FOX LAWYERS ARE NAZI BASTARDS
Just somebody else that got shut down
in case you didn't already know.
Another web page moans in torment as it is deleted from existance
due to the pointless letter stating that it was "infringing on
the rights".
If that's so-- why do we have record buttons on VCRs??
*******
QFFI Mag1
Was one of those lawyers Marita Covarrubias?
Magician
Joshua Shaw
Just somebody else that got shut down
<this-has-to-stop!@protectfreespeech.com> wrote in article
<6e4rl2$29bq$1...@node17.frontiernet.net>...
> Another web page moans in torment as it is deleted from existance
> due to the pointless letter stating that it was "infringing on
> the rights".
>
> If that's so-- why do we have record buttons on VCRs??
Shhhh...if you tell them about the Record buttons, they'll make them
illegal!
Tara Charnow
Y'know, until I see a report on the news about Fox lawyers killing
millions of people in concentration camps, I think I'll refrain from the
clever, not at all overused 'Nazi' comparisons.
Tara
Super!Bitch
Angera
About time someone mentioned this.
Mason Stockstill
Look, gang. Straight from the horse's mouth have I heard this.
You know why they always shut down XF sites?
Because of Duchovny.
Certain stars in Hollywood are, well, not easy to get along with in their
contract negotiation and general behavior. Duchovny is one of them.
Now, he's got a clause in his contract with Fox that says he needs to
personally approve any and all use of his image. Any publicity shot of
him, any still from the movie or from an episode, he needs to see it and
say OK.
So these websites come along, and everyone says that there's no reason to
shut them down, it just makes Fox look bad, it's free advertising, etc.
Well, Fox is contractually obligated to get rid of sites that have images
of Duchovny that he himself has not personally OK'd.
Now, you're saying "But if these are just scans of images that he ok'd,
then it's ok, right?" right, in theory. But if the images are juxtaposed
with other things on the site, maybe there's a link to a porn site on this
page, well, that's not OK. so Fox has to go out of their way to get rid of
this page.
also, if a site has ads or something that violates copyrights, then they
have every right to go bust them.
This is similar to them busting simpsons sites because they were using
images of the simpsons with Matt Groening's signature on the image, which
is required by his contract.
- Mason
--
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul."
- Calvin
Tara Charnow
Pamela J. Smith wrote:
>
> Tara Charnow <ta...@erols.com> wrote in article
> <350724...@erols.com>...
> > Y'know, until I see a report on the news about Fox lawyers killing
> > millions of people in concentration camps, I think I'll refrain from the
> > clever, not at all overused 'Nazi' comparisons.
>
> It was about than a year ago that several news bits about Germany were
> prominently discussed: Compuserve and the person who linked to a page that
> the German gov didn't like. Both times they ruled against free speech,
> with CServe cutting off discussion groups and the page being taken down and
> the webmaster recieving punishments of some sort. My comment was not
> towards the ever-popular Nazis but to modern day Germany and its
> ultra-strict laws on speech.
>
> Just wanted to clear that up.
>
> -Pam
I know that, Pam. People have a tendency to go off the deep end when
things like this happen, and I was referring to those who toss terms
like Nazi around without understanding the implications or the history
behind it. Sorry if it came off as personal, it wasn't.
Tara
Super!Bitch
Kashka
Don't get me started on Fox lawyers. We had a glazier out here who called
his business "Bart's Glass," because his first name is Bart. But he thought
it would be cute to have a sign with Bart Simpson on it with a baseball bat
and ball in his hand. Get it? Like Bart Simpson would keep breaking your
windows when he plays ball.
Cute gimmick ... nobody thought anything about it until a rival glazier blew
the whistle and alerted Fox lawyers that some guy was using a picture of
Bart. I thought it was a bit ridiculous that Fox thought The Simpsons
thought it would be threatened by some guy using Bart's picture. It's not
like they're in the glass replacement industry.
Some lawyers just don't have enough to do.
GeoRed
In article <saxman-1103...@s245-30.resnet.ucla.edu>, sax...@ucla.edu
(Mason Stockstill) writes:
>Look, gang. Straight from the horse's mouth have I heard this.
Which horse? Duchovny? FOX attorney's who are in negociation w/ DD's people?
Cause anybody else is just spreading things they *heard*, same as you.
>Because of Duchovny.
>Certain stars in Hollywood are, well, not easy to get along with in their
>contract negotiation and general behavior. Duchovny is one of them.
Hmmm......why did he talk so fondly of the SPCDD? He may or may not understand
it, but he certainly doesn't care about people having web sites dedicated to
him. More bullshit. If you look at one of the DDEB sites you will also find a
very interesting article about how the person who runs the page was in
Vancouver and DD *recognized* him and called him by name. Yep, he's a bastard.
Who is the scapegoat for the Millenium and Simpsons sites that are threatened
with the same action? Oh, yeah, DD is fighting for them too, I forgot.
Heidi
::::::::with head in hands, rocking slowly::::::::::
"It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter."
Wrinkly and her wombats
And then, after everyone else had fallen silent, sax...@ucla.edu
(Mason Stockstill) suddenly said:
>Look, gang. Straight from the horse's mouth have I heard this.
Which horse?...
>You know why they always shut down XF sites?
>Because of Duchovny.
>Certain stars in Hollywood are, well, not easy to get along with in their
>contract negotiation and general behavior. Duchovny is one of them.
>Now, he's got a clause in his contract with Fox that says he needs to
>personally approve any and all use of his image. Any publicity shot of
>him, any still from the movie or from an episode, he needs to see it and
>say OK.
...Um, lots of celebrities have that sort of clause in their contract,
and that's hardly grounds for being dubbed "not easy to get along
with." Even ordinary folks are sometimes asked to sign a release
permitting the use of their image if they have their picture taken for
the local paper. ...You went on to say that if someone had Duchovny's
picture next to a link to a porn site, that he would not consider that
"okay" - and that's perfectly understandable, IMO. Far from grounds
to consider him "not easy to get along with."
"Not easy to get along with" is doing something like requiring two
bottles of Evian to be delivered to your trailer daily to wash your
hair with; and until I get a job backstage at 1013 and find that
anyone in the cast acts this way, I'm going to take it on faith
everyone there is neat people.
Anywho.
Kim W.
Please remove "go'way" if replying via e-mail. And blame the spammers. Thanks.
Laura Burchard
In article <19980313025...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
GeoRed <geo...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <saxman-1103...@s245-30.resnet.ucla.edu>, sax...@ucla.edu
>(Mason Stockstill) writes:
>Which horse? Duchovny? FOX attorney's who are in negociation w/ DD's people?
>Cause anybody else is just spreading things they *heard*, same as you.
>>Because of Duchovny.
>>Certain stars in Hollywood are, well, not easy to get along with in their
>>contract negotiation and general behavior. Duchovny is one of them.
>Who is the scapegoat for the Millenium and Simpsons sites that are threatened
>with the same action? Oh, yeah, DD is fighting for them too, I forgot.
Let's see, last cycle around for Fox versus the Net, David Oakes was
blaming Matt Groening for the Simpsons shutdowns and Chris Carter for the
Millenium and X-Files ones; I haven't heard who the official scapegoats
were for the KOTH and Melrose Place shutdowns. This year's model seems to
be blame the actors. Strange, however, that the the shows involved in the
Net's most prominent crackdowns all share nothing but Fox -- and David Oakes.
Like Heidi, I'd love to know just *whose* horse's mouth this came from.
Laura
--
Laura Burchard -- l...@radix.net -- http://www.radix.net/~lhb
X-Review: http://traveller.simplenet.com/xfiles/episode.htm
Eric Roberts
>Like Heidi, I'd love to know just *whose* horse's mouth this came from.
>
>Laura
Methinks it came from *another* part of the horse's anatomy....
==============================================
Eric "No Relation To Julia" Roberts
prair...@msn.com
www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/3672
==============================================
Eric Roberts
ant...@diabetes.org
In article <6e4rl2$29bq$1...@node17.frontiernet.net>,
>
> due to the pointless letter stating that it was "infringing on
> the rights".
>
> If that's so-- why do we have record buttons on VCRs??
>
Actually, when VCRs first came out, there was huge battle between SONY (I
think) and some TV studios about how allowing people to record was copyright
infringement. It took years for them to win and ended up killing the Sony
Betamax system in the process. Too bad. ;)
Rob A.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Tara Charnow
> >Mason Stockstill wrote:
>
> > Look, gang. Straight from the horse's mouth have I heard this.
> Circe wrote:
>
> Wait a minute. You're blaming this whole thing on DD?
>
> This is such bullshit that I can't even begin to express it.
No, no. It's *horseshit.*
Tara
Super!Bitch
Ben Turner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:56:52 -0300, "Kashka"
<im...@noreply.com> wrote:
> I thought it was a bit ridiculous that Fox thought
> The Simpsons thought it would be threatened by
> some guy using Bart's picture.
Hmm, I'd have to agree with Fox on this one, I think, from what you've
told me. Using a protected, well-known character that you don't own
to make money for your own business is just asking for trouble.
Unless you ask for permission first, it's bad news. Like if some car
wax site put up a banner for your site, saying above it, "Jane Doe's
Personal Page endorses our car wax!" and you had no idea it happened.
B.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNQqdljht+nuXAiYfEQLnNwCg2Li+z5mK3mzdhzeA7Rojg2BUVg8AnRBx
jw3wqZ1Q6RujUuBTJyKjdLTJ
=4z2f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ben Turner . pushed...@benturner.com
http://www.benturner.com/ . PGP key: 0x9702261F
Kashka
Well Ben, rethinking it, I guess you're probably right. It was copyright
infringement, and I guess if everyone did it, it would get out of hand.
Perhaps I was just sympathizing with the small business owner who is
desperate to succeed. It's like, when this restaurant guy in Brooklyn tried
to call his restaurant "The Brooklyn Dodger" because it was across from
Ebbetts (sp?) field and the Dodgers, who are now out in Calif., brought a
lawsuit against him. I keep thinking, Geesh, it's not like he's competing
with them in anyway.
Look at it this way: If I were famous, I would not have a problem with
people cashing in on my name as long as it was a legal enterprise and was
not in competition with MY business. I'm talking about things where the two
businesses are completely unrelated and non-competitive. But maybe I'm being
naive. I'll think about what you said.
Kashka
Tara Charnow
Kashka wrote:
<snipped>
> Look at it this way: If I were famous, I would not have a problem with
> people cashing in on my name as long as it was a legal enterprise and was
> not in competition with MY business.
Yeah, right. Say that again if and when you become famous. It's not
about famous people, anyway. It's about who owns what, and Fox owns The
X-Files, and they can do what they want with the pictures, and the
sounds. The fans may not like it, but, the last time I checked, we had
no input, creative or otherwise, into the distribution of the show.
Tara
Super!Bitch
Ben Turner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 21:56:23 -0300, "Kashka"
<im...@noreply.com> wrote:
> Look at it this way: If I were famous, I would not
> have a problem with people cashing in on my name
> as long as it was a legal enterprise and was
> not in competition with MY business.
I would have e-mailed you, since my response is just a comment on your
opinion, but...you didn't leave an e-mail address. :)
I have no problem with your opinion, but personally, few things piss
me off more than seeing less successful breeze over creativity by
cashing in on someone else's success. :)
It isn't bad, still IMO, if one asks for permission first... Just not
something I would do. And for what it's worth, at least the Brooklyn
Dodger restaurant had a physical connection, being next to Ebbets
Field... I wouldn't consider that wrong at all, really, if he got
permission first... Seems pretty common to me to see restaurants and
stores with names having to do with the local scene. :)
B.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNQt8wzht+nuXAiYfEQKV1wCg+vobncoYfwGeDMOse9RKquaHqhYAn04a
eHnT2vHwv9cHZfrYT3COioUl
=OnJW
Mason Stockstill
> And then, after everyone else had fallen silent, sax...@ucla.edu
> (Mason Stockstill) suddenly said:
>
> >Look, gang. Straight from the horse's mouth have I heard this.
>
> Which horse?...
>
If i could remember, I'd give you his name. He works for Fox, and he came
to a little symposium that we had on campus last year on intellectual
copyright laws on the internet, and he told us Fox's position on shutting
down certain sites. At that time they were getting a lot of heat for
shutting down Millennium sites. He told us that they realized that the
X-files sites had gotten out of control and that there was no way that
they could go police all of them (maybe they've changed their minds ...),
but this was right when Millennium was starting so they felt that they
could still be effective in protecting the intellectual rights of ... Fox.
I specifically asked the guy why shut them down if they're not doing any
harm and are essentially free advertising, and he told me that that's not
really the issue, and gave me that spiel about Duchovny's contract.
Whether or not he's just passing the buck, I guess, is a matter of speculation.
I can't remember his name, he works in Fox's web/internet/whatever dept.
Short guy, talks a lot, looks like Kevin Pollack.
Sarah Stegall
In article <saxman-1603...@s245-186.resnet.ucla.edu>,
sax...@ucla.edu (Mason Stockstill) wrote:
> I can't remember his name, he works in Fox's web/internet/whatever dept.
> Short guy, talks a lot, looks like Kevin Pollack.
I'll bet my FBI badge that was Chris Fusco, rea...@newscorp.com, who is
the webmaster for the official site.
He is not a lawyer.
Sarah
KahunnaMan
>Sarah
I missed the first post on this but if you are talking about a guy at the LA
Expo who looks like Chris, it probably was Chris. I heard that he showed up at
the Expo and I JUST MISSED HIM!!! I really wanted to complement him on *his*
site. I went back to the computer terminals at the Expo (for about the fifth
time) and asked if Chris might show up... and the rep said he just left about 5
minutes ago. AAAAUUUUUUHGGGG!!!! Oh well.... maybe next time....
Kahunna