Convincing Fox to change their policy
Amy L. E. Jones
Ok, I've been thinking about this whole issue with Fox and their copyright
infringement policies, and I've come up with a germ of an idea. What I'm
thinking is that X-philes on the net should form a coalition of sorts and
write a letter about the issue. I'll post a sample letter below that
outlines what I'm thinking. I see three possibilities: a)initially send
the letter only to Fox, and if they don't respond, or don't respond
satisfactorily, mail it as a letter to the editor of the major magazines
and newspapers in the U.S. I also thought about buying adds, but I'm
afraid the cost would be prohibitive. It's also possibly we could just
contact some major papers and magazines and see if they were willing to
give us some coverage. b) Send the letter to Fox and the mags and
newspapers simutaneously. c)Send the letter only to Fox. I don't think
this would be awfully effective, since if it's not in the public eye, they
can ignore it with no consequences. d) Don't send the letter to Fox at
all, only to the mags and newspapers. Ok, that's four possibilities. So
sue me. Frankly, I think option a) is the best idea, since it puts us on
the absolute high ground. (I.e, we tried to settle this privately, but
Fox was uncooperative, so we're now taking it public). Ok, the sample
letter:
Recently, the Fox network has begun asking the owners of web pages to
remove material that is taken directly from the television show "The
X-Files" on the ground that it violates copyright. While we understand
Fox's misgivings about having material they own reproduced without their
knowledge or consent, we contend that this material provides an invaluable
resource for Fox, in that it provides free advertising which enhances the
pleasure of those who already watch "The X-Files" and also creates
interest which lead potential viewers to tune in to the program. In
addition to the materials Fox objects to, many owners of these pages
provide synopses of the series and other valuable resource materials.
While Fox also provides these services to a limited extent on its official
site, it has neither the time nor the resources to compile resources to
the extent that these sites have.
Still, we respect Fox's concerns as legitimate, and we agree that they
should be addressed. We merely disagree with the methods they have
employed, which we consider unneccesarily extreme. Thus, we would like to
propose a compromise which we feel would be beneficial to all parties
concerned. Specifically, we would like Fox to grant permission for fan
web sites to use material that Fox owns, with the following provisions:
1) That these sites never be used for financial gain.
2) That materials used not exceed a specified time limit, for example,
five minutes.
3) That these materials are clearly marked with any copyright notice that
Fox deems appropriate.
4) That these materials not be used in a way that portrays "The X-Files"
in an inappropriate manner [note--I'm having some problems with this
one...what I'm getting at is that, for example, there aren't links to porn
sites on the page in question, or someone doesn't create something
blatantly offensive and attribute it to Fox. help, anyone?]
We invite the Fox network to enter into a dialogue with us so that we may
come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial to all parties.
Sincerely,
The X-Files fan site coalition (names would be provided, and possibly web
addresses).
I know this needs work, but do you see what I'm getting at? If Fox plays
it right, they could generate even *more* interest in the show, which
should make them happy, and they could also come off as a kindler,
gentler network.
I'm willing to head up this action, but I really think it needs to involve
a lot of people. I don't own a web page, though, so maybe some that does
should take the initiative. I'm sure we could come up with some more
ideas if we brainstormed, too--maybe something to do with Fox's
advertisers? The key is come off as rational and sympathetic to Fox's
position, so we're made to look good, and if Fox is uncooperative, to make
them look bad.
Feel free to email me about this, but I think we should keep it public,
too, so that we can get as many ideas as possible.
ALEJ, who has never been much of an activist before...
"The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of
a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the
top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to
demean the Buddha--which is to demean oneself."
Robert Pirsig, _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_
mox.f...@fib.gob
That could be one way to do it, I dunno. If there should be any organized
group, it better be very rational. Fanaticism, hate mail, threats would
not be very helpful. Some of the extremism from the Star Trek crowd
worries me a lot more than Paramount's stupid greed--and that is no small
achievement.
[...]
>advertisers? The key is come off as rational and sympathetic to Fox's
>position, so we're made to look good, and if Fox is uncooperative, to
>make them look bad.
Yes, be rational, but leave the "looking bad" to them.
The Prime Directive is: Educate yourself. Read the law, interpretations,
court cases. They are far more fascinating than you think. You do not have
to become a lawyer, but you should be informed so you can have informed
opinions.
btw, here is yet another example that illustrates how the "Fox is always
right" crowd is WRONG: Warner Bros. explicitly encouraged fans to download
graphics and sound clips to make web pages about the movie Contact. They
even made a package of materials to be easily downloaded, and provided
free web space via earthlink.net. Does this mean they were giving up their
own exclusive rights? Were they encouraging people to break the law? Did
they lose any money because of this? (The movie made $100+ million
domestically, not including videotape rentals. It's not Titanic, but it's
still a pretty good number).
HELLO? What is this telling you? What is this SCREAMING at you? My
friends, it is quite obvious. Using graphics and even sound clips without
express permission is NOT NECESSARILY copyright infringement. So, do not
give me any crap about "Fos has every right..." They have the power, no
doubt, but "rights" are a completely different issue.
It's like having an alcoholic parent. You better have some healthy fear
about this because they are bigger than you, but do NOT assume you are at
fault.
No, I'm not recommending you go out and steal stuff from other people.
That is illegal, and should remain illegal.
[...]
>afraid the cost would be prohibitive. It's also possibly we could just
>contact some major papers and magazines and see if they were willing to
>give us some coverage. b) Send the letter to Fox and the mags and
[...]
Studios Shut Down Web Fans
http://www.cnet.com/Tv/Tvcom/Features/Fans/
Trekkies Form Rebel Alliance
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,6456,00.html
Fox Fights "Millennium" Fan Sites
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,379,00.html
Oasis and Trek Fans Battle to Protect Sites
http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/4004.html
Paramount Locks Phasers on Trek Fan Sites
http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/1076.html
The War Against Fandom
http://www.hotwired.com/packet/silberman/97/22/index3a.html
Cyber Rights Now: 'Scotty, Beam Down the Lawyers!'
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/7564.html
Net Surf: Harassment Begets Mirrors
http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/8144.html
Mattel's Latest: Cease-and-Desist Barbie
http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/8037.html
Fan Fiction on the Line
http://www.wired.com/news/news/wiredview/story/5934.html
Hypocrisy in Action
http://bsd.interstat.net/~tomveil/protest.html
Web Wars: Companies Get Tough on Rogues
http://bsd.interstat.net/~tomveil/latimes.html
Trade a Tape, Go to Jail?
http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/9532.html
Industry 1, Academics 0: Clinton Signs Copyright Bill
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/9236.html
------------------------------------------------------
Al Ruffinelli <alv...@accesscom.com>
http://alvaro.interspeed.net/xf/xf.htm X-Files
http://alvaro.interspeed.net/xf/xf101.htm X-Files 101
------------------------------------------------------
Amy L. E. Jones
On 16 Mar 1998 mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
> [...]
> >advertisers? The key is come off as rational and sympathetic to Fox's
> >position, so we're made to look good, and if Fox is uncooperative, to
> >make them look bad.
>
> Yes, be rational, but leave the "looking bad" to them.
>
Allow me to clarify. I mean that by maintaining the 'high road' and being
rational and willing to compromise, Fox would neccessarily make
them*selves* look bad if they were uncooperative.
I haven't gotten a whole lot of response to this as of yet, so I'm still
waiting to see how much interest there is.
Thanks for the links, Al. I'll check 'em out.
ALEJ
Tara Charnow
Amy L. E. Jones wrote:
> Allow me to clarify. I mean that by maintaining the 'high road' and being
> rational and willing to compromise, Fox would neccessarily make
> them*selves* look bad if they were uncooperative.
>
> I haven't gotten a whole lot of response to this as of yet, so I'm still
> waiting to see how much interest there is.
Amy, I do sympathize with your feelings. However, Fox has the lawyers,
and it has the money. Advertisers will more readily side with a large
corporation looking out for its own interests, than fans of a television
show who aren't able to download all the things they like.
Tara
Super!Bitch
mox.f...@fib.gob
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:02:50 -0500, Tara Charnow <ta...@erols.com> wrote:
[...]
> Amy, I do sympathize with your feelings. However, Fox has the lawyers,
> and it has the money. Advertisers will more readily side with a large
> corporation looking out for its own interests, than fans of a television
> show who aren't able to download all the things they like.
That's your opinion. The U.S. is one of very few countries, if not the
only one, where consumers do have a voice. Advertisers *do* pay attention
to their consumers. Their loyalty is to the money they make selling their
products to their buyers, not a TV network.
Amy L. E. Jones
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Tara Charnow wrote:
> Amy, I do sympathize with your feelings. However, Fox has the lawyers,
> and it has the money. Advertisers will more readily side with a large
> corporation looking out for its own interests, than fans of a television
> show who aren't able to download all the things they like.
>
> Tara
> Super!Bitch
Ah, but I'm not talking about the advertisers (at least, not primarily).
I'm talking about the public. Now, if we do this, it may very well not
even be noticed by the general public. But if it *is*--I would imagine
Fox would want to deal with it, for fear of bad publicity. And the public
loves an underdog, right?
I realize it might not work, but it's better than grumbling amongst
ourselves. We don't have the power for a court battle, even if it were
clear cut that we're in the right--which it's not by a long shot. Fox
doesn't have to worry about the relatively small minority who are being
affected by their actions now--but if the public in general got involved,
even if only to the point of being *aware* of what's going on, it might
make a difference. Or it might not.
Not to mention that I still strongly believe that the web sites in
question are producing a lot of *good* publicity for Fox's shows--which is
what makes me think that they might eventually be willing to compromise.
Frankly, I'd love to hear Fox's side of the argument--other than that it's
copyright violation. Why is it *bad*? Do they believe it's causing them
to lose money? Do they have anything to back that up? Is the allegation
about the SAG on the up and up? Etc...