FOX Network are BASTARDS: please read.
Brian E. Kushner
"Stef Davies" <stephani...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm sorry for the strong language, but there is really no other way to
>describe the way they behave towards devoted fans who spend their own
>money and considerable time working hard for the shows we care about.
>
>Fox Network have closed down Gil Treviso's 'Millenium' website. He worked
>to set up a newsgroup, write a faq and set up a website so that it'd be
>ready for when the show sites. NOT ONLY THAT, and far, far worse, they have
>caused his e-mail account to be closed as well, so he cannot oversee the
>fanfic mailing list either, or use it for any other purpose.
>
>They shut my X-Files website down in the Spring, so I know how Gil is
>feeling, although they weren't quite spiteful enough to have my e-mail
>account suspended too.
>
>Please write to every e-mail address you can
>get hold of to let them know what you think of this. Surely they should
>realise that if they were to work *with* us instead of against us, they
>could harness all the goodwill and effort we're prepared to make. Far more
>beneficial for them than this highhanded and unpleasantly bullying
>behaviour.
>
>One to start with might be:
>
>DAV...@foxinc.com
>
>who was the one who originally wrote to Gil.
>
>
>Stef.
>
>"Scully, you are the *only* one I trust
>
>.....except of course for that blonde woman at the UN"
>
>
Steph:
I have faxed this message to Chris Carter!!!! If anyone else has
similiar stories please email them to me or post here and I will fax
them to Carter....
Brian
Brian E. Kushner
"Stef Davies" <stephani...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm sorry for the strong language, but there is really no other way to
>describe the way they behave towards devoted fans who spend their own
>money and considerable time working hard for the shows we care about.
>
>Fox Network have closed down Gil Treviso's 'Millenium' website. He worked
>to set up a newsgroup, write a faq and set up a website so that it'd be
>ready for when the show sites. NOT ONLY THAT, and far, far worse, they have
>caused his e-mail account to be closed as well, so he cannot oversee the
>fanfic mailing list either, or use it for any other purpose.
>
>They shut my X-Files website down in the Spring, so I know how Gil is
>feeling, although they weren't quite spiteful enough to have my e-mail
>account suspended too.
>
>Please write to every e-mail address you can
>get hold of to let them know what you think of this. Surely they should
>realise that if they were to work *with* us instead of against us, they
>could harness all the goodwill and effort we're prepared to make. Far more
>beneficial for them than this highhanded and unpleasantly bullying
>behaviour.
>
>One to start with might be:
>
>DAV...@foxinc.com
>
>who was the one who originally wrote to Gil.
>
>
>Stef.
>
>"Scully, you are the *only* one I trust
>
>.....except of course for that blonde woman at the UN"
>
>
I've been fighting with Oates for awhile about a screensaver....He
made me take it down.....They are amazing there.....They spend
millions advertising their shows abd then shut down FREE PUBLICITY at
the heart of their fan base.... I faxed Chris Carter about Oates a
week or so ago to make him aware of what was going on....I don't think
he knows......
Brian
Mishka2
In article <300131111...@ukonline.co.uk>, "Stef Davies"
<stephani...@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>
>Fox Network have closed down Gil Treviso's 'Millenium' website. He worked
>to set up a newsgroup, write a faq and set up a website so that it'd be
>ready for when the show sites. NOT ONLY THAT, and far, far worse, they
have
>caused his e-mail account to be closed as well, so he cannot oversee the
>fanfic mailing list either, or use it for any other purpose.
>
>
Oh, God...Last night, at about 7:30, I found out about this
possibly happening (shutting down Gil's Millennium website).
I rushed an e-mail about this to that David-O guy at Fox who had
told Gil to get rid of the site (I've never written Fox or 10-13 before,
but I wanted to come to Gil's defense). I can't believe they did
that to him. It doesn't seem like they gave him much of a chance.
I don't understand what the big deal was about it -- as I wrote to
the...uh...guy at Fox, it seems to me that unofficial websites
would only make the show more popular.
Now they're going to screw up the fanfic list (IMO; I don't want
to come off as libelous -- oh, no, not me, who's been as devoted
a 'Phile as there ever was!). Can we do anything? Personally,
I've had it with them because of the way they're treating us
(IMO, again!). I watch Fox for the local news every morning
and every night; 90% of the stuff I watch is on Fox. I told them
I would tape The X-Files and zap through the commercials,
averting my eyes so I wouldn't get any subliminal programming
(joking there, I guess...) from their advertisers.
I did tape Millemium, just to give it a chance. Well, now I'm
switching to another local news, and I guess I'll have to give
up my morning cartoons (boo, hoo!) I've never felt so militant
in my life! I'm usually such a sweetheart!
-- Mishka
Stef Davies
I'm sorry for the strong language, but there is really no other way to
describe the way they behave towards devoted fans who spend their own
money and considerable time working hard for the shows we care about.
Fox Network have closed down Gil Treviso's 'Millenium' website. He worked
to set up a newsgroup, write a faq and set up a website so that it'd be
ready for when the show sites. NOT ONLY THAT, and far, far worse, they have
caused his e-mail account to be closed as well, so he cannot oversee the
fanfic mailing list either, or use it for any other purpose.
They shut my X-Files website down in the Spring, so I know how Gil is
Jeff Minard
Fan sites are almost always trashed or destroyed by corporate owners of
a piece of popular culture. They haven't the balls (or ovaries) to
include, nurture, or even benignly ignore this spontaneous energy. They
feel they must control every aspect of their creation, even the fan
reactions. One cannot create excitement in others and then stifle any
public energy that results. We must keep up our own expressions in our
own ways. The web will NOT be controlled. You do not own it, Corporate
Giant, we all do. And there are more of us than there are of you.
<flame off>
-Jeff
babydoll
Does anyone have the FOX e-mail address, where straight-to-the-point,
loud and protesting mail can be sent ???
babydoll
GET OFF OUR BACKS FOX !!!!!!!
Dawn C.
I really think those Fox guys should lay off and chill out. We're just
having some fun here.
Astarte
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Stef Davies wrote:
> Fox Network have closed down Gil Treviso's 'Millenium' website. He worked
> to set up a newsgroup, write a faq and set up a website so that it'd be
> ready for when the show sites. NOT ONLY THAT, and far, far worse, they have
> caused his e-mail account to be closed as well, so he cannot oversee the
> fanfic mailing list either, or use it for any other purpose.
Um.... I'm confused. I went (after seeing this message) and looked at the
Millenium site. It's still there. About his e-mail account, I'm not
sure. I sent him mail and it didn't bounce but he probably hasn't had
time to get back to me yet.
The URL for the Millenium site is:
http://mail.utep.edu/~trevizo/millennium/
Peace!
Mishka2
In article <327260dc...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, bkus...@ix.netcom.com
(Brian E. Kushner) writes:
>I've been fighting with Oates for awhile about a screensaver....He
>made me take it down.....They are amazing there.....They spend
>millions advertising their shows abd then shut down FREE PUBLICITY at
>the heart of their fan base.... I faxed Chris Carter about Oates a
>week or so ago to make him aware of what was going on....I don't think
>he knows......
>
>Brian
Oakes was hassling you about a SCREENSAVER? Personally,
I've never seen any out in the stores, and I've looked. Are there
any available for sale by Fox? How are we hurting Fox by creating
screensavers and using them on our personal systems if they don't
put an X-Files screensaver on the market? AARRGGGH!
-- Mishka
babydoll
Mishka2 wrote:
>
> In article <300131111...@ukonline.co.uk>, "Stef Davies"
> <stephani...@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>
> >
> >to set up a newsgroup, write a faq and set up a website so that it'd be
> >ready for when the show sites. NOT ONLY THAT, and far, far worse, they
> have
> >caused his e-mail account to be closed as well, so he cannot oversee the
> >fanfic mailing list either, or use it for any other purpose.
> >
> >
do something about this. All the good sites are closing because of
pressure from those bastards at FOX, and sooner or later, the X-Phile
net-related world will collapse. We're the one's that got it where it is
today, and this is how FOX repay us. They suck big time.
babydoll
David & Rene' Rodrigues
Stef Davies wrote:
>
> I'm sorry for the strong language, but there is really no other way to
> describe the way they behave towards devoted fans who spend their own
> money and considerable time working hard for the shows we care about.
>
> to set up a newsgroup, write a faq and set up a website so that it'd be
> ready for when the show sites. NOT ONLY THAT, and far, far worse, they have
> caused his e-mail account to be closed as well, so he cannot oversee the
> fanfic mailing list either, or use it for any other purpose.
>
> feeling, although they weren't quite spiteful enough to have my e-mail
> account suspended too.
>
> Please write to every e-mail address you can
> get hold of to let them know what you think of this. Surely they should
> realise that if they were to work *with* us instead of against us, they
> could harness all the goodwill and effort we're prepared to make. Far more
> beneficial for them than this highhanded and unpleasantly bullying
> behaviour.
>
> One to start with might be:
>
> DAV...@foxinc.com
>
> who was the one who originally wrote to Gil.
>
> Stef.
>
> "Scully, you are the *only* one I trust
>
> .....except of course for that blonde woman at the UN"
There is no excuse for this language. I strongly suggest you purchase a
good old fashioned thesaurus. The book has plenty of suggestions for
intelligent words to express your point of view. I do not appreciate the
language because it shows a lack of academic scholarship.
As for the content, please learn the words "intellectual property." This
means that Fox,et al owns the characters and have the right to control
their use. They have the LEGAL right to take lawful action to enforce
the copyright and/or trademark. If they didn't, they couldn't have done
what they did.
It is the responsibility of EACH citizen to learn the law and obey it.
When a new issue arises, seeking legal counsel and negotiating an
arrangement with the author, would prevent these sorts of problems.
We are a society of law. If people pick and choose what laws to obey, we
lose our essence of civilization.
The moral of the story is: Learn the law, obey the law, and when in
doubt, seek the advice of a lawyer. This will keep people out of
trouble.
Mishka2
>
>Does anyone have the FOX e-mail address, where straight-to-the-point,
>loud and protesting mail can be sent ???
Babydoll --
The ones I have are: David Oates -- the guy who first told Gil to
take down the website:
also try:
re...@newscorp.com
ask...@foxinc.com
-- Mishka
(go get 'em, 'Philes!)
J. Ackerson
Stef Davies wrote:
>
> I'm sorry for the strong language, but there is really no other way to
> describe the way they behave towards devoted fans who spend their own
> money and considerable time working hard for the shows we care about.
>
> Fox Network have closed down Gil Treviso's 'Millenium' website. He worked
> to set up a newsgroup, write a faq and set up a website so that it'd be
> ready for when the show sites. NOT ONLY THAT, and far, far worse, they have
> caused his e-mail account to be closed as well, so he cannot oversee the
> fanfic mailing list either, or use it for any other purpose.
>
> They shut my X-Files website down in the Spring, so I know how Gil is
> feeling, although they weren't quite spiteful enough to have my e-mail
> account suspended too.
>
> Please write to every e-mail address you can
> get hold of to let them know what you think of this. Surely they should
> realise that if they were to work *with* us instead of against us, they
> could harness all the goodwill and effort we're prepared to make. Far more
> beneficial for them than this highhanded and unpleasantly bullying
> behaviour.
>
> One to start with might be:
>
> DAV...@foxinc.com
>
> who was the one who originally wrote to Gil.
>
> Stef.
>
> "Scully, you are the *only* one I trust
>
When I got the SOS from Gil on the fic mailing list about his
Millenium site, I mailed this comment out to David Oakes. I think it
really addresses what they over at FOX disn't conciously think about,
and don't seem too consider. Please, anyone who wishes to remail this
letter with their name on it, you have my whole hearted permission.
There is no excuse for disabling ALL his e-mail connections. This was
just irresponsible judgement on FOX and Oakes' part.
J.
Dear Sirs,
It has come to my attention that you have a concern
regarding unauthorized websites for your new show at FOX, and have
requested that they be removed. I wish to remind you most humbly that
the FANS are what generate your ratings, and that websites only help
foster loyalty and interest to/in a show. I would suggest most
strenuously that you rethink this policy as you have done so in the
past, lest you alienate the very viewing audience that you are depending
on to make your show a success. It can be a very costly mistake to
assume that this new show can stand without fans and word of mouth
advertizing, and it is one I can assume you would not wish to make.
Sincerely,
J. Ackerson
Stef Davies
>> About his e-mail account, I'm not
>> sure. I sent him mail and it didn't bounce but he probably hasn't had
>> time to get back to me yet.
He has been shut out of his e-mail account since Friday night because of
this incident - he told me so himself. He has had to make all kinds of
telnetting arrangements to other people's accounts to get anything out to
us this weekend.
Stef
"Scully, you are the *only* one I trust
.....except of course for that blonde woman at the UN"
x x x x x x x x x x x x
For the X-Files fanfic Daily listing archive:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/xfilesfanficarchive.d/contents.htm
For fanfic that follows the episodes:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/xfilesfanficarchive.d/postepis.htm
x x x x x x x x x x x x
Affable Al
asw...@shore.intercom.net wrote:
>
> > "Dawn C." <da...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> > I really think those Fox guys should lay off and chill out. We're just
> > having some fun here.
> >
> >>>>
>
> the show due to the way US laws work. If they willing allow these
> sites to use characters, plots, images, etc, without permission, then
> legally Fox is giving up their copywrites/trademarks. This would
> cost Fox millions of dollars, and they would lose control of the show.
Where are some of you people getting these fallacious notions concerning copyright laws?
What you've just said is patently NOT TRUE. Use of copyrighted material WITH
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and without intent of defamation, profit or challenge to ownership is
fully within the law and does not endanger copyright. Now, the holder of the copyright
may demand remuneration, but it's not a lawsuit type of situation, unless the second
party refuses to pay.
Okay? :)
>
> The problem isn't with the networks, it's the way the law is
> written. The sites in question should get in contact with Fox officials,
> and try to work out some type of agreement, Other sites legally
> carry copywrite/trademark info from other shows. I'm not sure
> of the details on what needs to be done; it may be as simple as
> listing the appropriate copywrite/trademark notices.
Unfortunately, all the neccessary steps were taken by Gil Trevizo and others, but they
were ignored by Fox in favor of their draconian "there can be only one" policy.
The time has come to stop making excuses for Fox's behavior and DO something about it.
Reference my post "Boycott Millennium Advertisers."
>
> Angela
>
asw...@shore.intercom.net
> "Dawn C." <da...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> I really think those Fox guys should lay off and chill out. We're just
> having some fun here.
>
>>>>
Yeah, but that fun could cost Fox their copywrite/trademarks on
the show due to the way US laws work. If they willing allow these
sites to use characters, plots, images, etc, without permission, then
legally Fox is giving up their copywrites/trademarks. This would
cost Fox millions of dollars, and they would lose control of the show.
The problem isn't with the networks, it's the way the law is
written. The sites in question should get in contact with Fox officials,
and try to work out some type of agreement, Other sites legally
carry copywrite/trademark info from other shows. I'm not sure
of the details on what needs to be done; it may be as simple as
listing the appropriate copywrite/trademark notices.
Angela
LilGreyFox
I had no idea this was going on! I am shocked. Everything on the net only
helps to promote The X-Files/ Millenium! People who have websites do so
because
of how much they love the show. Same with writers of fan fcition! They
only want other people to join in their love/excitment for The X-Files.
Plus!!!! It is totally non-profit. So why are they doing this???
:-( >:-( <:-( K-( X-( :-<
Affable Al
> There is no excuse for this language. I strongly suggest you purchase a
> good old fashioned thesaurus. The book has plenty of suggestions for
> intelligent words to express your point of view. I do not appreciate the
> language because it shows a lack of academic scholarship.
Here, try this word: dickhead. As in. . . you are a dickhead.
Now, excuse MY language, but this is no time to pull a holier-than-thou attitude. Fox is
blatantly spitting on fans of its programs and may even be straying into violation of
the First Amendment, so give the thesaurus argument a rest.
>
> As for the content, please learn the words "intellectual property." This
> means that Fox,et al owns the characters and have the right to control
> their use. They have the LEGAL right to take lawful action to enforce
> the copyright and/or trademark. If they didn't, they couldn't have done
> what they did.
And before you start lecturing people about what "intellectual property" is, you need to
learn a few things yourself. I am a working fiction author and filmmaker, so this is a
subject near and dear to my heart.
First of all, no fan site has violated copyright laws. Copyright exists to prevent
unlawful duplication for the purposes of profit, defamation or challenge of ownership.
None of these things apply in this situation, so there's no REAL legal reason for Fox to
pursue this line of attack, save that they wish to attract more hits to their official
sites.
>
> It is the responsibility of EACH citizen to learn the law and obey it.
> When a new issue arises, seeking legal counsel and negotiating an
> arrangement with the author, would prevent these sorts of problems.
>
> We are a society of law. If people pick and choose what laws to obey, we
> lose our essence of civilization.
And one of the foundations, over which the legal system is laid, is the Constitution,
which clearly protects legal expression. In these cases, we are dealing with strictly
legal expression. No bootlegging, profiteering or other destruction of an intellectual
property is taking place, pure and simple, so stow your Richard Nixon "no one is above
the law" rhetoric.
>
> The moral of the story is: Learn the law, obey the law, and when in
> doubt, seek the advice of a lawyer. This will keep people out of
> trouble.
I think the moral of this story is those who speak out of school are destined to be
flamed into oblivion. If you want to play dimestore moralist, go right ahead, but don't
presume to lecture those who are clearly more in the know than yourself.
It is pure narcissism to assume that you are the one who can hand down such
proclamations and illuminate the unwashed masses. Welcome back from your tete-a-tete
with the burning bush, Moses.
What Fox is doing is foolish, greedy and self-destructive. And that's as simple as it
gets.
Understand now?
AngelaFlinn
Al.... you are *wonderful*. Thank you for responding in such a manner that
displays the "academic scholarship" this individual seems to hold so dear.
I must interject, as a response to Mr. or Mrs. Rodrigues (sic), as to the
question of "intellectual copyright". As stated in a previous post, "My
Letter to Fox," I am an electrical engineering major planning on making a
future in intellectual copyright. Therefore, I know quite a bit about
this.
Intellectual copyright deals with ideas that cannot be copyrighted or
patented. It would pertain to the plot of a show, rather than the
characters, names, etc. The characters can be copyrighted... the names can
be copyrighted... the logos can be copyrighted... but they can't copyright
the idea behind the show: two FBI agents, the skeptic and the believer,
invesigating paranormal phenomena. Shows that follow this basic scheme
would be said to be violating intellectual copyright -- what is done on our
web pages is *copyright* infringement, plain and simple.
Perhaps *you* should learn what you're talking about, Mr. and Mrs.
Rodrigues, before you post in such a hostile manner.
> > The moral of the story is: Learn the law, obey the law, and when in
> > doubt, seek the advice of a lawyer. This will keep people out of
> > trouble.
No. "What we have here is failure to communicate." Fox doesn't seem to
understand that we aren't doing any harm -- in fact, WE'RE HELPING!!!
We're providing them with free advertising. They should be *flattered*
that fans have gone to this much trouble.
To put it in terms that the academic Mr. and Mrs. Rodrigues (sic) will
understand... I am a Victor Hugo fan. I have extensively read and
researched his novel, Les Miserables. I wrote a 24-page term paper on it
for my senior english class, and a 30-page thesis for my college rhetoric
course. I plan to erect a page on my homepage dedicated to this wonderful
work and the characters/ideas within.
If the descendant of Hugo (or whomever currently holds the copyright on
this work) were to contact me and tell me to remove my site, would this not
be ridiculous? This is academia, is it not? To critique, discuss... ah!
I'm so angry I can't be eloquent.
In my mind, this is what Fox is trying to do. None of us are trying to
make money off of their show. We just want places to congregate and
discuss. They're trying to dismantle our playground and erect a shopping
mall that carries nothing but *their* merchandise. With a big parking lot
they'll charge exorbitant fees on.
Pllllllbbbbtttthhhh. :P
Is that eloquent enough for you, Mr. & Mrs. Rodrigues?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% % %
% To learn to read is to light a fire; % Angela M. Flinn %
% every syllable that is spelled out is a spark. % fl...@utdallas.edu %
% % %
% Victor Marie Hugo % Junior %
% Les Misérables, pt. 4, bk. 7, ch. 1 % Electrical Eng. %
% % %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jason H.
Well said Al ;)
As I am sitting next to Angela Flinn (my significant other) and know she is
currently working on a response to intellectual copyright.... I will just
add my two cents..
Last time I looked in the American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin),
which is the accepted standard for education institutions as specified by:
The College Board
P.O. Box 6671
Princeton, NJ 08541-6671
.... the definition of bastard is (drum roll please...)
bas·tard (bàs¹terd) noun
1. An illegitimate child.
2. Something that is of irregular, inferior, or dubious origin.
3. Vulgar Slang. A person, especially one who is held to be mean or
disagreeable.
adjective
1. Born of unwed parents; illegitimate.
2. Not genuine; spurious: a bastard style of architecture.
3. Resembling a known kind or species but not truly such.
[Middle English, from Old French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old
Frisian bost, marriage.]
— bas¹tard·ly adjective
Oh, and to exonerate you from what appears to be a direct mandate from God
through the fingers of the Rodrigues couple.
dick (dîk) noun
1. Chiefly British. A fellow; a guy.
2. Vulgar Slang. A penis.
[From Dick, nickname for Richard.]
head (hèd) noun
Abbr. hd.
1. a. The uppermost or forwardmost part of the body of a vertebrate,
containing the brain and the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and jaws. b. The
analogous part of an invertebrate organism. c. The length or height of such
a part: The horse lost by a head. She is two heads taller than he is.
2. The seat of the faculty of reason; intelligence, intellect, or mind: I
did the figuring in my head.
3. Mental ability or aptitude: She has a good head for mathematics.
4. Freedom of choice or action: Give the child his head and see how well he
solves the problems.
5. Slang. a. A habitual drug user. b. An enthusiast.
6. A portrait or representation of a person's head.
7. Often heads (used with a sing. verb). The side of a coin having the
principal design and the date.
8. Informal. A headache: had a bad head early this morning.
9. a. An individual; a person: charged five dollars a head. b. head. A
single animal: 20 head of cattle.
10. a. A person who leads, rules, or is in charge; a leader, chief, or
director: the head of the corporation. b. A headmaster or headmistress.
11. The foremost or leading position: marched at the head of the parade.
12. A headwaiter.
13. a. The difference in depth of a liquid at two given points. b. The
measure of pressure at the lower point expressed in terms of this
difference. c. The pressure exerted by a liquid or gas: a head of steam. d.
The liquid or gas exerting the pressure.
14. The froth or foam that rises to the top in pouring an effervescent
liquid, such as beer.
15. The tip of an abscess, a boil, or a pimple, in which pus forms.
16. A turning point; a crisis: bring matters to a head. See synonyms at
CRISIS.
17. a. A projection, weight, or fixture at the end of an elongated object:
the head of a pin; a head of land overlooking the harbor. b. Anatomy. The
proximal end of a long bone: the head of the femur. c. The working end of a
tool or an implement: the head of a hammer. d. The part of an explosive
device that carries the explosive; a warhead.
18. a. An attachment to or part of a machine that holds or contains the
operative device. b. The magnetic head of a tape recorder.
19. A rounded, compact mass, as of leaves or buds: a head of cabbage.
20. Botany. A flower head.
21. The uppermost part; the top: Place the appropriate name at the head of
each column.
22. The end considered the most important: sat at the head of the table.
23. Either end of an object, such as a drum, whose two ends are
interchangeable.
24. Nautical. a. The forward part of a vessel. b. The top part or upper
edge of a sail.
25. A toilet, especially on a ship.
26. A passage or gallery in a coal mine.
27. Printing. a. The top of a book or of a page. b. A headline or heading.
c. A distinct topic or category: under the head of recent Spanish history.
28. Headway; progress.
29. Linguistics. The word in a construction that has the same grammatical
function as the construction as a whole and that determines relationships
of concord to other parts of the construction or sentence in which the
construction occurs.
30. Vulgar Slang. Oral sex.
adjective
1. Of, relating to, or intended for the head. Often used in combination:
headshaking; headwrap.
2. Foremost in rank or importance: the head librarian.
3. Placed at the top or the front: the head name on the list.
4. Slang. Of, relating to, or for drugs or drug users.
verb
head·ed, head·ing, heads verb, transitive
1. To be in charge of; lead: The minister headed the committee.
2. To be in the first or foremost position of: Collins heads the list of
job candidates.
3. To aim, point, or turn in a certain direction: headed the team of horses
up the hill.
4. To remove the head or top of.
5. Sports. To hit (a soccer ball) in the air with one's head.
6. To provide with a head: head each column with a number; headed the
flagpole with a golden ball.
verb, intransitive
1. To proceed or go in a certain direction: head for town.
2. To form a head, as lettuce or cabbage.
3. To originate, as a stream or river; rise.
— phrasal verb.
head off
To block the progress or completion of; intercept: Try to head him off
before he gets home.
— idiom.
head and shoulders above
Far superior to: head and shoulders above her colleagues in analytical
capability.
head over heels
1. Rolling, as in a somersault: tripped and fell head over heels.
2. Completely; hopelessly: head over heels in love.
keep (one's) head
To remain calm; remain in control of oneself.
lose (one's) head
To lose one's poise or self-control.
off (one's) head or out of (one's) head
Insane; crazy.
put heads together
To consult and plan together: Let's put our heads together and solve this
problem.
[Middle English, from Old English hêafod.]
Well, If you have read this far than you are as insane as I am ... :)
Don't worry I have the dictionary on CD and did a cut and paste operation..
I am not crazy enough to type in all this.
A little extra advice to the Rodrigues family, from another scholar:
"If A is a success in life, then A
equals x plus y plus z.
Work is x; y is play;
and z is keeping your mouth shut."
-Albert Einstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Jason P. Hood
Electrical Engineering Student,
Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science;
University of Texas at Dallas.
International Headquarters PC Support Technician (Information Technologies
Group);
Lennox International, Lennox Industries, & Lennox Global, et al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Rob and Bill
David & Rene' Rodrigues <Peng...@slip.net> wrote:
>Stef Davies wrote:
>> Please write to every e-mail address you can
>> get hold of to let them know what you think of this. Surely they
should
>> realise that if they were to work *with* us instead of against us,
they
>> could harness all the goodwill and effort we're prepared to make.
Far more
>> beneficial for them than this highhanded and unpleasantly bullying
>> behaviour.
>As for the content, please learn the words "intellectual property."
This
>means that Fox,et al owns the characters and have the right to
control
>their use. They have the LEGAL right to take lawful action to enforce
>the copyright and/or trademark. If they didn't, they couldn't have
done
>what they did.
I have to agree with this. FOX has every right to ensure that they
control their copyrighted material. It's not even so much that they
don't want fan excitement and support, but if they start allowing
anyone to copy their images straight off of their website, then claims
could be made that the images are public domain, and others could
start selling them, altering them, etc.
I don't think I kept the line about the screen saver, but why on earth
would FOX allow a commercial (or at least, potentially commercial)
product to be developed that robs them of the royalties that such a
product, if licensed, would earn??
As for the attack on FOX's being meanspirited and cutting off the
guy's email acocunt, I'm sure that the University did that of their
own accord and pursuant to their own Acceptable Use Policies, which
would defend them quite nicely should they be sued. FOX isn't all
that powerful.
Or are they??
The Truth is Out There...
--
\_\_\_ \_\_\_ \_\_\_ \_\_\_ ro...@robb.com bi...@robb.com
\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ http://www.robb.com/
\_\_\_ \_ \_ \_\_\_ \_\_\_ "You've always been crazy, this is just the
\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ first chance you've had to express yourself"
\_ \_ \_\_\_ \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - Louise Sawyer to Thelma Dickinson
David & Rene' Rodrigues
Affable Al wrote:
> Here, try this word: dickhead. As in. . . you are a dickhead.
Offensive language and personal insults do not dignify a response.
> Now, excuse MY language, but this is no time to pull a holier-than-thou attitude. Fox is
> blatantly spitting on fans of its programs and may even be straying into violation of
> the First Amendment, so give the thesaurus argument a rest.
The 1st amendment does not keep copyright laws from being valid.
>
Robert Berryhill
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 13:19:07 -0800, David & Rene' Rodrigues
<Peng...@slip.net> wrote:
>Stef Davies wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry for the strong language, but there is really no other way to
>> describe the way they behave towards devoted fans who spend their own
>> money and considerable time working hard for the shows we care about.
>>
>> Fox Network have closed down Gil Treviso's 'Millenium' website. He worked
>> to set up a newsgroup, write a faq and set up a website so that it'd be
>> ready for when the show sites. NOT ONLY THAT, and far, far worse, they have
>> caused his e-mail account to be closed as well, so he cannot oversee the
>> fanfic mailing list either, or use it for any other purpose.
>>
>> They shut my X-Files website down in the Spring, so I know how Gil is
>> feeling, although they weren't quite spiteful enough to have my e-mail
>> account suspended too.
>>
>> Please write to every e-mail address you can
>> get hold of to let them know what you think of this. Surely they should
>> realise that if they were to work *with* us instead of against us, they
>> could harness all the goodwill and effort we're prepared to make. Far more
>> beneficial for them than this highhanded and unpleasantly bullying
>> behaviour.
>>
>> One to start with might be:
>>
>> DAV...@foxinc.com
>>
>> who was the one who originally wrote to Gil.
>>
>> Stef.
>>
>> "Scully, you are the *only* one I trust
>>
>> .....except of course for that blonde woman at the UN"
>
>There is no excuse for this language. I strongly suggest you purchase a
>good old fashioned thesaurus. The book has plenty of suggestions for
>intelligent words to express your point of view. I do not appreciate the
>language because it shows a lack of academic scholarship.
>
>As for the content, please learn the words "intellectual property." This
>means that Fox,et al owns the characters and have the right to control
>their use. They have the LEGAL right to take lawful action to enforce
>the copyright and/or trademark. If they didn't, they couldn't have done
>what they did.
>
>It is the responsibility of EACH citizen to learn the law and obey it.
>When a new issue arises, seeking legal counsel and negotiating an
>arrangement with the author, would prevent these sorts of problems.
>
>We are a society of law. If people pick and choose what laws to obey, we
>lose our essence of civilization.
>
>The moral of the story is: Learn the law, obey the law, and when in
>doubt, seek the advice of a lawyer. This will keep people out of
>trouble.
>
Well, where to start... Let me just say a few things about the wimp
who wrote the above reply. Sometimes, even in the most civilized and
educated time this world has known, there comes a time to use the
language native to us... in short, tell it like it is.
As for the legalities of your argument, I work for the FBI and while
professionally I may have to agree, personally it could have been
handled better.
AngelaFlinn
> Um.... I'm confused. I went (after seeing this message) and looked at the
> sure. I sent him mail and it didn't bounce but he probably hasn't had
> time to get back to me yet.
From what I understand, they have blocked his *access* into these accounts.
They haven't removed the files from the server. PLEASE NOTE THIS IS
SPECULATION ON MY PART -- I am a student at another UT school (UTD) so my
guess is that they simply deleted his passwords, making it impossible for
him to get into his Unix, Infoserv, or PPP accounts through the school
lines and server. LIKELY pending a university decision as to whether or
not to remove the site completely.
The problem is, if they delete the HTML files from the server and it turns
out Fox doesn't have grounds to demand he do so, Gil can turn around and
sue not *only* Fox, but the UT system as well. He may even be able to do
so at this point if denying him access to his accounts interferes with
anything school-related.
Once more, this is *just* my speculation, and is not authorized, endorsed,
or approved by the university or my employers.
(Damn, I'm getting good at this disclaimer stuff.)
Gil has a temporary address set up on the chaos.taylored.com server, but I
can't seem to find it right now. I'll post it to this group when I do.
Angie.
catherine yronwode
Affable Al wrote:
>Attributions Lost write:
> > They have the LEGAL right to take lawful action to enforce
> > the copyright and/or trademark. If they didn't, they couldn't have
> > done what they did.
>
> subject near and dear to my heart.
I too am a professional in the publishing business, but i am not a
lawyer. What follows is my understanding of the relevant laws as i ahve
seen them applied during my 20 years in the business.
> First of all, no fan site has violated copyright laws. Copyright
> exists to prevent unlawful duplication for the purposes of profit,
> defamation or challenge of ownership. None of these things apply in
> this situation, so there's no REAL legal reason for Fox to pursue this
> line of attack, save that they wish to attract more hits to their
> official sites.
I believe that Fox *may* be violating the so-called "fair usage" rights
of individuals by unjustly seeking to limit their right to publish
reviews, commentary, and checklists of copyrighted material and
incorporate brief quotes or clips from such material in said reviews,
commentary, and checklists.
> What Fox is doing is foolish, greedy and self-destructive. And that's
> as simple as it gets.
I would leave out "greedy" -- for they gain no profit by limiting the
proliferation or web-publication of favourable reviews and commentaries
-- but i will go along with "foolish" and "self-destructive."
The problem is that web publishing case law simply does not exist yet.
There are no precedents.
This may be boring, but i want to explain why the problem is more
complex than mere "copyright" issues:
There are three parts to protection of a creative idea that is sold for
profit. One is patent (the plans for building a machine, for instance).
The next is copyright (the right to duplicate or copy text or images).
The last is trademark (the right to use s name in trade).
Imagine a tractor. The machine itself is protected by a patent.The
operator's manual is protected by a copyright. The brand name on the
machine and on the owner's manual is protected by a trademark.
Patent applies only to the structure of inventions. In the U.S., patents
are good for a certain number of years...and then the invention is
available to the public.
Copyright applies only to words and artwork -- in radio, television,
books, magazines, posters, and (presumeably) on the web. (And don't fool
yourself -- nothing in the law says copyright is limited to copying for
PROFIT; *any* kind of copying is forbidden except "fair usage" copying
within a review or commentary.) Copyright in the U.S. currently runs for
the life of the creator.
Trademark applies to any item -- lawnmowers, mugs, sunglasses,
electronic equipment, magazines, and shoes -- that is sold in trade, and
specifically it protects the name and logotype under which those
products are sold. Trademark in the U.S. is good indefinitely -- but
only as long as it is being used and "vigourously" protected against
infringement. If a trademark does not appear in trade for a legnth of
time (generally accepted as seven full yeas) it is considered to be a
"lapsed" trademark and anyone may use it.
Now...here's where it gets tricky. Because of a little loophole in the
laws, you cannot copyright a title. That's why there are numerous songs,
books, and even movies with the same title. So how can the publishers of
books or magazines or movies protect their titles? Why, with TRADEMARKS,
of course.
One book or one song sheet cannot claim a trademark. You have to show
the goveernment FIVE different labelled items or five labels themselves
to demonstrate that you are in trade with a name and a logotype. Ever
wonder why when a book is released you see all those free pin-back
buttons and free postcards and T-Shirts with its logotype? To get a
trademark and protect the title, that's why! The U.S. government has
decided that the title of print or braodcast material (including its
logotype) if released in five formats or as a series of five
publications can be used as a tradmark -- and that in considering print
and broadcast materials, the COVER or the TITLE SCREEN or a PRINT
ADVERTISEMENT can be considered a "product label" for the line of
products. And so can the distinctive theme music. And so can "the
likenesses of all prominent characters."
Now let's get back to fair usage, as i explained it above. Fair usage
allows the publisher of a magazine (a trademarked magaine, with
copyrighted contents) to clip a little bit from another copyrighted item
for the purposes of review. It does not, however, allow that magazine to
use the logotype of the reviewed material as its own logotype or on its
cover unless permission is granted -- for that would violate TRADEMARK
law. Fair usage ONLY applies to copyright material.
All of this is so well known to publishers that one rarly finds a
company like Fox suing print magaiznes over tradmark or copyright
infringement. If you run a long article on the X-Files (with a couple of
pictures and brief dialogue samples from the show) as part of a review
within your magaine, and if you attach Fox's copyright notice to the
images and dialogue, and if you don't place the Fox-owned logotype or
the likenesses of the prominent characters on your cover without a
signed release from Fox (you can announce the article's presense in
plain type, of course, without a release) -- why then, you will not get
in trouble.
But now...along comes the web. And the old rules don't apply.
We are all pretty sure how copyright will work on the web once someone
gets around to testing it in court. We think that the right to copy will
be the same on the web as it is in print or broadcast and we assume our
copyrights will be protected. I personally strongly believe in this
vision of the future of copyright on the web: My web pages each carry a
copyright notice at the bottom. No one has permission to "view as
source" and copy them. Period. And that's not unique to me -- you'll see
copyright notices on the web pages of almost every individual who has
ever worked in the print or broadcast media.
But trademark on the web? The truth is that no one knows how the rules
of trademark will apply on the web because the rules have not yet been
written and the analogies with other media break down.
Question 1: What's the "cover" of a web site?
No one has yet defined that in case law. But unless we know what the
cover of text materail is, we don't know what the "label" is. If we
don;t know what the "copver" is, we don't know whether we have violated
trademark law by using someone's logotype or the distinctive likenesses
of ther characters on the top page of a site -- or narrowly escaped
doing so by using their logotype on a URL three levels down from the top
of the stack. But what if Yahoo or Alta Vista index that
three-levels-down URL with the logotype? Is IT then the "cover" or top
of its own stack? In hypertext markup language, no one can hear you say
"stop!" The links go round in circles and their is no "cover" sheet.
Question 2: How many web page designers obtained releases from Fox for
the use of the trademarked logotype or likenesses of prominent
characters?
Not any, i'd guess.
Question 3: Is fan-fic "fair usage" under the copyright laws -- as a
parody or satire might be -- or is it a violation of trademark laws?
A good case could be made that fan-fic violates trademark, for it
constitutes an unauthorized use of the characters -- but there is also
long precedent for such material being published in fanzines without
prosecution. However, fanzines have circulations in the dozens or
hundreds. Is the web a "fanzine"? With MILLIONS of people able to
access your page? I doubt it.
Question 4: So...What is Fox protecting?
Not their copyrights but their trademarks.
Question 5: Are they within their rights?
We'll never know...unless someone takes them to court and new case law
is made.
Question 6: Do i think the lawyers at Fox are making asses of themselves
by coming down on their loyal fans like a ton of briks?
Yes, i do.
They could have gotten the results they wanted in an equitable way,
while keeping everyone happy. All they would have needed to do was
advise web page publishers of two things:
1) Every URL using Fox images or logotypes MUST have proper copyright
and trademark notices on it, with the wording, size, and placement of
the notices to be approved by Fox.
2) The web creators must PAY Fox for the right to use Fox's trademarks
and copyrights. Payment could be a nominal one dollar per URL. This
would ensure that Fox retained all legal control of their property,
while still allowing the goodwill of fans to work in their favour. There
is extensive precedent in law for such nominal payments being accepted
as evidence of full and vigourous trademeark and copyright protection.
Question 7: Why didn't Fox do this?
Well, i didn't write the original subject line to this thread, but i
think it says it all.
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
David & Rene' Rodrigues
Jason H. wrote:
>
> Well said Al ;)
>
> As I am sitting next to Angela Flinn (my significant other) and know she is
> currently working on a response to intellectual copyright.... I will just
> add my two cents..
>
of http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html
The use of profanity shows a lack of thought.
Stef Davies
>> The problem isn't with the networks, it's the way the law is
>> written. The sites in question should get in contact with Fox officials,
>> and try to work out some type of agreement, Other sites legally
>> carry copywrite/trademark info from other shows. I'm not sure
>> of the details on what needs to be done; it may be as simple as
>> listing the appropriate copywrite/trademark notices.
Tried that: didn't work. Fox Network didn't even bother to respond.
You can't work out an agreement with someone who won't talk to you :-(
Stef
"Scully, you are the *only* one I trust
.....except of course for that blonde woman at the UN"
Stef Davies
>> There is no excuse for this language. I strongly suggest you purchase a
>> good old fashioned thesaurus. The book has plenty of suggestions for
>> intelligent words to express your point of view. I do not appreciate the
>> language because it shows a lack of academic scholarship.
But since I'm not submitting an academic essay, the lack of academic
scholarship isn't really relevant, is it? And my choice of vocabulary
expressed very eloquently exactly how I felt. It was also extremely
effective in getting people to read the post, which was the aim.
>> As for the content, please learn the words "intellectual property."
There seems in fact to *be* some doubt about their right to do this. But
even if it should transpire that they *have* the right, we object to the
way it is being done, question the necessity of it, and are searching for
a way forward.
Stef Davies
James M. Politte
> There is no excuse for this language. I strongly suggest you purchase a
> good old fashioned thesaurus. The book has plenty of suggestions for
> intelligent words to express your point of view. I do not appreciate the
> language because it shows a lack of academic scholarship.
This is not my fight and I could honestly care less, but when a poster has
to stoop to upbraiding an individual for their lack of proper spelling
and/or grammar rather than focusing on the content of the post itself, it
is a sign of weakness of position. You've done the literary equivalent of
calling them a "poopy-head", as school children often do when they've lost
a fight but feel that they MUST have the last word.
I can see by your use of the words "academic scholarship" together that
you do, indeed, own a thesaurus yourself and are not afraid of being
redundant in your use of it. :)
Come on guys, play nice and don't call names. It makes us ALL look bad.
--Monica E. Barry
ne...@smartnet.net
David & Rene' Rodrigues
> No. "What we have here is failure to communicate." Fox doesn't seem to
> understand that we aren't doing any harm -- in fact, WE'RE HELPING!!!
> We're providing them with free advertising. They should be *flattered*
> that fans have gone to this much trouble.
>
> In my mind, this is what Fox is trying to do. None of us are trying to
> make money off of their show. We just want places to congregate and
> discuss. They're trying to dismantle our playground and erect a shopping
> mall that carries nothing but *their* merchandise. With a big parking lot
> they'll charge exorbitant fees on.
Copyright infringement is wrong. This is why Fox did what it did. It is
their property and they have to protect it. This situation simply means
one must get permission.
Mishka2
In article <3274B1...@luckymojo.com>, catherine yronwode
<c...@luckymojo.com> writes:
>1) Every URL using Fox images or logotypes MUST have proper copyright
>and trademark notices on it, with the wording, size, and placement of
>the notices to be approved by Fox.
>
>2) The web creators must PAY Fox for the right to use Fox's trademarks
>and copyrights. Payment could be a nominal one dollar per URL. This
>would ensure that Fox retained all legal control of their property,
>while still allowing the goodwill of fans to work in their favour. There
>is extensive precedent in law for such nominal payments being accepted
>as evidence of full and vigourous trademeark and copyright protection.
>
In the letter from David Oakes to Gil, it said Gil had used
trademarked/copyrighted logos, etc. "without permission
or attribution". I think I remember hearing that Gil (or maybe
it was another web page creator that got shut down by Fox;
I'm not sure) DID try to pay a nominal fee for their use,
but he (Gil or whoever it was) never got the O.K. from Fox.
Maybe this is just a matter of him (and others) giving attribution
or a copyright notice on the web pages where trademarked/
copyrighted material is used.
Thanks for all the great legal info, Catherine. I've been
wondering about this issue. One more question, though:
could the way, up 'til now, web creators have basically been
left alone when they've borrowed copyrighted material
(without malice or intent to profit financially from it) be
considered a legal precedent? Even though there has
never been a court case on it (AFAIK)?
-- Miskha
aaron stuart
In <327521...@slip.net> David & Rene' Rodrigues <Peng...@slip.net>
writes:
I have replied to the Rodrigues already, but i thought all of you
might would like to hear what I said.
I quoted from my communications law book that a independent writer or
artist could not be comsidered an employee, and therefore truely be
considered infringing on the copyright laws. This may sound confusing,
and I will try to explain.
Those of you who have made up webpages and stories and artwork based
on the X-Files are considered independent artists and writers. Most of
you do not wish to sell your material, and therefore do not receive
monetary gains. You are also not a part of Fox, Chris Carter, or CC's
production company. Since you do not receive supervision, a place to
work, fringe benefits, or a long-term salary, you are not am employee.
Furthermore, the idea behind Chris Carter's "The X-Files" has become
public property, through the various shows that have sprung up around
it. The same goes for "Millennium," because of "The Profiler."
Through the concept of public domain and property, anyone can use it
and should and could not be sued for infringement or damages. There is
such a thing as free speech, people. You can look under the First
Admendment for that.
Another area that those of us who have written works of X-fiction or
have create our own X-pages is called "ADAPTATIONS." To quote from
"The Law of Public Communication," 'The author of a novel or other work
may create a derivative work or authorize others to create any number
of sequels, films, plays and cartoons from an original.' Some will
say, "But Melissa, we didn't get permission, what should we do?" Well,
you could get permission now. Or what and see if the Supreme Court
changes it mind and says that the copyright law does extend to the
Internet.
You see, currently, it doesn't. And since there is no law preventing
copyright infringement on the Internet currently on the books, and
since the idea that these webpages could have possibly occurred to
Chris Carter or to Fox when the show first aired, it cannot be
considered copyright infringement. Just ask Paramount Pictures. They
lost a case based on the use of the song "Merry-Go-Round" in the movie
"Medium Cool" because when the movie was released in 1969 the idea of
video recorders and cassettes was not even around. The license that
covered the song did not cover that sort of transmission. I wonder if
Chris Carter thought of that in 1992?
That's just my two cents, see if you like it
Melissa Stuart
"I rarely say anything until I get really pissed off. Then, hold onto
your beer cans, 'cause hell's comin' to town." -- the unnamed cowboy
-- "Hellfire and Wolf Cries" -- coming soon -- not really an X-File
story, I just thought it was a really cool quote, don't you?
mi...@the-wire.com
The lawyers at Fox love to close down fan pages. XFiles, Simpsons, and other sites have been hit in the past. I keep a list of closed fan pages and other trademark-infringement cases on the web at:
http://www.muchmusic.com/muchmusic/cyberfax/trademark.html
Check it out for more info.
*********************************************************
- Misha Glouberman, Webmaster Citytv/MuchMusic/Bravo
"It should be possible for anybody to add comments to any page on the web"
find out how: http://www.muchmusic.com/muchmusic/cyberfax/annot.html
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:11:13 +0100 (BST), "Stef Davies" <stephani...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> Fox Network have closed down Gil Treviso's 'Millenium' website
--
Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.
ke...@ro.com
We can (and I'm sure will) argue the legality of this even among
ourselves, but what it boils down to is that Fox is slapping their
most loyal fans in the face! A simple note *asking* people to modify
their web sites or not use such and such graphic would have produced
much better results than just slapping people with a blanket 'cease
and desist' letter from a lawyer. They refuse to negotiate or
compromise, they just want the web sites shut down. Period. All of
them. It appears that Chris Carter himself if behind this or at least
gave it his approval (according to the lawyer) so what does that say
to us? All of our hard work and time and energy that we have devoted
to promoting their show(s) is being spit upon by these people that we
thought valued us...
Don't kid yourself, this is not a legal battle over copywrite. That
is just the excuse they are using to pull this off. They want to
close down *all* the *unauthorized channels of communication* so that
the only information and communication about the shows at Fox go
through *their* monitored websites... This has nothing to do with
nude pictures or copy write...
ah...@ix.netcom.com(aaron stuart) wrote:
Kelsy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Gossamer Project Archives
USA http://gossamer.simplenet.com
Australia http://www.bns.com.au/alee/xfiles.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stew Barnes
In article <32741D...@worldnet.att.net>, Affable Al
<Affa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Now, excuse MY language, but this is no time to pull a holier-than-thou
attitude. Fox is
> blatantly spitting on fans of its programs and may even be straying into
violation of
> the First Amendment, so give the thesaurus argument a rest.
Congrats! In a post filled with misinformation, this takes the cake. Has
Fox assumed the role of the Federal or a state or loval government? If
not, they can hardly be in "violation of the First Amendment." The
Constitution is available many places on line; perhaps it is time you
read it.
Stew
Stef Davies
Kelsy wrote:
>. It appears that Chris Carter himself if behind this or at least
>> gave it his approval (according to the lawyer) so what does that say
>> to us? All of our hard work and time and energy that we have devoted
>> to promoting their show(s) is being spit upon by these people that we
>> thought valued us...
Very sadly, I have heard this too. Chris Carter himself is keen on the Fox
Network's enforcement of their "rights" in this area. Nothing but the
Official Web-site to be available, but fans can make suggestions as to what
they would see on that website.
I can only speak for myself, but I felt as if I had been personally let
down when I found out that CC approved of what was being done. I among
many others have invested a great deal of time and no small amount of
money (it's all proportional to what you have available, isn't it) in
trying to produce something which would be a good reflection on the show.
And all our creativity is to be stifled - we are not to be allowed to
express our admiration for the show, the actors etc, except in a tightly
controlled official forum where our input will count for very little.
It makes you wonder why you bother, doesn't it. Foolishly, I was so sure
that the surfer-dude-guy would side with freedom of expression, and would
encourage the corporate lawyers to work with us to try and find a way to
protect whatever needs to be protected without stifling the spontaneous
creativity of the shows' most loyal admirers.
Deep sigh,
In sadness
Lisa Covey
Okay, I came in late on this discussion...
WHAT exactly did fox do? can someone Email me and tell me what has gone on
because it seems and sounds like they got pissed that someone used their
logo without their permission... now I don't knwo about you but it seems
like alot of sites out there have the xfiles logo out there...
WHY? why would fox do such a thing a remove the freedom to ADVERTISE for
their OWN SHOW... this is free advertising... oh well sounds like big
brother has the best of us again...
-Syche
--
"Never..let your conscience be your guide"
--Lucas Buck, American Gothic
Athair
babydoll wrote:
>
> Does anyone have the FOX e-mail address, where straight-to-the-point,
> loud and protesting mail can be sent ???
>
> babydoll
>
> GET OFF OUR BACKS FOX !!!!!!!
We are currently putting up protest pages, mine is not the 'official'
one, but it has all the addresses I'm currently aware of, and other
info. I will update it every time I get new info, which is probably
every hour. Address in sig.
--
***************************** Athair ****************************
Email - sa...@online.ee
http://www.online.ee/~sami
*****************************************************************
Free Speech Is Out There!
*****************************************************************
Larry Davis
In article <3273D1...@slip.net>, Peng...@slip.net says...
>
>The moral of the story is: Learn the law, obey the law, and when in
>doubt, seek the advice of a lawyer. This will keep people out of
>trouble. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^^^
Hi O.J. Good to see you here!
Mishka2
Here I haven't even received my blue "Free Speech is Out There" ribbon
yet, and I feel like I should start wearing a black armband. Are we out
of hope now? Is there no way to stop this?
-- Mishka
In article <303430011...@ukonline.co.uk>, "Stef Davies"
<stephani...@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> Nothing but the
>Official Web-site to be available, but fans can make suggestions as to
what
>they would see on that website.
>
>I can only speak for myself, but I felt as if I had been personally let
>down when I found out that CC approved of what was being done. I among
>many others have invested a great deal of time and no small amount of
>money (it's all proportional to what you have available, isn't it) in
>trying to produce something which would be a good reflection on the show.
>And all our creativity is to be stifled - we are not to be allowed to
>express our admiration for the show, the actors etc, except in a tightly
>controlled official forum where our input will count for very little.
>
>It makes you wonder why you bother, doesn't it. Foolishly, I was so sure
>that the surfer-dude-guy would side with freedom of expression, and would
>encourage the corporate lawyers to work with us to try and find a way to
>protect whatever needs to be protected without stifling the spontaneous
>creativity of the shows' most loyal admirers.
>
>
*** Save the Fan Websites -- FREE SPEECH IS OUT THERE! ***
Jason Christman
bkus...@ix.netcom.com (Brian E. Kushner) wrote:
>"Stef Davies" <stephani...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'm sorry for the strong language, but there is really no other way to
>>describe the way they behave towards devoted fans who spend their own
>>money and considerable time working hard for the shows we care about.
>>
>>Fox Network have closed down Gil Treviso's 'Millenium' website. He worked
>>to set up a newsgroup, write a faq and set up a website so that it'd be
>>ready for when the show sites. NOT ONLY THAT, and far, far worse, they have
>>caused his e-mail account to be closed as well, so he cannot oversee the
>>fanfic mailing list either, or use it for any other purpose.
>>
>>They shut my X-Files website down in the Spring, so I know how Gil is
>>feeling, although they weren't quite spiteful enough to have my e-mail
>>account suspended too.
>>
>>Please write to every e-mail address you can
>>get hold of to let them know what you think of this. Surely they should
>>realise that if they were to work *with* us instead of against us, they
>>could harness all the goodwill and effort we're prepared to make. Far more
>>beneficial for them than this highhanded and unpleasantly bullying
>>behaviour.
>>
>>One to start with might be:
>>
>>DAV...@foxinc.com
>>
>>who was the one who originally wrote to Gil.
>>
>>
>>Stef.
>>
>>"Scully, you are the *only* one I trust
>>
>>.....except of course for that blonde woman at the UN"
>>
>>
>I've been fighting with Oates for awhile about a screensaver....He
>made me take it down.....They are amazing there.....They spend
>millions advertising their shows abd then shut down FREE PUBLICITY at
>the heart of their fan base.... I faxed Chris Carter about Oates a
>week or so ago to make him aware of what was going on....I don't think
>he knows......
>Brian
Hate to tell you Brian, but Chris Carter does know. He's actually the
person behind the shut down of the un-official Millenium and X-File
pages. There is a massive protest of the this if any of you are
interested. Check out this page:
http://www.online.ee/~sami/tfsiot.html
Jason Christman
EMAIL: jas...@zeus.jersey.net
ke...@ro.com
No propaganda here, just the facts first hand and you can make up your
own mind about this protest movement you've been hearing about. We
think it's wrong for Fox and 1013 to try and limit fan sites on the
web, but we completely understand and agree with their copyright
concerns. If it means taking down or limiting the images and sounds
used on these sites, then so be it. They _don't_ have the right to
limit the _information_ on these pages, in our (my!) humble opinion.
I don't want to start an unwanted thread here, but it's only fair to
us and Fox to tell the facts about what happened, so here they are.
Gil offered to post the lawyer's version of what happened to the
mailing list, but the lawyer declined. To the very best of my
knowledge he agrees with this version...
Subject: my account of these events
From: Gil Trevizo <tre...@chaos.taylored.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 08:40:15 -0500 (EST)
So many people have asked me to send a complete account of what has
happened in this matter that I am doin this in one big email. If you
recieve this, then I was told either by you or by an associate that
you requested such information. Please use this however you see fit
and I am more than happy to see it distributed whereever and however
you wish to.
______________________________________________________________________
On Thursday I recieved an email from Mr David Oakes with Chris Fusco's
email address in the Cc: field. This email told me to remove images on
my website for the television series Millennium that were copyrighted
to Fox Broadcasting.
I replied to both addresses, telling them that I had put a lot of work
and effort into my website. I told them that I created this website to
help build an Internet community for the series. There were no
advertisements on the site and there wasn't even a counter on it. I
did not get any financial gain from it, nor I did I do it for my
personal aggrandizement. I did it because I wanted to provide
information on the show to people curious about it, and to point them
towards on-line forums where they could congregate and discuss the
series. I did it to help.
On Friday morning I recieved a reply from Mr Oakes. It stated that
the creators of the series had put a lot of work and effort into their
show and deserved control over how it would be portrayed on the
Internet. He said that if I was a true fan I would take down the
website entirely.
This confused me because I thought that Fox was only concerned about
the copyrighted images on my website. I sent back a reply asking them
to clarify this issue. I also told them that I would be willing to
take down the images but that it was not right for them to force me to
take down the entire website. I went on to tell them that I would work
to protect other unauthorized websites from being treating in this
manner and notify their superiors about this situation.
At this time I posted a request to a number of Internet forums for
Millennium and The X-Files, asking fans to send email responding to
this issue to the two addresses on the correspondence sent me: Mr
Oakes and Mr Fusco. So much email was sent protesting this policy that
I understand that the Fox mail server was overloaded.
Mr Oakes responded to my most recent email on the subject by
contacting my university and telling them to take care of the
situation immediately. Fox wanted my website to go down that Friday
before their official website was premiered that evening. They took
this action even though I explained that I was willing to take down
the images from my website, which I planned to do the next day.
In fear of a lawsuit from Fox, my university responded by locking me
out of my email account. I logged off from my account around 7:30pm
and when I returned this was the message I recieved:
Sorry, your account has been disabled. To see about having
your account re-activated, please send mail to
secu...@utep.edu
or call the ITSD Security Staff at: (915) 747-HELP
to inquire about this matter.
Thank You!!
This not only restricted my Internet access, but also kept me from
taking down the images on the website.
I was able to get alternate Internet access, and brought news of my
predicament to the fans. Many were angered by this turn of events, and
a protest movement began against this policy.
On Monday morning, I went to my university and talked with the Dean of
Students and a legal representative of the college. They explained
that the university could be sued by Fox for providing me the
resources to put up the website. They also explained that I might be
able to be sued by the Board of Regents for misuse of university
resources. After agreeing to take the entire website down, not simply
the images, my university gave me back my email account. I promptly
disabled the website.
I then telephoned David Oakes. We had a long conversation about the
situation, which was cordial and completely respectful but ultimately
proved fruitless. I told Mr Oakes that I would be posting an account
of our conversation to the Internet forums for X-Files and Millennium,
and offered to forward an account written by him. Instead he declined
and asked that I write a completely objective and unbiased account,
which I did. Here is the text of that account:
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:25:51 -0700 (MST)
> Subject: Websites -- the Response from Fox
>
> I just got off the phone with David Oakes, after a long conversation with
> him about their policy on unauthorized Millennium websites. For the sake
> of both sides in this, I promised him (and myself) that I would write an
> objective unbiased account of our discussion.
>
> I tried to negotiate something whereby fans could create their own
> websites for Millennium in some kind of compromise between flagrant use of
> copyrighted images and controlled use of these images, but such a
> situation proved impossible at this time, and if Fox is successful in
> their concerns, unnecessary as well.
>
> Fox's position is that fans should direct their concerns to the official
> Millennium site rather than creating websites for those concerns, giving
> feedback to the official site webmaster for what they want out of a site.
> Fox plans to follow the practice of giving fans a voice in the ongoing
> creation of the official site -- if a fan has a reasonable request for a
> new feature, they will be able to get that feature added to the official
> site. According to Fox, because fans will be able to be represented by the
> official site, there shouldn't be a need for an unofficial site,
> especially at such an early stage in the development of both the official
> site and Millennium fandom.
>
> Even if there was such a need, Mr Oakes requests that we respect the hard
> work the show's creators have put into this new series, and give them the
> courtesy of allowing them to release (or withhold) images, materials and
> information about the show as they choose. He points to the images
> originally put up by well-intended websites that have been manipulated
> into faked pornographic images and used in unauthorized publications as
> examples of how this practice of unauthorized use of copyrighted images
> leads to severe emotional as well as financial distress among the cast and
> crew that bring us this great series.
>
> And he made it clear that the creators of the series are aware of the fan
> response to Fox's policy of protecting their copyrights and the series'
> portrayal on the Internet, and are very concerned about the uncontrolled
> nature and possibility for abuse within that portrayal. It was made
> obvious to me that Chris Carter and the rest of the creative staff at
> Ten-Thirteen do not just approve of this policy, but have initiated it as
> well. Based on what he said, I believe he is telling the truth in this
> matter, and that Chris Carter and crew do feel that Fox's policy on
> unauthorized websites is the correct way to go about this.
>
> I presented the argument that fans would be unhappy with this policy, and
> would only serve to alienate them. I also argued that the official site
> could not involve all possible aspects of Millennium fandom, in particular
> fan fiction. Mr Oakes believes that the official site should be able to
> accomplish that and seems to be willing to be flexible where it cannot,
> but he was emphatic on the point that those seeking to create their own
> websites should check with Fox first, and pointed to the email addresses
> on the official sites and Fox home pages as methods of communicating such
> a wish.
>
> I wished Mr Oakes well in his endeavors with the official site, but stated
> that I was unconvinced in this matter. I told him that I would be taking
> down my Millennium website, which I have done. I told him that I would ask
> those sending email to him and Chris Fusco to cease that campaign, as I
> believe it's done all that it can possibly do -- so I thank those that've
> sent mail (I'll do so personally in time) but request that we end the
> email campaign in this respect. I told him that I would present these
> facts objectively and not influence the reaction to this post, which I
> believe I have done.
>
> Lastly I told him that while I would not encourage anyone to stop the
> campaigns that are being planned against Fox for their policy on websites,
> I would be graciously bowing out of this fight, because I believe we have
> done all we could. And as I've said before on the lists, if the series'
> creators feel this way about the fans and their websites then I don't
> think more can be done, and I personally feel that these people, while
> brilliant, are not worth the struggle.
>
> And in postscript, I said in no uncertain words that if Fox tried to do
> with the fan fiction what they're doing with the websites, I will fight
> them with everything I have in me, all the way to the courts.
>
> Mr Oakes was relatively kind and certainly respectful in his conversation.
> I'd ask that any further correspondence that might be sent to him or the
> rest of the staff at Fox be in the same manner.
I am now only nominally involved in the effort to protect unofficial
fan activity on the Internet, as Chris Carter's betrayal of the fans
has deeply disillusioned me about all fandom. Since then I have been
trying to get my affairs back in order and help where I can. If you
have any further questions, please feel free to email me at
tre...@chaos.taylored.com where I will answer all messages promptly
and completely.
Thank you,
Gil Trevizo
_________________________________________________________________________