Fox Assholes
stanner
---Ask FOX <ASK...@foxinc.com> wrote:
>
> A STATEMENT FROM FOX REGARDING FAN WEBSITES
>
>
> In response to erroneous rumors circulating on some internet websites,
> Fox wishes to
> assure fans of "THE X-FILES", "MILLENNIUM" and "THE SIMPSONS" that
> it is not Fox's
> intention to shut down bona fide websites created by fans devoted to
> these programs.
>
> However, Fox must require all websites using copyrighted and
> trademarked materials to
> comply with guidelines that protect the creative integrity of the programs
> they represent.
>
> Fox has not asked any websites to be closed except a few which were
> using program
> materials in an inappropriate manner. Some examples of inappropriate
> uses we have
> found include:
>
> (a) using copyrighted photographs, images and sounds which have not
> been approved
> for distribution;
>
> (b) removing Fox's copyright and trademark notices and asserting
> ownership by a
> third party, or asserting that copyrighted and trademarked materials
> are in the
> public domain;
>
> (c) copying or altering text, photographs, images, designs and logos
> from official
> websites without permission or attribution;
>
> (d) copying or altering photographs, images, designs and logos from
> programs in a
> manner that denigrates the programs, the actors or the characters
> they portray;
>
> (e) using photographs, images, designs and logos to promote a product
> or commercial
> business or service;
>
> (f) carrying advertising for parties not associated with the programs;
> and
>
> (g) offering unlicensed merchandise for sale;
>
> We know true fans do not encourage inappropriate activities and
> respect the hard work of
> the many talented and imaginative people who make Fox's programs
> unique. Fox
> appreciates the support of all fans in protecting its creative rights and
> proprietary
> interests.
>
>
> Thanks for writing
>
> MJ
> FOX Scheduling
>
>
> >>> Jamie stanner <sta...@rocketmail.com> 05/14/97 01:09am >>>
> As a big Simpsons fan, I was recently disappointed to find that one of
> my favorite sites had been shut down, with the following reason given
> by the webmaster:
> "I just received an email from the owner of the Homer's Proverb site,
> he said that he had received certified mail from FOX lawyers demanding
> that he remove the site or face legal penalties."
> Since this site was provided purely for entertainment purposes and in
> no way used copyrighted Simpson's material for monetary gain, the only
> conclusion that I can arrive at regarding your forced removal of this
> site is that you people are a bunch of fucking assholes who have no
> problem raking in the advertising and syndication cash provided by our
> loyal viewing of the show, but who cannot stand to see us enjoying it
> when there's no profit involved. In short, I'm very disappointed in
> Fox, especially since you try so hard to project a laid back hip image
> when you're nothing more than a bunch of greedy assholes, and
> because
> you lack the intelligence to encourage the free advertising that these
> sites provide. Fuck off.
> P.S. Tell your In-House Advertising Department that their Simpsons
> site blows.
Drew Hamilton
On Wed, 14 May 1997 22:16:25 -0400, stanner <sta...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
>> However, Fox must require all websites using copyrighted and
>> trademarked materials to
>> comply with guidelines that protect the creative integrity of the programs
>> they represent.
Can you tell me how someone who defends their copyright is an asshole?
The fact is, that *Copy* *right* refers to the *Right* of someone to
*copy* things. People who have Simpsons' web sites do not have that
right. The Fox lawyers are just trying to save Fox from financial
losses that comes with people operating illegal Simpsons' websites.
- Drew
--
Drew Hamilton -- http://www.drew-hamilton.net/
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
DChodos107
>> The fact is, that *Copy* *right* refers to the *Right* of someone to
>> *copy* things. People who have Simpsons' web sites do not have that
>> right. The Fox lawyers are just trying to save Fox from financial
>> losses that comes with people operating illegal Simpsons' websites.
>> - Drew
What 'financial losses come from people appreciating the show via putting
up a web site?
-dc-
dchod...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/dchodos107/
EB
On Thu, 15 May 1997 11:56:02 GMT, dr...@sml.co.jp (Drew Hamilton)
wrote:
>Can you tell me how someone who defends their copyright is an asshole?
>
>The fact is, that *Copy* *right* refers to the *Right* of someone to
>*copy* things. People who have Simpsons' web sites do not have that
>right. The Fox lawyers are just trying to save Fox from financial
>losses that comes with people operating illegal Simpsons' websites.
>
You are absolutely correct Drew... and while you're ANALysis may be
correct, we are not sitting in court room with a bunch of cock-sucking
lawyers. Companies have traditionally shut an eye on such activities
because they realize that the loyal fans are what creates the show.
As an example, it has already been mentioned that Micro$oft doesn't
really want to get rid of piracy of their products. Why? Because
people stealing copies have made it popular. Who the fuck would buy a
$300 copy of Office for home. And why would I want to use a word
processor only at my work when I can use it at home also. My point is
that unless the use of the material is being used for monetary use,
then let the geeks have their fun. God knows we all have at least one
WAV file on our hard drives.
My $.02.
- Eric
TrilKorf56
Jonathan Yan wrote:
> How could FOX lose money anyway if they're not charging for the show?
Forget for the moment that the use is completely illegal. Put yourself in
Fox's shoes.
This may not be the popular view, but Fox is in an awkward position. Same
with the other studios. For the sake of argument, let's say that Fox lets
everyone who wants to use whatever Simpsons images or sounds or clips they
want.
Here's one scenario: It's entirely possible that in the very near future
you'll be able to go to a Fox website to download an entire episode of the
Simpsons, for which Fox charges your credit card, say a buck or two.
Let's face it, every time there's a technological advance, someone like
those cruds at Cyberpromo is there to suck a few pennies out of it. First
thing that happens is somebody starts illegally offering these downloads
on their site. Perhaps they don't even charge for them directly, but
rather offer them as part of a "membership" or even as a benefit of
signing with their ISP. (Perhaps Net subscriptions will be $19.95 for
unlimited use, but only $10.00 if you only surf your ISP's own sites. The
point is ANYTHING could happen someday.)
Fox asks them to stop, they say no. The case goes to court. Crud lawyer
argues that for years, Fox has allowed websites to freely distribute
Simpsons clips without any fee or license; what's the difference between
allowing sites to distribute 22 one-minute clips for free and allowing
crud site to distribute one 22-minute clip for free? Fox lawyer says
"D'oh!"
It is at that point that Fox would wish it had aggressively pursued those
websites way back when. And if they grant special "fan licenses" as some
have suggested, it doesn't protect them from this kind of infringement.
I know you may not like it, and it's easy to look at a big, faceless
corporation and call them "assholes"... but try to look at it from their
point of view and you'll see it's not arbitrary and it's not done because
of a lack of appreciation of the fans. A new medium like the Internet
brings with it thorny new legal issues, as everybody "plays it by ear" and
hopes history proves them right. (The makers of "Aspirin" and
"Cellophane" probably tried to be nice guys, right up until they lost
their trademarks.)
I'm grateful to Fox and to Gracie and to Matt Groening for bringing us so
many years of great entertainment, and I respect their right to protect
their property and profit from their achievements. (A radical view?)
icky...@ix.netcom.com
TrilKorf56 wrote:
>
> Fox asks them to stop, they say no. The case goes to court. Crud lawyer
> argues that for years, Fox has allowed websites to freely distribute
> Simpsons clips without any fee or license; what's the difference between
> allowing sites to distribute 22 one-minute clips for free and allowing
> crud site to distribute one 22-minute clip for free? Fox lawyer says
> "D'oh!"
>
> It is at that point that Fox would wish it had aggressively pursued those
> websites way back when. And if they grant special "fan licenses" as some
> have suggested, it doesn't protect them from this kind of infringement.
Well ... why wouldn't fan licenses protect them? What if they SOLD fan
licenses at small fees, say $5 a piece, for individual/private/personal
web sites only. Then if this scenario occurred, Fox could argue that
it has not allowed websites to freely distribute Simpsons material but
that instead it has been sold material to private parties' web sites for
personal use only. Additionally they could argue that licenses are not
available for use on sites which in any way are associated with an entity
that is profiting from it's operations (i.e. an ISP), the the "crud lawyer"
wouldn't have anything else to say. Correct?
Nat Gertler
Jonathan Yan wrote:
>
> How could FOX lose money anyway if they're not charging for the show?
They ARE charging for the show. They're just not charging you, but
charging the advertisers. They make money off of showing the show, and
don't make money off of you distributing the clips.
Additionally, they have the possibility of charging for the show--video
tape sales, discs full of clips and sound bytes (as has been done with
other creative properties)... and the theft and distribution being
discussed here can be seen as interfering with that.
Jonathan Yan
Stephane Chabot wrote:
>
> DChodos107 wrote:
> >
> > >> The fact is, that *Copy* *right* refers to the *Right* of someone to
> > >> *copy* things. People who have Simpsons' web sites do not have that
> > >> right. The Fox lawyers are just trying to save Fox from financial
> > >> losses that comes with people operating illegal Simpsons' websites.
> >
> >
> > What 'financial losses come from people appreciating the show via putting
> > up a web site?
> >
> > -dc-
> > dchod...@aol.com
> > http://members.aol.com/dchodos107/
>
> the chance that more people want to watch the show. If
> the web site is not intended at making money by using the simpson
> caracters, it should not be illigal to use it.
>
> Wasn't it broadcasted for public viewing in the first place?
>
> Stephane
--
Kirk
All I have to say is: No matter how many poor quality 10 second video clips
or static filled sound bites I download, I won't cease to watch the show or
purchase authorized merchandise (such as Songs in the Key of Springfield).
A .wav file is not going to replace my CD player or even my turntable. I
would be more concerned with blank tapes and VCR's.
It's just fear of what you cannot control.
Haynes Lee
"Kirk" <ki...@mail.ltlb.com> wrote:
Actually, the internet is growing at such a rapid pace you may be able
to donwload entire episodes in video form five years down the road.
Nat Gertler
Kirk wrote:
>
> A .wav file is not going to replace my CD player or even my turntable. I
> would be more concerned with blank tapes and VCR's.
Which is a matter that has already been legally addressed.
>
> It's just fear of what you cannot control.
>
Nah, it's just being legally responsible for many people's interests.
Peter Connor
In article <19970527184...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
trilk...@aol.com (TrilKorf56) wrote:
> Jonathan Yan wrote:
>
> > How could FOX lose money anyway if they're not charging for the show?
>
> Forget for the moment that the use is completely illegal. Put yourself in
> Fox's shoes.
>
> This may not be the popular view, but Fox is in an awkward position. Same
> with the other studios. For the sake of argument, let's say that Fox lets
> everyone who wants to use whatever Simpsons images or sounds or clips they
> want.
>
> Here's one scenario: It's entirely possible that in the very near future
> you'll be able to go to a Fox website to download an entire episode of the
> Simpsons, for which Fox charges your credit card, say a buck or two.
>
> Let's face it, every time there's a technological advance, someone like
> those cruds at Cyberpromo is there to suck a few pennies out of it. First
> thing that happens is somebody starts illegally offering these downloads
> on their site. Perhaps they don't even charge for them directly, but
> rather offer them as part of a "membership" or even as a benefit of
> signing with their ISP. (Perhaps Net subscriptions will be $19.95 for
> unlimited use, but only $10.00 if you only surf your ISP's own sites. The
> point is ANYTHING could happen someday.)
>
> Fox asks them to stop, they say no. The case goes to court. Crud lawyer
> argues that for years, Fox has allowed websites to freely distribute
> Simpsons clips without any fee or license; what's the difference between
> allowing sites to distribute 22 one-minute clips for free and allowing
> crud site to distribute one 22-minute clip for free? Fox lawyer says
> "D'oh!"
>
> It is at that point that Fox would wish it had aggressively pursued those
> websites way back when. And if they grant special "fan licenses" as some
> have suggested, it doesn't protect them from this kind of infringement.
>
> I know you may not like it, and it's easy to look at a big, faceless
> corporation and call them "assholes"... but try to look at it from their
> point of view and you'll see it's not arbitrary and it's not done because
> of a lack of appreciation of the fans. A new medium like the Internet
> brings with it thorny new legal issues, as everybody "plays it by ear" and
> hopes history proves them right. (The makers of "Aspirin" and
> "Cellophane" probably tried to be nice guys, right up until they lost
> their trademarks.)
>
> I'm grateful to Fox and to Gracie and to Matt Groening for bringing us so
> many years of great entertainment, and I respect their right to protect
> their property and profit from their achievements. (A radical view?)
I do agree with a lot of what you say. As most of us cruise around at
14.4 or 28.8 it seems far-fetched to think that we will soon be able to
quickly download entire movies, shows, and CD's. Pirating will most
definitely become a huge problem as everything goes digital. Just
recently there was that U2 fiasco. Think of that kind of thing when
you've got cable modems or ASDL, and you can get a perfect replica, not
just a fuzzy .wav.
My concession to the fans with web-sites is that Fox needs to realize that
there are degrees and shades of grey here. It doesn't make sense to
attack and alienate many of the amateur web designers who host a handful
of .wavs and animated gifs. To keep lawyering sharp and their options
open they should concentrate on the unsavory and less popular sites like
those accepting ads or the x-rated stuff. I'm also not entirely sure that
not pursuing legal action now weakens a potential case in the future.
Pete
Nat Gertler
Marge wrote:
>
> Either way, I'm afraid to put up my own Simpsons site now, because I
> don't want to have to put up with any sh-- from the Fox lawyers. I'd go
> complain in person, but I don't have the time or money to do so (what
> good would that do, anyway?).
Then put up a site that talks about the show... just don't swipe
material
from the show.
Kirk
Haynes Lee wrote in article <5mialg$4a3$3...@gollum.kingston.net>...
>Actually, the internet is growing at such a rapid pace you may be able
>to donwload entire episodes in video form five years down the road.
>
>
>
Then in five years, instead of shutting down entire sites, let FOX address
that issue alone. Also, (If I'm wrong I do want to know, because I would
stop the world and go buy them.) FOX hasn't released tapes for consumers to
purchase so people would have an alternative to breaking copyright laws,
robbing the rich of their profits, yadda yadda yadda.
Kirk
Where the hell are the VCR police then? Why have I not recieved any letters
demanding I turn off the VCR and relinquish any recordings I have of the
show? Because it would be viewed as ridiculous. As the web site fiasco
should.
"Being legally responsible for many people's interests."??? Bah! Bah
squared! When definitive proof that FOX execs and Matt Groenig are in the
poor house from dedicated FANS who spend their money and earn nothing in
return to patronize the show, then pull the sites. It IS fear of what you
can't control because it doesn't cause the seams in their wallets to burst
with green.
If anything, fan sites add to and benefit the show. NOT detract from it.
Kirk
dou...@trouble.com
On Thu, 29 May 1997 20:41:41 GMT, othe...@dynanet.com (Brian Wilcox)
wrote:
>Oh come on. The FOX lawyers have to do something to justify
>the absurdly inflated amounts of money they get paid. Plus, why
>would you expect lawyers to act in a manner that makes
>sense to a rational human being?
>
Oh god... Here comes the lawyer-bashing from a non-lawyer.
Nat Gertler
Kirk wrote:
>
> FOX hasn't released tapes for consumers to
> purchase so people would have an alternative to breaking copyright laws,
> robbing the rich of their profits, yadda yadda yadda.
People do have an alternative: to simply not do it. Is that so hard to
imagine?
Nat Gertler
Kirk wrote:
>
> Where the hell are the VCR police then? Why have I not recieved any letters
> demanding I turn off the VCR and relinquish any recordings I have of the
> show? Because it would be viewed as ridiculous. As the web site fiasco
> should.
VCRs have already been legally addressed in court--i.e., they were
went after, and legal decisions were made.
>
> "Being legally responsible for many people's interests."??? Bah! Bah
> squared!
Oh, yes, heaven forbid they should actually live up to their
responsibilities.
> When definitive proof that FOX execs and Matt Groenig are in the
> poor house from dedicated FANS who spend their money and earn nothing in
> return to patronize the show, then pull the sites.
Someone has to be destitute for stealing from them to be wrong?
Then please tell me where your address, and when you aren't going
to be at home...
nos...@ix.netcom.com
Nat Gertler wrote:
>
> VCRs have already been legally addressed in court--i.e., they were
> went after, and legal decisions were made.
Yeah, there are a lot of assholes who like to tell people to just give way
and let the party with the bigger lawyers win. Unlike VCRs, the situation
with the web has not yet been fought in court to the same extent, so until
that happens, anyone is free to argue the case on the website owners' side
and at the same time be just as valid in their opinions.
Here are the facts. Fox not only allows but encourages its viewers to copy
its programming on VHS to friends, etc. for non-profit, personal use in their
VCRs. These episodes are individually copyrighted and patented, and are
worth a few million bucks a piece in terms of potential advertiser revenue.
Now flip the coin over. Fox not only frowns upon but C&D's its viewers for
copying *snippets* of these same episodes (whether aurals, visuals or stills)
for non-profit, personal use on their web sites. Though the characters seen
or heard in these files are copyrighted and patented, these individual snips
on the other hand are NOT worth a couple million bucks a piece (call Fox's
licensing and merchandising department's hotline at 310-369-4001).
There is no difference here between what Fox encourages users to copy and
what Fox is penalizing users for copying other than the storage medium; one
is VHS, the other is computer disk. In both cases, no profit is being made.
In both cases, they are for personal use only. In both cases, they are
originating from the same source of material. You cannot tell people that
they must remove all audio clips from their web sites because Fox has released
a new Simpsons album with audio clips; the album is copyrighted based upon
*its* content. If the audio clip found on a web site is not found on the
album, it doesn't fall under that copyright. It falls under the copyright
which Fox willfully ignores, that of the episode which it was taken from,
that which Fox encourages users copy at will on VHS. So why not via the
net between personal computers instead of via the U.S. mail between VCRs?
The same goes for video clips; simply because Fox is marketing "The Simpsons
Christmas Special" on VHS does not mean that users cannot take video clips
from "Treehouse of Horror V".
To me, this just looks like Fox is taking advantage of a new medium where
regulation is presently uncertain. They are trying to monopolize the web
by making sure they are the only ones with any of the material being C&Ded.
And if I didn't know better, you are probably one of the lawyers scanning
the web for Simpsons sites. Come looking in a.t.s for people advertising
their sites too, eh? And while you're at it, why not try to convince all
the readers that they themselves are wrong and to simply give up?
Look, I have nothing against Fox protecting its material from those who are
using it for profit. But in the case of personal, non-profit use by viewers,
shutting down websites is absurd. You are going to have a HELL of a time
convincing a judge when this stuff eventually is taken to court that you are
right when all it'll take is for the defence to mention Fox's encouraging
the same people to copy the same material, but only on VHS. "D'oh!"
Nat Gertler
nos...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Here are the facts. Fox not only allows but encourages its viewers to copy
> its programming on VHS to friends, etc. for non-profit, personal use in their
> VCRs.
Where do they do this?
> These episodes are individually copyrighted and patented,
Patented? PATENTED? Yeah, right. Pray tell me, what is patented about
them.
> There is no difference here between what Fox encourages users to copy and
> what Fox is penalizing users for copying other than the storage medium; one
> is VHS, the other is computer disk. In both cases, no profit is being made.
> In both cases, they are for personal use only.
Putting something on a web site is NOT "personal use", it is making it
available to the public at large, just as if you'd broadcast them.
> And if I didn't know better, you are probably one of the lawyers scanning
> the web for Simpsons sites. Come looking in a.t.s for people advertising
> their sites too, eh? And while you're at it, why not try to convince all
> the readers that they themselves are wrong and to simply give up?
No, I'm not a Fox lawyer. I am, however, someone who makes his living
off
of his own intellectual property. And if someone decided to take work
that I created and owned and give it away to people without paying me
appropriately for it, then you can bet that I would tell them to stop
that.
> Look, I have nothing against Fox protecting its material from those who are
> using it for profit.
Shouldn't the main consideration to Fox be whether they feel that it is
potentially impacting their own profit?
Scott
On Thu, 29 May 1997 16:54:56 -0800, nos...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Here are the facts. Fox not only allows but encourages its viewers to copy
>its programming on VHS to friends, etc. for non-profit, personal use in their
>VCRs. These episodes are individually copyrighted and patented, and are
>worth a few million bucks a piece in terms of potential advertiser revenue.
>Now flip the coin over. Fox not only frowns upon but C&D's its viewers for
>copying *snippets* of these same episodes (whether aurals, visuals or stills)
>for non-profit, personal use on their web sites. Though the characters seen
>or heard in these files are copyrighted and patented, these individual snips
>on the other hand are NOT worth a couple million bucks a piece (call Fox's
>licensing and merchandising department's hotline at 310-369-4001).
>
>There is no difference here between what Fox encourages users to copy and
>what Fox is penalizing users for copying other than the storage medium; one
>is VHS, the other is computer disk. In both cases, no profit is being made.
>In both cases, they are for personal use only. In both cases, they are
>originating from the same source of material.
This is where you are incorrect. There IS a difference between
copying a TV program on tape and keeping it your personal library of
video tapes. There is nothing wrong with that, and that is
specifically NOT a copyright violation. It falls under an exception
known as "fair use," found in section 107 of the Copyright Act of
1976. However, recording audio files of the episodes, or making image
files with a Snappy or something similar, and then putting it up --
distributing it, if you will -- on the web for all to take *IS* a
copyright violation. This stuff is NOT under "fair use," and will get
you sued, if you're not careful. Specifically, you've violated some
of Fox's exclusive rights: the section 106(1) right to reproduce the
work, the section 106(3) right to distribute the work, and probably
the section 106(2) right to produce a derivative work (this one's
"iffy").
>You cannot tell people that
>they must remove all audio clips from their web sites because Fox has released
>a new Simpsons album with audio clips; the album is copyrighted based upon
>*its* content. If the audio clip found on a web site is not found on the
>album, it doesn't fall under that copyright. It falls under the copyright
>which Fox willfully ignores, that of the episode which it was taken from,
>that which Fox encourages users copy at will on VHS.
Ummm, I don't know where you're getting your ideas from, but you're
completely wrong here. If you can cite to some case law or statute to
back up these assertions, please go ahead. I'd be really impressed to
see them.
Here's the deal: Fox owns the exclusive rights to its works. This
includes the audio clips that we download freely on the net. It can
legally enforce its rights by telling site owners to take those sounds
down whenever it wants. This can occur regardless of whether it
decides to release an album with Simpsons sounds on it. If Fox does
decide to do that, they own several copyrights in that album: first,
it owns the copyrights to each sound clip it puts on the album; second
it owns the copyright to the album as a compilation of copyrighted
works.
ANY audio clip found on the web that came from a Simpsons album is
copyrighted by Fox -- EVERY SINGLE THING THAT COMES FROM A SIMPSONS
EPISODE IS COPYRIGHTED, no matter whether Fox uses it on an album or
not.
to...@fred.net
dou...@trouble.com wrote:
:
: Oh god... Here comes the lawyer-bashing from a non-lawyer.
<AnnoyingLawyer>
I represent the American Bar Association. This court order prohibits any
lawyer-bashing by non-licensed lawyer bashers in this news group.
</AnnoyingLawyer>
[Goons smash Keyboards and Screens]
--
To...@Fred.Net
http://www.fred.net/tomr
"Boston is a great sports town. Shame it doesn't have any teams."
dou...@trouble.com
On 30 May 1997 14:17:22 GMT, to...@fred.net ( ) wrote:
>dou...@trouble.com wrote:
>:
>: Oh god... Here comes the lawyer-bashing from a non-lawyer.
>
><AnnoyingLawyer>
>
>I represent the American Bar Association. This court order prohibits any
>lawyer-bashing by non-licensed lawyer bashers in this news group.
>
></AnnoyingLawyer>
>
>[Goons smash Keyboards and Screens]
<Layman>
I'm just a layman who's never studied the law and doesn't know how the
legal system works, except for what I've seen on Hard Copy and L.A.
Law. I'll make fun of lawyers even when I don't understand their
reasoning or the legal principles behind them. I'll conveniently
forget the fact that, like ever other profession in life, a few bad
apples can spoil the reputation of the good ones. Basically, I'll
mercilessly poke fun at them despite the fact that I've never once
lived a day in a lawyer's shoes. Seems fair, right?
</Layman>
[Tells lawyer jokes to his friend because he doesn't know any better]
Benjamin J. Robinson
In article "Fox Assholes," TrilKorf56 wrote:
>>It is at that point that Fox would wish it had aggressively pursued those
>websites way back when. And if they grant special "fan licenses" as some
>have suggested, it doesn't protect them from this kind of infringement.
Well, why wouldn't it? It seems like the perfect balance between the
fan's desire to express his or her admiration for the show, and Fox's
desire to stay in business. Why can't there be some level of licensing
between "exhorbitantly expensive full commercial rights" and "no rights
at all"?
Disclaimer: I don't have a "Simpsons" website, and have no plans for
starting one. I'm just interested in seeing how the rights of everyone
involved -- fans, producers, and networks -- get sorted.
-Benjamin Robinson
--
"The government cannot reduce the adult population to reading or viewing only
to what is appropriate for children." -- Bruce Ennis
My opinions don't represent, and are likely contrary to, those of my employer.
This message may or may not contain sarcastic content; your burden to decide.
nos...@ix.netcom.com
Benjamin J. Robinson wrote:
>
> In article "Fox Assholes," TrilKorf56 wrote:
> >>It is at that point that Fox would wish it had aggressively pursued those
> >websites way back when. And if they grant special "fan licenses" as some
> >have suggested, it doesn't protect them from this kind of infringement.
>
> Well, why wouldn't it? It seems like the perfect balance between the
> fan's desire to express his or her admiration for the show, and Fox's
> desire to stay in business. Why can't there be some level of licensing
> between "exhorbitantly expensive full commercial rights" and "no rights
> at all"?
>
> Disclaimer: I don't have a "Simpsons" website, and have no plans for
> starting one. I'm just interested in seeing how the rights of everyone
> involved -- fans, producers, and networks -- get sorted.
Pretty sad day in the life of the first amendment when you can't even
speak your thoughts without adding a disclaimer.
Aaron Varhola
Nat Gertler <nat.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Kirk wrote:
>>
>> A .wav file is not going to replace my CD player or even my turntable. I
>> would be more concerned with blank tapes and VCR's.
>Which is a matter that has already been legally addressed.
Actually, taping for archival purposes hasn't been addressed in the case
you are probably referring to, Universal v. Sony. That case said that
time-shifting is ok, but said NOTHING about saving episodes for archival
purposes. Many people here have complete collections of Simpsons
episodes, which would be vulnerable if Fox decides they want to crack down.
>> It's just fear of what you cannot control.
>>
>Nah, it's just being legally responsible for many people's interests.
Or being a greedy, megalomaniacal drongo. (Mr. Murdoch, I am looking at
you).
Aaron Varhola | "From what I've seen of [Rupert] Murdoch's
WIFA Counsel | papers in this country, no self-respecting
YSFC #6 | fish would want to be wrapped in them."
avar...@ix.netcom.com| ---- Mike Royko, 1932-1997
Ya...@yaddayaddayadda.com
Martin,
Wake up. Lawyers do what their clients tell them to do.
On 5 Jun 1997 13:21:37 GMT, schl...@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Martin
Schloemer) wrote:
>dou...@trouble.com wrote:
>: On Thu, 29 May 1997 20:41:41 GMT, othe...@dynanet.com (Brian Wilcox)
>: wrote:
>: >Oh come on. The FOX lawyers have to do something to justify
>: >the absurdly inflated amounts of money they get paid. Plus, why
>: >would you expect lawyers to act in a manner that makes
>: >sense to a rational human being?
>: >
>:
>: Oh god... Here comes the lawyer-bashing from a non-lawyer.
>
> What else do you expect of a non-lawyer?
>Lawyers always THREATEN people who are unaware of the damage they're causing
>or are reluctant to let go of their altruistic ideals. Have you ever heard
>of a lawyer giving a kind warning before he got legal?
>
>Martin.
Martin Schloemer
Martin Schloemer
Ya...@YaddaYaddaYadda.com wrote:
: Martin,
:
: Wake up. Lawyers do what their clients tell them to do.
But why don't they do it NICELY?
Everyone nows, what they CAN do.
Martin.
Ya...@yaddayaddayadda.com
What were you looking for..."Pretty pretty please?!?"
On 6 Jun 1997 12:56:22 GMT, schl...@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Martin
Ya...@yaddayaddayadda.com
Yeah, believe me, I know that from experience, but could you imagine a
legal document with "pretty pretty please" in it? The lawyer that
drafted that would be looking for another job before it hit the mail
room.
>: What were you looking for..."Pretty pretty please?!?"
>:
> Sounds good.
>After all, most people put extensive work in their sites.
Nat Gertler
Martin Schloemer wrote:
>
> And Fox is making money of the Simpsons, while fans don't, so i still
> don't think it's fair to call it 'stealing' though you're technically right.
If I take my next-door neighbors TV, and watch it rather than selling
it,
does that mean it's not stealing?
> But that's what i don't like about lawyers, they only give tech. arguments,
> never thinking whether the law they quote was ratified before modern
> telecommunication was developed.
I suspect the lawyers in question are more aware of the law and its
history than you are. I don't see why the age of the law involved
should have any effect.
Ryan Johnson
Nat Gertler wrote:
> And the folks at Fox have put a lot of time and money into The
> Simpsons--did the people running these sites ask "pretty pretty please"
> before stealing their intellectual property?
You're right, I think a lot of people forget that fox puts nearly a
million dollars into each episode. And also that they went out on a limb
and invested in the show to begin with. About asking to use their
intellectual proprety... I did that last year (t@ponline wanted legal
approval to keep my site running), and I've learned that it pretty much
means asking for a C&D order.-Ryan
"Copyright infringement is the sincerest form of flattery." -Matt
Groening
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pixel Fusion http://pixel-fusion.com/
webm...@pixel-fusion.com ry...@pixel-fusion.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Johnson
Martin Schloemer
Nat Gertler (nat.g...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: If I take my next-door neighbors TV, and watch it rather than selling
: it,
: does that mean it's not stealing?
word 'stealing' to imply that there's been a crime. But you have kept to
namecalling lately. I agreed with you, when you argued that there were audio
or video files being distributed, since i could see that Fox lost something
(in a certain way). But i can't see the loss concerning pictures. And you
haven't given single argument, but 'they're stealing'.
But they are not taking the TV set, they're just taking a photo of it.
Well, i don't know what to say about that - it was your example.
: I suspect the lawyers in question are more aware of the law and its
: history than you are. I don't see why the age of the law involved
: should have any effect.
What i tried to say was: Age matters when new technologies are invented.
Because: When you browse the internet, Netscape or whatever program puts
copies of every picture you've seen in your cache, i.e. on your harddrive
(normally). So now you've got a copyrighted picture on your HD until you
clear your cache. So by your argumentation (and according to dicisions made
by some judges - just heard about it, so no footnote) you've been stealing.
Well, duh. Do you see, what i meant about laws, that don't know, what they
talk about?
Martin.
Nat Gertler
Martin Schloemer wrote:
>
> Nat Gertler (nat.g...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : If I take my next-door neighbors TV, and watch it rather than selling
> : it,
> : does that mean it's not stealing?
> The difference is: Fans don't steal. They COPY. You keep bringing up the
> word 'stealing' to imply that there's been a crime. But you have kept to
> namecalling lately. I agreed with you, when you argued that there were audio
> or video files being distributed, since i could see that Fox lost something
> (in a certain way). But i can't see the loss concerning pictures. And you
> haven't given single argument, but 'they're stealing'.
Violating copyright and trademarks has been lumped in legal discussion
under the term "theft of intellectual property". I'd say "theft" and
"stealing" are basically the same.
Fox has made money off of the distribution of still pictures of the
Simpsons in various forms, such as posters and trading cards.
> : I suspect the lawyers in question are more aware of the law and its
> : history than you are. I don't see why the age of the law involved
> : should have any effect.
> What i tried to say was: Age matters when new technologies are invented.
> Because: When you browse the internet, Netscape or whatever program puts
> copies of every picture you've seen in your cache, i.e. on your harddrive
> (normally). So now you've got a copyrighted picture on your HD until you
> clear your cache.
None of which has anything to do with the matter at hand, as Fox
has not been going after people for viewing things from the Fox
web site.
Haynes Lee
schl...@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Martin Schloemer) wrote:
>Nat Gertler (nat.g...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: If I take my next-door neighbors TV, and watch it rather than selling
>: it,
>: does that mean it's not stealing?
>The difference is: Fans don't steal. They COPY. You keep bringing up the
>word 'stealing' to imply that there's been a crime.
"Copying" is not a good choice of words for this argument.
To copy something takes very little imagination and effort.
And there are some web sites that are more or less carbon
copies of other web sites.
--------------------
I wish to make a complaint about this assimilated parrot.
It's not assimilated, it's pining for the Borg.
http://www1.kingston.net/ik/lee/