some of it.
As for ranking as high as a death threat, I just don't see it.
Jeff
LegionMoy
>different barometer on that word than I and many others do. Let's move
>on.
Well, the sorry word never came up, but I was just trying to make a point.
Now, I agree and say it's time to move on without calling people names. But if
any more comes up, I'll be happy to share some. :)
Jeff
John Savard
in part:
I agree that he was honestly expressing his intent, and my comment
referred to how his words would be likely to be understood by others,
particularly women.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
John Savard
Chary) wrote, in part:
>I don't care what barometer you use. It's not equivalent to a death threat
>and might be perfectly acceptable to describe people who think it is.
It isn't quantitatively the same, but it is qualitatively in the same
ball park.
A sexual slur is a direct threat to a woman:
1) accusing a woman of unchastity is just as dangerous to her as
accusing a man of homosexuality can be dangerous to him, and
2) other forms of disrespectful sexual comments are threatening and
frightening, because women, who are not as strong as men generally,
must live with the constant cloud of the threat of rape hanging over
their heads.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Richard Pace
John Savard wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2000 14:20:24 GMT, mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan
> Chary) wrote, in part:
>
> >I don't care what barometer you use. It's not equivalent to a death threat
> >and might be perfectly acceptable to describe people who think it is.
>
> It isn't quantitatively the same, but it is qualitatively in the same
> ball park.
No.
It's.
Not.
>
>
> A sexual slur is a direct threat to a woman:
No more so than a sexual slur is a direct threat to a man.
> 1) accusing a woman of unchastity is just as dangerous to her as
> accusing a man of homosexuality can be dangerous to him, and
That implies that an accusation of homosexuality is actually dangerous.
Outside of daytime talk shows, it isn't.
> 2) other forms of disrespectful sexual comments are threatening and
> frightening, because women, who are not as strong as men generally,
> must live with the constant cloud of the threat of rape hanging over
> their heads.
Oh, I agree -- I think we should pen all the women up in special facilities to
keep them separate from men. Perhaps we should mandate that they wear head to
toe clothing because men lack the self-control required to NOT rape any woman.
Perhaps the mandatory castration (chemical, we should be humane in this) of
any male who slings a derogatory remark towards a woman as well?
We all know that women are so physically inferior and our culture so violently
predisposed to them that all intelligent men should refrain from any negative
remark in response to any woman's actions, regardless of the idiocy, hypocrisy
or malevolence demonstrated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sometimes this victimization of women gets way out of hand.
--
The Gallery
http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/
After October 1st it will be found at
http://www3.sympatico.ca/richardpace/
Michael Alan Chary
John Savard <jsa...@fNrOeSePnAeMt.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>On 7 Sep 2000 14:20:24 GMT, mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan
>Chary) wrote, in part:
>
>>I don't care what barometer you use. It's not equivalent to a death threat
>>and might be perfectly acceptable to describe people who think it is.
>
>It isn't quantitatively the same, but it is qualitatively in the same
>ball park.
I reiterate my comment.
It is not even in the same zip code. How often have people threatened to
kill you or tried? Let me tell you, it's not pleasant and you could call
me whatever you wanted and I would not get upset. I get really irritated
when people try to kill me.
>A sexual slur is a direct threat to a woman:
>
>1) accusing a woman of unchastity is just as dangerous to her as
>accusing a man of homosexuality can be dangerous to him, and
Jeff did not do this.
>2) other forms of disrespectful sexual comments are threatening and
>frightening, because women, who are not as strong as men generally,
>must live with the constant cloud of the threat of rape hanging over
>their heads.
This has nothing todo with Jeff's comment and is sympomatic of the frankly
stupid sort of weak kneed pseudofeminist dogma which has taken over abnd
subverted the real women's rights movement. Go read a book or something.
("Who Stole Feminism" is very good, for instance.
--
surdamon
this has got to be the dumbest rationalization i've ever heard since the
toad's
last post.
sigh, in that case, calling a woman a slut is akin to making a death
threat.
please.
--
"We have a budget surplus but a deficit in values"-
George W. Bush, ignoring the lowest crime rates and the greatest
focus on human rights in a generation, instead choosing
to attack his opponent.
surdamon
Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>
> In article <39babcde...@news.ecn.ab.ca>,
> John Savard <jsa...@fNrOeSePnAeMt.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On 7 Sep 2000 14:20:24 GMT, mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan
> >Chary) wrote, in part:
> >
> >>I don't care what barometer you use. It's not equivalent to a death threat
> >>and might be perfectly acceptable to describe people who think it is.
> >
> >It isn't quantitatively the same, but it is qualitatively in the same
> >ball park.
>
> I reiterate my comment.
>
> It is not even in the same zip code. How often have people threatened to
> kill you or tried? Let me tell you, it's not pleasant and you could call
> me whatever you wanted and I would not get upset. I get really irritated
> when people try to kill me.
it's true.
the last rtime someone plugged six shots into him, and boy, was he
pissed.
> This has nothing todo with Jeff's comment and is sympomatic of the frankly
> stupid sort of weak kneed pseudofeminist dogma which has taken over abnd
> subverted the real women's rights movement. Go read a book or something.
> ("Who Stole Feminism" is very good, for instance.
> --
stop saying things i agree with!
Bill Nolan
wrote:
> John Savard wrote:
> >
> > On 7 Sep 2000 14:20:24 GMT, mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan
> > Chary) wrote, in part:
> >
> > >I don't care what barometer you use. It's not equivalent to a death threat
> > >and might be perfectly acceptable to describe people who think it is.
> >
> > It isn't quantitatively the same, but it is qualitatively in the same
> > ball park.
> >
> > A sexual slur is a direct threat to a woman:
> >
> > 1) accusing a woman of unchastity is just as dangerous to her as
> > accusing a man of homosexuality can be dangerous to him, and
> >
> > 2) other forms of disrespectful sexual comments are threatening and
> > frightening, because women, who are not as strong as men generally,
> > must live with the constant cloud of the threat of rape hanging over
> > their heads.
>
>
> this has got to be the dumbest rationalization i've ever heard since the
> toad's
> last post.
>
> sigh, in that case, calling a woman a slut is akin to making a death
> threat.
>
I guess we men just have to realize that calling a woman
"the C word" is not the same as calling a fellow man a
"dick," even if that's what we mean. Some women interpret
it differently and much more severely, I guess.
So, from now on, men should just call women dicks, I guess,
so they won't be misunderstood and accused of making
intimidating threats equated with violence.
- Bill
Richard Pace
Bill Nolan wrote:
>
> I guess we men just have to realize that calling a woman
> "the C word" is not the same as calling a fellow man a
> "dick," even if that's what we mean. Some women interpret
> it differently and much more severely, I guess.
>
> So, from now on, men should just call women dicks, I guess,
> so they won't be misunderstood and accused of making
> intimidating threats equated with violence.
That's why I prefer the gender neutral "shithead" or "asshole" for men act like
pricks and women act like cunts. . . .
Though I've yet to find someone worthy of my using that sort of language here. . .
.
Richard
Dementia
>
>
>John Savard wrote:
>>
>> On 7 Sep 2000 14:20:24 GMT, mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan
>> Chary) wrote, in part:
>>
>> >I don't care what barometer you use. It's not equivalent to a death threat
>> >and might be perfectly acceptable to describe people who think it is.
>>
>> It isn't quantitatively the same, but it is qualitatively in the same
>> ball park.
>>
>> A sexual slur is a direct threat to a woman:
>>
>> 1) accusing a woman of unchastity is just as dangerous to her as
>> accusing a man of homosexuality can be dangerous to him, and
>>
>> 2) other forms of disrespectful sexual comments are threatening and
>> frightening, because women, who are not as strong as men generally,
>> must live with the constant cloud of the threat of rape hanging over
>> their heads.
>
>
>this has got to be the dumbest rationalization i've ever heard since the
>toad's
>last post.
>
>sigh, in that case, calling a woman a slut is akin to making a death
>threat.
>
>please.
It depends on the person but generally people who like being victims
tend to see the threat of violence in everything.
Grimbiskit
down original art. Seems the firm handling this is Keats McFarland Wilson LLP
of Beverly Hills, CA. A bunch of ambulance chasers that went into the internet
copyright arena a few years ago. They're the ones who shut down the DC fansites
a few years back, as well and Simpsons sites, Buffy sites, etc.
The funny thing is they're getting much more money out of Fox & AOL/TW than the
companies really stand to lose from the evil internet types that put up crudely
drawn Supergirl smut or post Buffy Transcripts on their fan site.
The companies are well within their rights, but it seems that KMW is taking
them for a ride. All they do is send out cease & desists....it doesn't even
look like they handle any court cases if they pop up.
Just ound the whole thing kinda interesting.
Keats McFarland Wilson's info (they don't seem to have a website):
selle...@kmwlaw.com
their fake eBay account: kmwlaw
Los Angeles, CA
United States
(310) 248 - 3830
Steve Richter
operators or risk losing their trademarks. This is a well-established point
of trademark law.
Basically, by not sending notice to the small time operators they would be
vulnerable to claims (from big companies) that they abandoned their
trademarks.
That's why Disney can't let day care operators off the hook; if they did, then
Marvel or DC or Sony could claim that Disney has abandoned their trademarks
and start using Mickey and Donald et al without paying Disney.
Thanks,
Steve
In article <20000912152326...@ng-fl1.aol.com>, grimb...@aol.com
Elayne Riggs
> Trademark owners must send out cease and desist letters even to small-time
> operators or risk losing their trademarks. This is a well-established point
> of trademark law.
> Basically, by not sending notice to the small time operators they would be
> vulnerable to claims (from big companies) that they abandoned their
> trademarks.
Yep, it has nothing to do with desire. Many places which emotionally
support fan sites would prefer not to officially know about them, because
once they do they're legally obligated to go after them whether they want
to or not. (And it's not just vulnerability from [other] big companies,
but from the courts if they try to take these big companies to trial.)
- Elayne
prodigal...@my-deja.com
jsa...@fNrOeSePnAeMt.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2000 14:20:24 GMT, mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan
> Chary) wrote, in part:
>
> >I don't care what barometer you use. It's not equivalent to a death
threat
> >and might be perfectly acceptable to describe people who think it is.
>
> It isn't quantitatively the same, but it is qualitatively in the same
> ball park.
So this cunt is in a ball park thinks his life is being threatened...
You're talking out of your ass, son.
>
> A sexual slur is a direct threat to a woman:
No, a direct threat to a woman is pointing a gun at her, or raising a
fist, or if its a verbal threat, spelling out the particular act of
violence the perp has in mind. Such a threat *might* use any word you
like but, in isolation, the old Anglo-Saxon word for a rabbit (which is
what 'cunt' is) threatens nobody.
>
> 1) accusing a woman of unchastity is just as dangerous to her
Dangerous? In what sense dangerous? To her reputation? Haven't you
heard, nobody much has given a shit about that sort of thing for at
least two generations now.
You're not Amish are you?
as
> accusing a man of homosexuality can be dangerous to him, and
I think you mean dangerous because there may be some extremist anti-sex
fanatic within earshot who might find the idea of 'unchastity' in a
woman, or homosexuality (or presumbaly environmentalism, atheism,
socialism, book-reading, talking back to one's elders, wearing bright or
gaudy clothes etc. etc.) is punishable by death. I'm afraid life's just
too short to be concerned about which kind of nutter is listening in to
your converstions. I wouldn't worry about it.
>
> 2) other forms of disrespectful sexual comments are threatening and
> frightening, because women, who are not as strong as men generally,
> must live with the constant cloud of the threat of rape hanging over
> their heads.
Yeah, maybe in your household they do. One day soon you might meet a
woman other than your mother and you'll be able to test your theory.
You're all missing the point anyway. In the USA 'cunt' is usually
directed specifically at women and is meant as a highly derogatory
remark, intended to reduce a woman down to her sexual organs and nothing
else, thus denying her personality, intelligence etc. etc.
In the UK 'cunt' is usually directed specifically at men and is meant as
a much less powerful derogatory remark than in the US - in fact it is
often meant humourously - with a meaning that is harder to explain.
Essentially, in Britain a cunt is a man who is mean, or pointlessly
violent - but also sometimes a man who is stupid (in the same way you'd
call a dumb man a 'prick').
It also has the same sexual meaning as in the US, but because it doesn't
have the derogatory application to women it's almost as if it is two
seperate words, depending on context.
Like I said, it originally came from cunny, which meant a young -
possibly female - rabbit. Why it switched to meaning female genitalia I
don't know. It was used a lot in pre-Victorian erotic fiction, sometimes
in shortened forms (cun, cunny etc.), specifically in the specific
context of its voluptuousness and beauty - in other words, when it first
took on its present sexual meaning 'cunt' implied the opposite of what
it does now. To describe a woman's cunt was usually to pay her the
highest compliment possible for a man. Of course in many ways people
were much less conservative then than they are today.
Personally, I think the word is as beautiful as the thing it describes,
and is as perfectly expressive as similar old words like 'fuck' and
'cock' (and for that matter 'shit' and 'piss').
Point is, the same word can have many different meanings depending on
context. If y'all just relaxed and stopped thinking in terms of
substitutes for violence, saving face and protecting the honour of a
lady, you'd probably understand that. You might even get a bit of cunt
yourself.
BUFFER
BU
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.