My Letter to Fox
AngelaFlinn
Having read Laura Cappozola's post on Fox Harrassment, I thought I'd go
ahead and post the e-mail I sent to David Oakes. When I got the issue of
the fanfic digest on Saturday morning, I was stunned, and spent an hour at
work putting this together. Comments are great, send 'em to
fl...@utdallas.edu, and *please*, people -- deluge this man's inbox! Make
them stop.
Angie.
############################
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996
From: Angela M. Flinn <fl...@utdallas.edu>
To: David Oakes <dAV...@foxinc.com>
Cc: re...@newscorp.com
Subject: Gil Trevizo and "Millennium"
As a friend of Gil Trevizo, a student at the University of Texas at El
Paso, I was recently made aware of an e-mail message you sent him regarding
his unofficial "Millennium" website. This is the body of the message to
which I am referring:
> To: tre...@mail.utep.edu
>
> Subject: "MILLENNIUM" -- Unauthorized Website
>
> Please remove your website for Fox's television series
> "MILLENNIUM" which uses copyrighted images and logos, and
> duplicates materials from Fox's Official Website without
> permission or attribution.
Since receipt of this message, Gil has been locked out of his accounts at
the University, which he believes is directly due to this matter. I am
writing to express my outrage over not only your treatment of Gil, but the
fact that you want his site removed in the first place.
Gil Trevizo created this website out of love and respect for the show, its
creator, and the artists that make it possible. He did so not for reasons
of personal gain, but to make topics and discussion related to "Millennium"
available to all who want it.
I fully understand that your job is to protect the financial holdings of
Fox Entertainment. I plan on returning to school for my law degree after
several years of practicing Electrical Engineering in order to become
involved in intellectual copyright. Therefore, I understand the majority
of the issues at stake involved with the unauthorized websites of your
shows.
What I fail to understand, however, is how Gil's site compromises these
financial interests. Gil is not making any money off of this site;
therefore, he is not taking any money away from you. In fact, the more
Millennium sites out on the Internet, the greater the chances someone will
"hit" on one of these pages. Therefore, this is free advertising, is it
not?
If there was a problem with what Gil presented on the page; for instance,
if it was slanderous or derogatory towards "Millennium," I could understand
your demand to remove it. His work, however, does nothing to bastardize or
compromise the integrity of Chris Carter's work.
Please understand that, contrary to popular belief, the members of the
X-Files and Millennium Internet communities are not crazed, obsessed
freaks. Most of us are highly educated, intelligent individuals who obtain
great joy from Chris Carter's creations. We create these web pages, write
the fan fiction, and post to the newsgroups out of a desire to connect with
others of similar interests. My e-mail address book now has over thirty
names of people from all over the world that I have met through my
newsgroup posts.
Do not take this away from us. Go after the demented creeps that try and
make money off of fabricated Dana Scully nudes, (see various alt.tv.x-files
threads on NUDES for more information,) but for those of us that gather on
the Internet to discuss, adulate, adore, and emulate these superb creations
of Mr. Carter... leave us alone. It isn't our fault that the majority of
the unofficial sites are more professional and creative than your official
ones, nor is it our fault that the vast majority of the writers of fan
fiction are more talented than the authors you choose to write your
authorized books. Perhaps you should consider us a viable creative source
rather than a financial threat.
Angela M. Flinn
fl...@utdallas.edu
Junior, Erik Jonsson School of Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science
University of Texas at Dallas
PC Support Technician, Lennox International
Database Administrator, Fowler's Ethan Allen
Montwood High School, Class of 1994
The views expressed are personal and biased, and are not authorized,
endorsed, or in any other way approved by the University or my employers.
Brian E. Kushner
Mishka2
In article <01b7804b$ffa9d240$a3286e81@angie>, "AngelaFlinn"
<fl...@utdallas.edu> writes:
> It isn't our fault that the majority of
>the unofficial sites are more professional and creative than your
official
>ones, nor is it our fault that the vast majority of the writers of fan
>fiction are more talented than the authors you choose to write your
>authorized books. Perhaps you should consider us a viable creative
source
>rather than a financial threat.
Your letter to Fox was great; I especially liked the above. In one
of my letters to Fox, I also mentioned that their Official X-Files
Website was not that great, and the unofficial sites were really
much more interesting. And I agree totally about the great fanfic
authors we have. I never did finish "Ruins". It was so boring to me!
And the other novels were nowhere near as good as most of the
fanfic out there. I'm not buying any more X-Files novels unless
I see one of our writer's names on the cover. Our writers know
how to portray M & S as we know them; Fox's chosen authors
make them seem two-dimensional. Fox should hire one of them
to write the next novels!
--
Mishka
David & Rene' Rodrigues
Your posting ignores THE critical point. Copyright infringement and/or
trademark infrigement is NOT limited to financial issues. Another issue
is using "intellectual property" without the owner's consent. Copyright
is more than financial; YOU cannot USE someone's property without their
permission. Fox is merely protecting their intellectual property
interests. I FULLY SUPPORT the right of any owner of intellectual
property to prevent copyright infringement.
Would you like it if someone used your car without your permission? Of
course not; it's called joyriding. Same thing, Fox does not like it when
you use their property without their permission- its called copyright
infringement. There are stronger measures which Fox could have taken.
The parties involved should be GRATEFUL Fox did not utilize them. I
commend Fox for their restraint in this issue.
We live in a society of law. No matter what the motives;it is ALWAYS
wrong to do something against the law. It is wrong to use characters
without the company's permission. Instead of castigating Fox, why don't
the interested parties meet with Fox and come to terms? Why don't people
feel they should ask PERMISSION to use someone else's property?
The rights of fans are not unlimited. Just as someone does not have the
right to yell "fire" in the movie house; neither does a fan have the
right to engage in copyright infringement.
All of us have a responsibility to learn the law and what we are
obligated to do. Clearly, this situation validates that idea.
David
Cathy
Does anyone know exactly what the copyright law says about intent? Some
people seem to think that there has to be a financial motive, others
don't. Does anyone know for certain? I'm not teaching now, but I asked
a grad student here who'd made a packet for his university class and he
said that he was allowed to copy something like 10% of a book, so many
lines of poetry, etc., and that his intent--for educational
purposes--was an important factor in the copying being legal. I think
it's worth finding out.
As for your post, Mr. Rodrigues, I think the tone is a little harsh
under the circumstances, not to mention the fact that if everyone took
the same sycophantic approach to law that you do, we wouldn't have the
freedom of expression that we do. Historically, it is the people who
CHALLENGE the law peacefully (and sometimes not, the Boston Tea Party
comes to mind) that make a difference in the world. We are not
obligated to do ANYTHING; we choose to obey laws in return for the
liberty they grant us. And in choosing, what we ARE obligated to do is
to understand the laws and protest those we do not believe to be fair.
Cathy Silver
David & Rene' Rodrigues <Peng...@slip.net> wrote:
>Greetings:
>Your posting ignores THE critical point. Copyright infringement and/or
>trademark infrigement is NOT limited to financial issues. Another issue
>is using "intellectual property" without the owner's consent. Copyright
>is more than financial; YOU cannot USE someone's property without their
>permission. Fox is merely protecting their intellectual property
>interests. I FULLY SUPPORT the right of any owner of intellectual
>property to prevent copyright infringement.
AngelaFlinn
Darling David:
I replied to an earlier post of yours, under the thread "Fox Network are
Bastards, Please Read." I will try not to repeat myself in this response.
And I also want to make a public apology for including a reference to your
wife in my previous post. You didn't sign it, so I was responding to the
name in the header. Mrs. Rodrigues, I apologise. This is directed solely
at your husband.
David, I must ask -- are you a lawyer? Do you have some sort of background
in law? Because you're spouting off the legal crap like you're some sort
of expert.
Now, I'm not proclaiming to be an expert myself. I am, after all, an
electrical engineering major. However, I worked as a research assistant
for a medical-legal consulting firm here in the Dallas area for a year and
a half, and I continue to do freelance database work for them. I also plan
to make this my field of study within the next several years. So I feel I
have adequate background with which to discuss this matter.
Please see my response to the aforementioned post in regards to your
insistence of intellectual copyright infringement. Aw, heck, I'll say it
again: intellectual copyright deals with intangible ideas that cannot be
patented or copyrighted. LIKE PLOTS. LIKE HTML CODE. Not logos,
characters, or names. All of these, Fox has copyrights for.
> Your posting ignores THE critical point. Copyright infringement and/or
> trademark infrigement is NOT limited to financial issues.
No, but that's the bottom line when it comes to guys like David O. He
doesn't give a darn if we're bastardizing Chris Carter's creations. He's
concerned about the money. If the defamation of CC's work was a problem,
they'd have gotten rid of the "DANA SCULLY NUDES" a long time ago.
I'm curious to see what CC has to say about all of this. Mr. Carter, if
you're reading this, what do you think? I have a feeling that the majority
of us would consider your decision one of the final words.
See, true artists love having their work discussed. That's how
rhetoricians make their living. Again, see my earlier Victor Hugo
reference.
Half of this is the fact that Fox is demanding these be removed; half of it
is the way they've gone about it. They shouldn't have done this to Gil. I
feel he deserves a public apology. (Does anyone else agree? Wouldn't you
call what they've done to Gil public humiliation?)
> I FULLY SUPPORT the right of any owner of intellectual
> property to prevent copyright infringement.
Isn't that nice -- you support it. Again, I ask -- are you a lawyer?
> Would you like it if someone used your car without your permission? Of
> course not; it's called joyriding.
Or carjacking. Or grand theft auto. You seem to have lost your thesaurus,
Mr. Rodrigues.
> There are stronger measures which Fox could have taken.
> The parties involved should be GRATEFUL Fox did not utilize them. I
> commend Fox for their restraint in this issue.
You commend them for having Gil's e-mail access revoked? Even temporarily?
I can tell you, as a college student, 3/4 of my school work has to go
through my computer access accounts -- e-mail to professors and TA's, as
well as using the SUN workstations on campus for systems analysis.
Revoking his access also removes any access to these types of services.
What right do they have? It didn't take the site off the internet. And it
just served to piss off the rest of us.
Oh, forgive me. I should find a *better*, more *intelligent* phrase to
use. How does, incense, enrage, infuriate, rouse, agitate, vex, pique,
peeve, nettle, chafe, exasperate, roil, exacerbate... *I* own a Synonym
Finder.
But sometimes, nothing says it better than that "it pisses us off."
> We live in a society of law. No matter what the motives;it is ALWAYS
> wrong to do something against the law. It is wrong to use characters
> without the company's permission. Instead of castigating Fox, why don't
> the interested parties meet with Fox and come to terms? Why don't people
> feel they should ask PERMISSION to use someone else's property?
WE AREN'T USING THEIR PROPERTY. Can't *you* see what we're trying to say?
We're *praising* it. Whatever happened to "imitation is the sincerest form
of flattery?"
> The rights of fans are not unlimited. Just as someone does not have the
> right to yell "fire" in the movie house; neither does a fan have the
> right to engage in copyright infringement.
That is a *ridiculous* comparison. The Clear and Present Danger precedent
as set by the US Supreme Court in Feiner v. New York, 1951 and reaffirmed
with Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969 applies in the case of yelling "fire" in a
theater. Danger must be both "clear" and "imminent" before the police can
curb free speech.
What sort of public danger is involved in our X-Files internet community?
OOOOOOH -- we'll spread the tendency toward creative thought!
***
This is the first flame I've ever written. What do you think?
David, I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm just more than a little _____ (you
fill in the synonym of your choice from above) with the way you've
presented yourself. First attacking the word choice in the "Fox Network
are Bastards, Please Read," then following it up by spouting legal babble
which is FIRST of all incorrect, and then doesn't have much to do with the
issue at hand. This is not a personal attack, merely my response to your
response.
Replies are welcomed. I think I can deal with the flames on this one.
Angie.
catherine yronwode
Cathy wrote:
>
> Does anyone know exactly what the copyright law says about intent?
> Some people seem to think that there has to be a financial motive,
> others don't. Does anyone know for certain?
I'm not a lawyer but i more or less "know for certain," as i have
worked in the publishing business for more than 15 years.
The copyright law says nothing about "intent" or "financial motives."
Rather, exceptions to the copyright law are made on the basis of "fair
usage," which includes quoting a limited amount of material in a review,
commentary, news report, academic paper, or the like.
Fair usage does NOT allow you to copy mass amounts of copyrighted
material and publish it under your name.
Fair usage does NOT allow using trademarked characters in stories you
yourself publish (that is a violation of trademark law, not copyright
law).
Basically, under the new legal thinking that is springing up in an
attempt to quickly fold the world wide web into the previously
agreed-upon legal conventions covering print and broadcast publsihing,
it seems obvious that placing a web page online will be considered
publsihing too. So, whatever it is, if you couldn't print it in a
magazine without violating copyright or tradmeark laws, you couldn't put
it out on the web.
catherine yronwode * mailto:c...@luckymojo.com * http://www.luckymojo.com
* Lucky W Amulet Archive * The Sacred Landscape * Karezza and Tantra *
for discussions about folkloric magic, ask your ISP for news:alt.lucky.w
munc...@netcom.com
Dear David Rodrigues:
While you technically have the law on your side of the argument, I
believe you have confused copyright law with trademark law. Fox is
defending their trademark, which they MUST do in order to keep it. One
cannot lose a copyright no matter how often it is infringed, but failure to
defend a trademark is why we have words like "zipper", "cellophane", and
"aspirin" in our language.
But that's not the point. There are times when the law gets in the way of
justice, or even common sense. In this case, Fox is trying very hard to
die with its rights on. Yes, they may have the law on their side. Yes,
they are defending their intellectual property. I stand second to none in
my defense of intellectual property, especially after having had my
reviews plagiarized off my website for someone elses' profit. Yet I still
post the reviews because I want to help promote the show. In the case of
the amateur website shutdowns, this is a case of a public relations
department blundering into a neighborhood where it is new, where the
customs are different, and throwing its weight around. No one appreciates
bully tactics, no matter how legal.
These issues could be worked out. If Fox was interested in maintaining
good relations with us, they would make available free images and such for
us to use, with attribution, on our web pages. This is no different from
the free media kits they hand out to the print media, begging and pleading
with the print outlets to use them. I would hope that Fox is not so
concerned with "control" that they would fail to recognize the benefits of
a mutual agreement between fans and the network on this matter.
So folks, if you're going to write to Fox, I suggest that you offer an
alternative solution. Right now it's a black/white situation: either Fox
shuts down all websites or anyone is free to steal/use/appropriate
anything they want from Fox. This is a lose/lose situation. But if Fox
is inundated with intelligent and well thought out suggestions for an
alternative approach to amateur websites, perhaps they will listen to reason.
And Scully may take Mulder to bed next week. Yeah, right. :)
****************************************************************
Sarah Stegall*http://www.webcom.com/munchkyn*munc...@netcom.com
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like his passengers...
****************************************************************
Cathy
Thanks for answering this. I'm not sure I'm convinced that the lawyers
making up how the copyright/trademarks are doing it the right way--reeks
of a media oligarchy to me! Why is it that web pages don't fall under
the "fair usage" clause--is it just the quantity of images used, or is
it that they are linked to a person as a "creator" in a way that a book
review for example isn't?
Thanks again--very helpful message. I hope other people read it!
Cathy
munc...@netcom.com
In article <553sqt$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Book reviews and other reviews are *definitely* linked
to a creator. How many people watch Siskel and Ebert for their reviews,
or read Judith Crist's reviews? Reviews are *definitely* linked to their
authors.
Sarah Stegall
reviewer since 1994
Charlatan
David & Rene' Rodrigues wrote:
> Would you like it if someone used your car without your permission? Of
> course not; it's called joyriding. Same thing, Fox does not like it when
> you use their property without their permission- its called copyright
> infringement. There are stronger measures which Fox could have taken.
> The parties involved should be GRATEFUL Fox did not utilize them. I
> commend Fox for their restraint in this issue.
Most of the rest of the original post has been dealt with, but I just
have to counter this faulty analogy. "Joyriding" is a bad thing because
it implies danger to or loss of your car. The web sites they want to
shut down do not hurt FOX in any way, in fact they help publicize it. A
better comparison may be if your friend were to take your car, wash it,
fix it up, and return in better condition as a present, and you turn
around and have him jailed for it. We're not necessarily saying FOX
don't have a right to do it, just that it isn't something they should
want to be doing to their fans. And yes you can criticize people for
actions that are legal. (like morality and legality are separate issues:
you could legally backstab a friend, but that doesn't mean you should)
Just because they *can* do it, doesn't mean they *have to* or *should*.
David Thompson
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 17:58:54 -0800, David & Rene' Rodrigues
<Peng...@slip.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>We live in a society of law. No matter what the motives;it is ALWAYS
>wrong to do something against the law. It is wrong to use characters
>without the company's permission. Instead of castigating Fox, why don't
>the interested parties meet with Fox and come to terms? Why don't people
>feel they should ask PERMISSION to use someone else's property?
>
I have to jump in here, I can't let the above remark stand. It
flies in the face of basic humanity. Do you realize that all
governments are based on the rule of law? Law is simply a reflection
of the will of the governing elites of society. This is true whether
the state is called a democracy or not.
Similar statements were used to justify the return of fugitive
slaves who escaped the American South before the Civil War. After all,
the law is the law, regardless of the morality behind it. One also
assumes that Mr. Rodriguez would have supported the right of Nazi
Germany to have done as it pleased to its citizens, as everything that
happened within Germany during the Third Reich was done in a way that
did not violate the letter of German law.
We are human beings. We are the only absolutes in this world.
Laws are a reflection of a particular group's views of morality and
what things they wish to promote and protect. It has nothing to do
with justice. If there is a duty here, it is to stand up for what we
believe in, regardless of the legalities.
<snip>
>All of us have a responsibility to learn the law and what we are
>obligated to do. Clearly, this situation validates that idea.
>David
>
I find your attitude appalling. You sound like the kind of person
who would turn his kid in for biking on the sidewalk. You need to
adjust your sense of priorities in life.