Fox lawyers now going after Buffy fan sites
Teddi Litman
http://www.tvbarn.com/120699.html
Apparently the same law firm that Twentieth Television hired to
"protect" the intellectual property shows on Fox, is now going after
"Buffy the Vampire
Slayer" fan sites. "Buffy" is on the WB; but Fox produces it.
What is really interesting is this practice is in contradiction
to the WB's and "Buffy" creator, Joss Whedon's own precedents of
*supporting* fan sites!
What's particularly obnoxious is one of the first things they
demanded removed from a site were *episode transcripts*
... a practice for which Mr. Whedon apparently indicated
his support during a fan convention.
I don't recall hearing of them going after transcriptions
of already aired episodes before. Well, they are going
after them now!
Teddi
stormlantern
Yes, and the article also mentions that Fox is the only network abusing
its netfans this way. It is SOOO stupid - haven't they got a clue as to
why TXF keeps winning online polls? I can't tell you how a visit to a
fansite such as "The Haven for the FBI's Most Unwanted" lifts my spirits
when I'm ready to write off the show altogether. FOX OWES fansites, not
the other way around! JMO.
>
>
--
Hester
a.k.a. "stormlantern" - (definition): wreak a little
havoc, shed a little
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Iocaste
If people really want to protest FOX, I think someone should declare some
coordinated time during which _all_ fans take down _all_ of their websites
devoted to FOX shows, or all the X-Files sites, or similar.
After all, I'm sure FOX likes the publicity the sites generate -- they just
don't like certain type of "infringing" material. And I think it would scare
the hell out of them to see their shows _disappear_ as a web presence for a day
or for a week.
I think that would be a great way to protest.
iocaste
ioc...@aol.com
________________________________________________
"If the Apocalypse comes, beep me."
-- Buffy
Kim
>
>
>Yes, and the article also mentions that Fox is the only network abusing
>its netfans this way.
You're flicking a Bic trying to light Shea Stadium, Hester. Here, let me shed
some REAL light here.
Fox created "The X-Files" by spending tens of millions of dollars. It owns
"The X-Files." It expects a return on the investment. It expects to control
how "The X-Files" is presented. Ownership is a bundle of rights. Ownership is
not a feel-good loosey-goosey concept dependent on mood, menstrual cycle or
good PR. If a fansite is content heavy enough to dilute the value of The
X-Files as produced, and sold, by Fox, then Fox has the right to shut it down.
Basically the fan sites that have gotten shut down are promoting the show for
free, yes, but they're also giving away what Fox would like to sell, and it
isn't theirs to give away.
There is no difference in how Fox treats its owned properties with how I treat
my owned property. If someone was setting up a dance club in my basement for
their fun or profit, no matter how cool a dance club it is, if I didn't invite
them, I'd tell them to get their butts out. Same with Fox asserting its rights
over its properties.
This is really not a tough intellectual concept. Work on this for awhile and
get back to me.
>It is SOOO stupid - haven't they got a clue as to
>why TXF keeps winning online polls?
Online polls don't mean a damn thing. Nielsen ratings do. If I can go to a
fansite and "see" a show I missed by viewing clips, reading transcripts,
hearing wavs or seeing still photos, why should I tune in to their show on
Sunday night, or M-->F on FX? Hmmm? The network exists by (1) selling
advertising space (2) selling shows to networks (3) selling merchandise
(videos, photos and scripts included). A content-heavy fansite makes all three
somewhat superfluous.
I love the Haven, I loved TD's site, but the law's clear on this.
>I can't tell you how a visit to a
>fansite such as "The Haven for the FBI's Most Unwanted" lifts my spirits
>when I'm ready to write off the show altogether.
Write it off RIGHT NOW, Hester, because what you want more than anything is
probably not going to happen, and you'll be even more incredibly bitter come
May,2000. Carter has said he is not steering the show toward romance, you've
got ONE thing on the mind with the X_Files as evidenced by your posts here, and
it's Not. Going. To. Happen. Stick with it for what The X-Files is, or leave
now and don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.
>FOX OWES fansites, not
>the other way around! JMO.
My God, you have strange concepts of law.
What would you do if someone said 'Gee, Hester, I'm a big fan of your shiny new
car. I don't really care that you paid for it and own it. I love it! I want
everyone to appreciate it!' then took your car away from you? Would you call
the police? Or would you say, 'Gosh, I owe that fellow who just stole my car,
for all his nice statements about my car!' Even YOU can't get the answer to
this question wrong.
*~*~*~*~*~*
Kim
Journ...@aol.com
http://journeytox.simplenet.com <------ Note New URL
"Did I look adorable?" Mitch Pileggi, Season 4 Gag Reels :-)
"Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling
wherever
On 07 Dec 1999 23:10:15 GMT, that poster we all love,
journ...@aol.com (Kim) summoned up all their courage and blurted
out:
>Sigh! Hester said:
>
>>
>>
>>Yes, and the article also mentions that Fox is the only network abusing
>>its netfans this way.
>
>You're flicking a Bic trying to light Shea Stadium, Hester. Here, let me shed
>some REAL light here.
>
> Fox created "The X-Files" by spending tens of millions of dollars. It owns
>"The X-Files." It expects a return on the investment. It expects to control
>how "The X-Files" is presented. Ownership is a bundle of rights. Ownership is
>not a feel-good loosey-goosey concept dependent on mood, menstrual cycle or
>good PR. If a fansite is content heavy enough to dilute the value of The
>X-Files as produced, and sold, by Fox, then Fox has the right to shut it down.
>Basically the fan sites that have gotten shut down are promoting the show for
>free, yes, but they're also giving away what Fox would like to sell, and it
>isn't theirs to give away.
>
>There is no difference in how Fox treats its owned properties with how I treat
>my owned property. If someone was setting up a dance club in my basement for
>their fun or profit, no matter how cool a dance club it is, if I didn't invite
>them, I'd tell them to get their butts out. Same with Fox asserting its rights
>over its properties.
But it's more complicated than that - it's not as cut and dried as
your basement. First of all, there's the whole "fair use" argument,
whereby it's legally acceptable to "borrow" someone's property for the
use of parody, review, etc. While sites that are graphics, wavs, and
video heavy may be stretching this concept to the breaking point,
there has been a lot of recent discussion about intellectual property
and television fandom, though that was more along the lines of
fanfiction, which FOX seems to have less of a problem with.
>This is really not a tough intellectual concept. Work on this for awhile and
>get back to me.
>
>
>>It is SOOO stupid - haven't they got a clue as to
>>why TXF keeps winning online polls?
>
>Online polls don't mean a damn thing. Nielsen ratings do. If I can go to a
>fansite and "see" a show I missed by viewing clips, reading transcripts,
>hearing wavs or seeing still photos, why should I tune in to their show on
>Sunday night, or M-->F on FX? Hmmm? The network exists by (1) selling
>advertising space (2) selling shows to networks (3) selling merchandise
>(videos, photos and scripts included). A content-heavy fansite makes all three
>somewhat superfluous.
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I don't know of a person out there
that would prefer "viewing clips, reading transcripts, hearing wavs or
seeing still photos" to actually *seeing* the episode. All it does is
whet your appetite for the actual episode, the same way that trailers
do.
>I love the Haven, I loved TD's site, but the law's clear on this.
It is, but I would argue not so much the legal standpoint of this as
the pratical standpoint. FOX is shooting themselves in the foot.
They're just not being smart about it. They have everything to lose
and nothing to gain by going after fan-run websites. They may be fuzzy
when it comes to copyright infringement, but the reality is that they
are excellent advertisement. If they weren't, then why would Warner
Brothers and other studios encourage them? That's intelligent
marketing. What FOX is doing is not. If the copyright was really being
endangered by content-heavy websites, then why is FOX the only one
that's doing this?
wherever, at primenet dot com
http://listen.to/thex-files
GABAL OBSSE LLL cog8 Sick!Fruitbat
Teddi Litman
Iocaste wrote:
> I've said it before, but here's my idea:
>
> If people really want to protest FOX, I think someone should declare some
> coordinated time during which _all_ fans take down _all_ of their websites
> devoted to FOX shows, or all the X-Files sites, or similar.
>
> After all, I'm sure FOX likes the publicity the sites generate -- they just
> don't like certain type of "infringing" material.
If they now have a problem with written transcripts of already
aired episodes (not being sold for profit), I can't help
wondering what type of material they don't consider
"infringing" on these sites. As the person who transcribed
the "Buffy" episodes indicated, fanfic may be next.
To extend that further, so could episode summaries
and reviews.
> And I think it would scare
> the hell out of them to see their shows _disappear_ as a web presence for a day
> or for a week.
>
It would appear that this is *exactly* what they want. It doesn't
seem to make any sense; but apparently, they are rather
clueless about the whole thing. I still don't see what they
*gain* from going after fan sites the way they have been.
Obviously they disagree with our claims that fan sites
effect their shows in a *positive* way ... i.e. free
promotion. However, the fact remains that they
are paying good money to lawyers to do what they are doing.
So the fact that they *lose* something (e.g. MONEY) is
blatently obvious. If the idea is to only spend money to
make money, I just don't get how they justify the expenditure.
>
> I think that would be a great way to protest.
>
The article includes a link to the "Buffy" fans protest site. I think
they might have a good idea. Instead of writing to Fox, they've
decided to write to the mainstream media. Incidentally, they
want us to join them.
Teddi
Teddi Litman
Kim wrote:
>
>
> There is no difference in how Fox treats its owned properties with how I treat
> my owned property. If someone was setting up a dance club in my basement for
> their fun or profit, no matter how cool a dance club it is, if I didn't invite
> them, I'd tell them to get their butts out. Same with Fox asserting its rights
> over its properties.
It's not a great analogy, Kim. You have something *big* to gain
by chasing the dance club out of your basement. Namely,
a good night's sleep and protection of your private things
from a bunch of rowdy strangers. Plus, it likely wouldn't
cost you anything to get them out; you just have to call
the police. Evidence that fan web sites harm the shows
significantly is shaky at best. There certainly is no evidence
they can do the same degree that a dance club in your
basement can harm your private home. And all this
protection of their property costs Fox real dollars.
Those lawyers charge big bucks for every
threatening form letter they send to the owner of a fan site.
It's not so much that Fox doesn't have some rights
to protect their property. It's the fact that the
extremes to which they are going to do this just
makes no sense. A better analogy would be
hiring 24 hr armed guards to keep the neighborhood
kids from walking on your lawn.
>
>
> Online polls don't mean a damn thing. Nielsen ratings do. If I can go to a
> fansite and "see" a show I missed by viewing clips, reading transcripts,
> hearing wavs or seeing still photos, why should I tune in to their show on
> Sunday night, or M-->F on FX? Hmmm? The network exists by (1) selling
> advertising space (2) selling shows to networks (3) selling merchandise
> (videos, photos and scripts included). A content-heavy fansite makes all three
> somewhat superfluous.
Oh Kim, I just can't buy that. Even if you can find *one* wierdo
phile who will decide "Ok, I've read a transcript of the dialogue,
saw ten still photos, viewed a one minute video clip, and listened
to three wav files. I don't need to watch the show now," there are
at least several thousand who do watch the show after seeing that stuff.
I can buy that web sites hurt (3) to some degree. (Not really though,
as the type of fans who buy this stuff are not going to be stopped
by material they can see on some web site. eg If the fact that I can and
*do* tape the episodes on my very own VCR doesn't stop
me from shelling out cash for the same episodes on video, why the
heck would a 1 minute Real Video clip stop me?) However, I still don't
see the sense in all this to protect their profits from their sales of a few
thousand
scripts. (FWIW, I've bought a few scripts myself ... even though I know
the transcripts are readily available on the web.)
Teddi
Kimba
wherever wrote:
> I love ya, Kim, but I just have to disagree on this one...
I have to disagree as well...
Could I toss out my take on this..
Yes I understand the the concept of intellectual copyright- as an artist, I have to
understand it. And- knowing that anything I create could be put on the web. And to
be pawned off as someone else's work? That worries me greatly.But that's not what's
happening here.No one is profiting by these sites. If they are yank 'em...
If someone takes my work, abuses it, puts it on a web site to denigrate, or
subjugate me, then I obviously want no part of it.
Yet Howard Stern does it all the time and there is no response.
If somebody puts my work on a website, as a tribute- because they like my work-
I'll be flattered by it. If they put pictures on their site it advertises my
abilities. If I get a fan response- that's good for my career.If it's a fan site,
it keeps other fans up to date on what I'm doing. If I work on a video, and it
sells a few extra copies because of the exposure I've gotten-or because my fans buy
them, that's good.If I get more gigs because of it- that's good.
If they sell copies of it- I'll kick their ass.
Now - this I agree is a little more black and white than the XF sites issue.. but
it is not that much different. Copyright infringement can be bothersome. But it
seems to me that Fox is approaching this the same way Disney sued daycare centres
to not have their characters put on a daycare wall- when does it become ridiculous?
When does a fan site cross the line? Where is the line? Should we have NO fan sites
at all? Then what about reference libraries? Aren't some fan sites little more than
repositories of fact based information such as transcripts, stills,and trivia etc?
And what about a review? Does that not contain a lot of the same information that
some fan sites carry? And it carries even more weight, because a bad review, unlike
a fan site which is generally more positive toward its subject, can make viewers,
potential buyers of advertised products, switch off?
And satire and parody? Many fan sites include amateur satires, and parodies of the
show. Are they to be targetted simply because they are amateur? Seems to me that a
show like Mad TV that parodies the X- Files, makes money while doing so.But not fan
run web sites.So professionals profit- and amatuers don't - but the ones that
profit are rewarded, and the ones who don't, are punished by Fox. hmmmm.
Also- how are many of these sites taking potential profits away from Fox? They are
not selling tee shirts or anything- they are not stealing profits because, let's
face it Fox is not heavily merchandising the X-Files. If I have a choice between
buying an excellent quality officially licensed screensaver, or sound collection,
or a script from Fox- or cobbling something together from questionable quality
amatuer web sites- I'll go official. Everytime. But where do I find these products?
They don't exist.Well- okay scripts do. And I have bought official scripts in the
past.
But- the sites that Fox is closing down do not compete with anything that Fox is
presently or possibly could be merchandising.
I'm sorry- I'm not a lawyer, but common sense dictates that the law is not black
and whiteand that there are many grey areas. And I think we are pushing the
envelope here.
Yes go after people selling illegal stuff on ebay. If I collect up a bunch of stuff
off websites and make something and sell it on a CD rom then nail me. But that's
like saying I took a bunch of episodes I taped off teevee and cut em together and
put them on a CD rom and hey presto! they're for sale on ebay. You don't go after
the television stations and say- hey! quit broadcasting the xfiles because somebody
might tape them and sell them.You don't say - hey! Entertainment tonight and E! and
news people and website news providers- stop broadcasting information about the
X-Files. You don't say- hey! fans! quite talking about your favourite show.
For that matter- when are they gonna come on the newgroup and say- hey - you-
sorry. You're vcr fucked up, but uh- too bad. Wait for the show to be aired again .
You can't get a copy of the show from somebody else- even as a favour- because it's
our intellectual property and we own it and you just can't do that. It might
jeopardise our profitability. No one will watch the show if you get a copy of one
you missed. Why, that infiringes on our right to merchandise...
and fans say:
Well - hey Fox lawyers... where are we supposed to get episodes that Fox hasn't
released on video yet? Hello- doncha think you are missing the boat on that one?
How come they released the episodes in England? Why not here ?.
Bottom line- quick fix.
Nail those that directly affect your profits. Those selling merchandise.
Reward the best fan sites with official sanctions- that way you can control the
content. Make them like fan clubs. Throw them a bone or two with official
interviews, or pictures or clips or sounds. Give the fan sites criteria. This is
okay - this isn't. Figure out how much media content is too much.
Do what Disney did- they didn't like poor quality artwork painted on the windows
of theatres and burgerstoresto promote their animated features- it detracted from
their quality control. So they gave those outlets a stencil to get the characters
right. Give the sites a template. Give them a mandate. Get involved- officially
license them in some way.
Hey- give fans an official website that isn't 6 months behind the times and that
keeps them up to date. Give the fans a quality product, keep them informed and they
will beat a path to your door.It's called good will.
These heavy handed tactics do not generate any positive feelings.
Gene Roddenberry knew that. He knew that it was the fan base that kept Star Trek
alive all those years. And he wouldn't allow Paramount to treat the fans as Fox
treats theirs- that didn't happen until Gene died.
No body is quibbling with the fact that Fox has a copyright on the X-Files. Of
course they do- but..
how much is too much? How much is too far? Where do you stop?
Where's the fairplay in all of this.
Personally - I think Fox's lawyers bank on the fact that poor little web geeks will
freak when they get that official letter. Frankly, I'd like to see somebody stand
up to Fox and challenge them in court. Nobody likes to see big corporate business
shake down the little guy. With the right lawyer- I think the little guy would win.
I am!
Kimba
mox.f...@fib.gob
[...]
> You're flicking a Bic trying to light Shea Stadium, Hester. Here, let me shed
> some REAL light here.
> Fox created "The X-Files" by spending tens of millions of dollars. It owns
> "The X-Files." It expects a return on the investment. It expects to control
[...]
And we, consumers, spent MANY MORE millions of dollars buying all kinds of
XF merchandise. Fox did not lose once bleeping cent. They are not broke.
They are not a victim. They are not about to lose control of their
property. So, this stupid argument is insulting.
--------------------------------------------------------
Al Ruffinelli <alv...@accesscom.com>
http://www.turning-pages.com/xf/ X-Files
http://www.turning-pages.com/xf101/ X-Files 101
--------------------------------------------------------
JaneGrey
<many insightful comments snipped>
>let's
>face it Fox is not heavily merchandising the X-Files. If I have a
>choice between
>buying an excellent quality officially licensed screensaver, or sound
>collection
>,
>or a script from Fox- or cobbling something together from questionable
>quality
>amatuer web sites- I'll go official. Everytime. But where do I find
>these products?
>They don't exist.Well- okay scripts do. And I have bought official
>scripts in the past.
>But- the sites that Fox is closing down do not compete with anything
>that Fox is
>presently or possibly could be merchandising.
<more snipped>
Amen! I would buy official X-Files stuff, but there isn't much of
quality out there. The only non-FtF posters I have seen are obviously
old pics (Scully has bad hair) and they look lame. The calendar is
horrible, always has been. It lloks like *they* use screen captures for
the pics. I'm *making* one this year. I guess that is an example of how
the web has allowed me to not give them 12 bucks, but if the official
one didn't suck, I would prefer to buy one.
Regarding the Official web site, it is a joke. It wasn't updated for
like 2 years, and the new one is practically unreadable (damn banner
ads! Is this Geocities? I'm sure they pay for thier web space, so what
is the deal with that?). I never go there. Any info I need, I get from
unofficial sites. If they shut down all the unofficial sites, I still
wouldn't go to the official one. WB has the right idea, be nice to the
people who give you money! So, if there are any Fox execs reading here,
go to the best fan website you can find, hire the person who owns it to
run the official site. Sell X-Files products on which Mulder does not
appear to be cross-eyed. Take some new publicity shots! Produce
something that I won't be ashamed to hang on my wall and I will buy it!
They act like bullies who kick down someone's sand castle because it is
better than thiers.
If I ran Fox...
JaneGrey
Spooky's Toy
>
> I've said it before, but here's my idea:
>
> If people really want to protest FOX, I think someone should declare some
> coordinated time during which _all_ fans take down _all_ of their websites
> devoted to FOX shows, or all the X-Files sites, or similar.
>
> After all, I'm sure FOX likes the publicity the sites generate -- they just
> the hell out of them to see their shows _disappear_ as a web presence for a day
> or for a week.
>
Veddy interesting. What would something like that involve?
Spooky's Toy
stormlantern
journ...@aol.com (Kim) wrote:
> Sigh! Hester said:
>
> >
> >
> >Yes, and the article also mentions that Fox is the only network
abusing
> >its netfans this way.
>
me shed
> some REAL light here.
>
> Fox created "The X-Files" by spending tens of millions of dollars.
It owns
> "The X-Files." It expects a return on the investment. It expects to
control
Ownership is
> not a feel-good loosey-goosey concept dependent on mood, menstrual
cycle or
> good PR. If a fansite is content heavy enough to dilute the value of
The
> X-Files as produced, and sold, by Fox, then Fox has the right to shut
it down.
> Basically the fan sites that have gotten shut down are promoting the
show for
> free, yes, but they're also giving away what Fox would like to sell,
and it
> isn't theirs to give away.
Well, from what I've seen of these fansites, they're very much akin to
advertising billboards Fox doesn't have to pay for. Other networks seem
to feel that way about sites dedicated to THEIR shows; what's Fox's
problem?
And speaking of problems, concerning the generally snotty tone of
your "rebuttal" to my post...what the hell's YOURS?
If you're trying to piss me off, Kim, I'm afraid I'm merely amused, and
not by what you seem to think of as wit.
--
Hester
a.k.a. "stormlantern" - (definition): wreak a little
havoc, shed a little light
Iocaste
>> coordinated time during which _all_ fans take down _all_ of their websites
>> devoted to FOX shows, or all the X-Files sites, or similar.
>>
>> After all, I'm sure FOX likes the publicity the sites generate -- they just
>> don't like certain type of "infringing" material. And I think it would
>scare
>> the hell out of them to see their shows _disappear_ as a web presence for a
>day
>> or for a week.
>>
>Veddy interesting. What would something like that involve?
>
>Spooky's Toy
>
>
I don't think it would involve anything more than a get-the-word out campaign.
If someone were to coordinate it, and we could enlist the help of fans of
different FOX shows, we could spread the word that on date such-and-such, all
owners of FOX fan sites should take their sites offline for some pre-determined
period of time. Up until the actual D-Day, I would recommend that owners of
such sites put a banner on their page advertising the imminent "shut down," as
part of the effort to make sure that everyone in fandom found out about it.
Volunteers could visit fan sites and send email to the owners asking for their
cooperation, or a chain email could get forwarded around to all of the email
lists and newsgroups.
Then, when the sites came down, there are two options -- either the owners of
the sites could just leave that space "blank," so that every person on the web
trying to find, say, and X-Files page would come up blank or get an error
message (except for the official site), or the owners could put up a big sign
saying that the site is temporarily down in protest.
Both approaches are, I think, viable. The first approach has the advantage of
really _showing_ FOX what the world would look like if fans got angry enough to
dismantle all that free advertising. The second approach would demonstrate to
all people using the internet the depth of feeling about the issue.
And I'll bet it would get press coverage, too. Hell, fans could chip in for a
Variety ad -- Buffy fans did that about the WB's decision to pull the season
finale, and if fans from _all_ FOX shows chipped, the amounts per person would
be minimal.
GaryMele
>There's an interesting article at
>
>http://www.tvbarn.com/120699.html
>
>Apparently the same law firm that Twentieth Television hired to
>"protect" the intellectual property shows on Fox, is now going after
>"Buffy the Vampire
>Slayer" fan sites. "Buffy" is on the WB; but Fox produces it.
>What is really interesting is this practice is in contradiction
>to the WB's and "Buffy" creator, Joss Whedon's own precedents of
>*supporting* fan sites!
>
>What's particularly obnoxious is one of the first things they
>demanded removed from a site were *episode transcripts*
>... a practice for which Mr. Whedon apparently indicated
>his support during a fan convention.
>
>I don't recall hearing of them going after transcriptions
>of already aired episodes before. Well, they are going
>after them now!
>
> Teddi
Why can't I see the reasoning behind Fox doing this? What's the big deal?
expecially transcripts of episodes that have already aired.
Gary
Kim
>your "rebuttal" to my post...what the hell's YOURS?
Not everything is about you, Hester. Your personal feelings of amusement,
inferiority, rage, angst, whatever, could not be of less concern to me. I am
not interested in your statements as coming from you, I merely use your
statements as a jumping off place in argument.
My post was not a 'rebuttal' it was a rebuttal, no quotes. You posted something
that was contrary to even the slightest common sense about law and property
rights, and I took the time to correct it.
Why other networks don't zealously protect their properties like Fox does is
not something I can really guess at. Fox has two winning properties right now:
The Simpsons and The X-Files. They're wringing every dollar out of those that
they can.
There are competing PR/legal interests in this matter of shutting down
content-heavy fan sites. It doesn't mean the law isn't clear.
>
>If you're trying to piss me off, Kim, I'm afraid I'm merely amused, and
>not by what you seem to think of as wit.
If you don't like it, then stop saying stupid things that make anyone with half
an ounce of knowledge about the subject guffaw. Seeing you go on about law is
like listening to Celine Dion try to sing Nessun Dorma. It's offensive and
needs to be stopped.
mox.f...@fib.gob
> not something I can really guess at. Fox has two winning properties right now:
> The Simpsons and The X-Files. They're wringing every dollar out of those that
> they can.
Damn, if you sold BS, you'd be rich. Fox does not give a bleep about the
XF. Sure, it makes a lot of money for them, but they treat it like crap.
The show make a lot of money for them because it's good, and because of
*us*, the audience, not because they are masters at promoting it.
> There are competing PR/legal interests in this matter of shutting down
> content-heavy fan sites. It doesn't mean the law isn't clear.
[...]
The law CLEARLY states that only a judge can determine what is or is not a
copyright infringement, on a case-by-case basis. What Fox is doing has
very little to do with the law (that's just the excuse) and a lot to do
with threats and intimidation.
Iocaste
>> the hell out of them to see their shows _disappear_ as a web presence for a
>day
>> or for a week.
>>
>
>seem to make any sense; but apparently, they are rather
>clueless about the whole thing.
I really disagree. They want fan sites. They want publicity. What scares
them is the thought of a slippery slope -- they're afraid that today it's
transcripts and two-minute clips, and tomorrow it's 10 minute clips, and in a
year it's entire episodes. But they have allowed still photos, for example.
I'm _positive_ that they would be upset if they had no presence, because it
would send a signal to casual viewers who surf that the shows aren't popular.
And if the WB _likes_ Buffy sites, for example, the WB would be upset if they
went down in protest and might apply pressure to FOX to back off. So I think a
coordinated "blackout" of FOX fan sites would be a very effective protest
mechanism.
Kim
>
>But it's more complicated than that - it's not as cut and dried as
>your basement. First of all, there's the whole "fair use" argument,
>whereby it's legally acceptable to "borrow" someone's property for the
>use of parody, review, etc.
There we agree.
> While sites that are graphics, wavs, and
>video heavy may be stretching this concept >to the breaking point,
And I'll be the first to agree that those sites were an asset to fandom and the
show since Fox's own site sucks pig farts.
But it's FOX's property to present how and as they choose. It's theirs to
exploit, to promote, to ration out, to present, as they choose. For whatever
reason they choose not to produce high quality sites of their own,
>there has been a lot of recent discussion about intellectual property
>and television fandom, though that was more along the lines of
>fanfiction, which FOX seems to have less of a problem with.
One can hope.
>
<snip my own point about the content-heavy fan sites>
>I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I don't know of a person out there
>that would prefer "viewing clips, reading transcripts, hearing wavs or
>seeing still photos" to actually *seeing* the episode. All it does is
>whet your appetite for the actual episode, the same way that trailers
>do.
In theory, I agree. What is possible, however, on the Net today - the premiere
trailer, the Y2K kiss, etc., was not possible just a short time ago. Today - a
clip. Tomorrow - an ep. I'd nip that one in the bud if I were defending my I.P.
rights.
Example illustrating my points: I want a script of SR819. Do I go to a fansite
for a transcript (good information, but not the same as a script since it
doesn't include those neato bits cut out, or the hints on how things are to be
played (Redux 2's script is full of those) or the stage directions)? Or do I
buy one from Fox someday when they put one up for sale?
Another example: I've never seen the episode Revelations. Do I wait for it to
come around on FX or do I pop over to a fansite and learn about it? (Actually,
don't spoil me for it, I really do want to see it.) No, information on a site
isn't really the same as watching it, but if it were an ep like Rain King and I
read about it, I sure wouldn't bother to watch it.
When Fox doesn't control something, it makes them itchy. Fansites represent
free, sometimes high quality PR but it's something they don't control, either.
>
>>I love the Haven, I loved TD's site, but the law's clear on this.
>
>It is, but I would argue not so much the legal standpoint of this as
>the pratical standpoint. FOX is shooting themselves in the foot.
I don't disagree about the PR aspects of this either. Although I doubt they
appreciate some of the more extreme spins that fans put on the show, the
fansite shut down is undeniably bad PR.
>They're just not being smart about it. They have everything to lose
>and nothing to gain by going after fan-run websites. They may be fuzzy
>when it comes to copyright infringement, but the reality is that they
>are excellent advertisement. If they weren't, then why would Warner
>Brothers and other studios encourage them? That's intelligent
>marketing. What FOX is doing is not. If the copyright was really being
>endangered by content-heavy websites, then why is FOX the only one
>that's doing this?
That I can't answer. It's a bad decision but asserting their rights over their
property does sound in law.
Kim
>
>Yes I understand the the concept of intellectual copyright- as an artist,
>I have to
>understand it. And- knowing that anything I create could be put on the web.
>And to
>be pawned off as someone else's work? That worries me greatly.But that's
>not what's
>happening here.No one is profiting by these sites. If they are yank 'em...
It's not so much that the fan is making a profit off the site, it's that Fox
doesn't control the site and that Fox cannot market what you can get off a fan
site.
Suppose I had a fan site oriented strongly toward the show, rather than being a
mishmash of biography, links, and fanfic as it is now. Suppose I had the
ability to produce fantastic and appealing graphics, cool wavs, transcripts,
commentary, links, etc. Fine. Good. Appealing. Good PR, right?
Then suppose I put a huge banner at the bottom of the page that says:
"Fuck the X-Files for not having Skinner on it enough, with his shirt off, too,
damnit!"
I doubt Fox would find my site to be appealing in terms of PR. Theoretically,
any fan site could present the show in any way they choose, including a
negative way.
Some former fans of the show have chosen to do just that, and the day their
website gets too content heavy, I bet it goes down too.
>
>If someone takes my work, abuses it, puts it on a web site to denigrate,
>or
>subjugate me, then I obviously want no part of it.
>Yet Howard Stern does it all the time and there is no response.
Stern is parody and satire.
>
>If somebody puts my work on a website, as a tribute- because they like
>my work-
>I'll be flattered by it. If they put pictures on their site it advertises
>my
>abilities. If I get a fan response- that's good for my career.If it's a
>fan site,
>it keeps other fans up to date on what I'm doing. If I work on a video,
>and it
>sells a few extra copies because of the exposure I've gotten-or because
>my fans buy
>them, that's good.If I get more gigs because of it- that's good.
>If they sell copies of it- I'll kick their ass.
But wouldn't you prefer to control how your work is presented? What if someone
did a retrospective on your work focusing only on the least impressive aspects
of it? And wouldn't you rather SELL your work than have really large chunks of
it given away?
>Now - this I agree is a little more black and white than the XF sites issue..
>but
>it is not that much different. Copyright infringement can be bothersome.
>But it
>seems to me that Fox is approaching this the same way Disney sued daycare
>centres
>to not have their characters put on a daycare wall- when does it become
>ridiculous?
Disney and Fox own these things. They want to be compensated for their use.
I agree, Disney shot itself in the foot about the characters on the daycare
center wall. They'd do better getting the kids all warm and cozy with the
characters so they grow up demanding Disney toys for Christmas.
My, I'm cynical.
>
>When does a fan site cross the line? Where is the line? Should we have NO
>fan sites
>at all? Then what about reference libraries? Aren't some fan sites little
>more than
>repositories of fact based information such as transcripts, stills,and trivia
>etc?
>And what about a review? Does that not contain a lot of the same information
>that
>some fan sites carry?
Reviews, etc. come under 'fair use.'
And it carries even more weight, because a bad review,
>unlike
>a fan site which is generally more positive toward its subject, can make
>viewers,
>potential buyers of advertised products, switch off?
>
>And satire and parody? Many fan sites include amateur satires, and parodies
>of the
>show. Are they to be targetted simply because they are amateur? Seems to
>me that a
>show like Mad TV that parodies the X- Files,
<snip just for space>
A satire or parody is exempt, or otherwise Saturday Night Live would have been
shut down years ago. A net resource of almost all aspects of an episode - a
video clip, wavs, transcripts, etc. - is not a satire, parody or review.
Phil Farrand who did "The Nitpickers Guide To The X-Files" was very careful not
to be too content-heavy in his episode summaries. He commented up a storm on
the episodes in his book.
When asked if he would be doing a 2nd volume of The Nitpickers Guide For
X-Philes he said no, the industry was scared of even the most legal books now.
It seems Paramount sued the publisher of a modest little book called "The
Joy of Trek" that stepped a tiny bit outside 'review and fair use' for
something like $100 million. Result: commentary books like "The Nitpickers
Guide" were not going to published any more.
Sucks.
>
>Also- how are many of these sites taking potential profits away from Fox?
>They are
>not selling tee shirts or anything- they are not stealing profits because,
>let's
>face it Fox is not heavily merchandising the X-Files.
They are selling tchotchkes, stills and scripts and such on the fanclub site.
It's theirs to merchandise as they choose. From what I heard, and the source on
this may have been full of shit (again), one of the people associated with The
Official Fan Club was extremely negative when fans asked for shirts to be sold
in XXL, and 3XL. She didn't think fat people were a good advertisement for
their show. So, you know, fuck them and their merchandise.
They believe that unauthorized marketing through fan sites does affect their
profit, evidently. It does arguably dilute control and distribution to some
extent, and they equate control and distribution with profit. I'm not saying I
wholly agree with that but that's evidently their rationale.
There is little fair play in the law.
>
>Personally - I think Fox's lawyers bank on the fact that poor little web
>geeks will
>freak when they get that official letter.
Precisely. Because who can fight Fox? Who has more money than Rupert Murdoch?
Frankly, I'd like to see somebody
>stand
>up to Fox and challenge them in court. Nobody likes to see big corporate
>business
>shake down the little guy. With the right lawyer- I think the little guy
>would win.
That won't happen. Law sometimes has little to do with justice, fairness or
morality.
Kim
<in response to the dance club analogy>
>
>It's not a great analogy, Kim.
Evidently it didn't get the point through at all. That's a shame. The point was
that the legal principles are the same. I have the right to control my
property for my use, as I see fit. ISo does Fox. Fox's property is The X-Files.
If someone sets up a disco in my basement, the fundamental legal concept is
that my bundle rights of control of my own property, in this case, my house,
are being violated. Same with Fox. If people are calling 'The X-Files" theirs
enough to set up unauthorized and content-heavy sites, Fox has lost control of
its own property.
You have something *big* to gain
>by chasing the dance club out of your basement. Namely,
>a good night's sleep and protection of your private things
>from a bunch of rowdy strangers. Plus, it likely wouldn't
>cost you anything to get them out; you just have to call
>the police. Evidence that fan web sites harm the shows
>significantly is shaky at best.
There does not have to be any evidence that the sites hurt the show.
The site could demonstrably be the best PR possible for the show, extremely
well done, with superior graphics, etc. and STILL Fox could shut it down.
The question is not 'is this hurting the show' but 'who owns it'?
There certainly is no evidence
>they can do the same degree that a dance club in your
>basement can harm your private home.
Actually I might LIKE a rave in my basement. But I should be the one who makes
that decision.
And all this
>protection of their property costs Fox real dollars.
>Those lawyers charge big bucks for every
>threatening form letter they send to the owner of a fan site.
This is very true.
>
>It's not so much that Fox doesn't have some rights
>to protect their property. It's the fact that the
>extremes to which they are going to do this just
>makes no sense. A better analogy would be
>hiring 24 hr armed guards to keep the neighborhood
>kids from walking on your lawn.
>
But enough traffic makes the grass die. <g>
>>
<snip me>
>
>Oh Kim, I just can't buy that. Even if you can find *one* wierdo
>phile who will decide "Ok, I've read a transcript of the dialogue,
>saw ten still photos, viewed a one minute video clip, and listened
>to three wav files. I don't need to watch the show now," there are
> at least several thousand who do watch the show after seeing that stuff.
Well sure. We're Philes. I addressed this point in another response though, and
I won't belabor it here.
>
>I can buy that web sites hurt (3) to some degree. (Not really though,
>as the type of fans who buy this stuff are not going to be stopped
>by material they can see on some web site. eg If the fact that I can and
>*do* tape the episodes on my very own VCR doesn't stop
>me from shelling out cash for the same episodes on video, why the
>heck would a 1 minute Real Video clip stop me?) However, I still don't
>see the sense in all this to protect their profits from their sales of a
>few
>thousand
>scripts. (FWIW, I've bought a few scripts myself ... even though I know
>the transcripts are readily available on the web.)
I addressed your other points in my other posts, I believe.
Iocaste
>exploit, to promote, to ration out, to >present, as they choose.
I don't understand your argument.
Yes, it's FOX's property -- no one is disputing this. It's FOX's property, but
not because God came down from Mount Sinai and deemed that all moral rights
vested in FOX -- it's FOX's property because there's a statute that protects
it. If the statute didn't exist, there would be no property and the X-Files
would have no value. And there is nothing illogical or wrong about arguing
that the statute which protects FOX's property is way too broad, and that FOX
has far more legal rights than it needs in order to provide it a reasonable
return on its investment in producing the X-Files.
The fact is, though you argue that you'd read a transcript rather than go out
of your way to see Rain King, I think as a general matter it's unlikely that a
fan who cares enough about the X-Files to go online and seek out a transcript
is going to care so _little_ that he or she doesn't watch the episode, if he or
she is able to do so. And I also think it unlikely that a short videoclip is
will serve as an adequate substitute for seeing the episode in full.
And one might say that even if there is some _small_ number of fans who feel
the transcript is an adequate substitute, it's still up for debate whether
morally -- if not legally -- having a full and free discussion on the internet
about the show, complete with fan participation in the form of these sorts of
postings, serves the public interest _more_ than providing copyright protection
would. After all, the whole idea behind copyright is that we give creators a
_limited_ right in their works in order to give them a monetary incentive to
create, but we also recognize that there is value in giving the public the
right to disseminate the material as well, which is why copyrights are not
unlimited and eventually expire. The argument here is simply that the current
legal system gives FOX far stronger rights in its creation than are necessary
in order to provide an incentive to create, and that this is being done without
regard to the competing benefits we as a society reap by having full and free
rights to use the material.
Fan sites are an important part of participation in the popoular culture -- we
can either have a society in which corporate interests serve up their visions
of society like so much pablum and viewers are expected to accept those visions
uncritically, or we can have a society in which viewers are permitted to
"reconceive" the material, offering their own interpretations and commentary,
so that what once might have been, say, a story of heterosexual romance between
Mulder and Scully suddenly becomes a tale of homosexual domination and
submission between Mulder and Krycek -- thus blocking attempts to impose a
single meaning on a cultural text, a meaning likely to accord with the
interests and backgrounds of those with the money to pay for production. If we
prefer the latter kind of society, we need to loosen up the rights that
corporate copyright holders enjoy in order to permit fans the leeway to comment
on the material and share their visions with others -- because right now,
fanfiction and much of the other content on these websites is quite definitely
infringing.
But just because the law says that this is what is, doesn't mean that this is
what _ought_ to be.
Iocaste
>a
>mishmash of biography, links, and fanfic as it is now. Suppose I had the
>ability to produce fantastic and appealing graphics, cool wavs, transcripts,
>commentary, links, etc. Fine. Good. Appealing. Good PR, right?
>
>Then suppose I put a huge banner at the bottom of the page that says:
>
>"Fuck the X-Files for not having Skinner on it enough, with his shirt off,
>too,
>damnit!"
>
>I doubt Fox would find my site to be appealing in terms of PR.
I agree. But I don't understand why you feel that FOX's opinions on this
matter should trump the fans -- do you really think that we, as a society,
should favour the corporation attempting to silence criticism of its product
over the rights of the individual attempting to express an opinion? After all,
your hypothetical site could hurt FOX in one of two ways -- it could "displace"
FOX's market, so that fans who would ordinarily spend their time watching to
show and buying the products would find adequate substitutes on the fan's
website, or it could damage FOX's market by highlighting the flaws in the show
and thus causing viewers to lose interest.
The First Amendment of the Constitution would seem to imply that this latter
type of damage is not one that the law recognizes -- FOX doesn't have the legal
right to shut down criticism of the show. And the former type of damage might
be _extremely_ unlikely, given the difference between the content available on
the website and the content marketed by FOX. And whatever damage might be
sustained by FOX due to displacement, we might reasonably decide that it's
hardly going to be of such a magnitude that it dissuades FOX from investing in
the X-Files and that therefore we should favour the fan's right to speak. The
trouble is that right now, FOX has the right to shut down such a site even with
no showing of a significant number of lost profits -- and it's likely to do so,
not because it truly believes its profits to be threatened, but because it
wants to stifle criticism.
Kim
>They are not a victim. They are not about to lose control of their
>property. So, this stupid argument is insulting.
The point is not whether Fox is broke or not. Property rights are the same in
law for Joe Nobody as they are for Rupert Murdoch. (Note I didn't say that the
legal system would work the same for Joe Nobody as for Rupert Murdoch. Big
difference there). You create something - whether it be a sculpture or a soft
drink or a hit tv series - it's yours. You own the bundle of rights regarding
its sale, distribution and other exploitation. The point is whether the owner
of property is able to take action when that property is appropriated by
others for use in a way that is not unauthorized, and thus, arguably, outside
the law.
Kim
in a variety of ways now and going into an argument with you is not going to be
one of them.
mox.f...@fib.gob
> Al, think what you want to. I've explained my points and explored this position
> in a variety of ways now and going into an argument with you is not going to be
> one of them.
That's fine with me. I just have to pint out that you're wrong, and
explain why. That's all.
mox.f...@fib.gob
I know that. I was questioning the tone of your post, which painted Fox as
a victim.
> law for Joe Nobody as they are for Rupert Murdoch. (Note I didn't say that the
> legal system would work the same for Joe Nobody as for Rupert Murdoch. Big
> difference there). You create something - whether it be a sculpture or a soft
> drink or a hit tv series - it's yours. You own the bundle of rights regarding
> its sale, distribution and other exploitation. The point is whether the owner
Yes, it's yours, but the law does mention *limitations* on exclusive
rights. Six sections of the code devoted to those limitations. Point is,
ownership is not *absolute*.
> of property is able to take action when that property is appropriated by
> others for use in a way that is not unauthorized, and thus, arguably, outside
> the law.
I don't agree that this is the point.
Teddi Litman
Kim wrote:
>
>
> Another example: I've never seen the episode Revelations. Do I wait for it to
> come around on FX or do I pop over to a fansite and learn about it? (Actually,
> don't spoil me for it, I really do want to see it.) No, information on a site
> isn't really the same as watching it, but if it were an ep like Rain King and I
> read about it, I sure wouldn't bother to watch it.
>
<shrug> You might read a bad movie review in the newspaper (and
quite often these reviewers spoil way more than any spoiler sites do)
and decide not to see the movie.
Teddi
Kimba
Kim wrote:
> Kimba said:
>
> >
Kim said.
>
> Suppose I had a fan site oriented strongly toward the show, rather than being a
> mishmash of biography, links, and fanfic as it is now. Suppose I had the
> ability to produce fantastic and appealing graphics, cool wavs, transcripts,
> commentary, links, etc. Fine. Good. Appealing. Good PR, right?
>
> Then suppose I put a huge banner at the bottom of the page that says:
>
> "Fuck the X-Files for not having Skinner on it enough, with his shirt off, too,
> damnit!"
>
> I doubt Fox would find my site to be appealing in terms of PR. Theoretically,
> any fan site could present the show in any way they choose, including a
> negative way.
>
> Some former fans of the show have chosen to do just that, and the day their
> website gets too content heavy, I bet it goes down too.
Again - though that makes sense- what doesn't make sense is the way they are going
about it- why are the spoiler sites not touched? I would think that they are the
sites CC and Co- and Fox- would want shut down...
>
>
> >
> >If someone takes my work, abuses it, puts it on a web site to denigrate,
> >or
> >subjugate me, then I obviously want no part of it.
> >Yet Howard Stern does it all the time and there is no response.
>
> Stern is parody and satire.
Perhaps. Or is he just meanspirited?. What passes for satire these days?
Outrageousness. I dunno. Ask Tom Green.
> >If somebody puts my work on a website, as a tribute- because they like
> >my work-
> >I'll be flattered by it. If they put pictures on their site it advertises
> >my
> >abilities. If I get a fan response- that's good for my career.If it's a
> >fan site,
> >it keeps other fans up to date on what I'm doing. If I work on a video,
> >and it
> >sells a few extra copies because of the exposure I've gotten-or because
> >my fans buy
> >them, that's good.If I get more gigs because of it- that's good.
> >If they sell copies of it- I'll kick their ass.
>
> But wouldn't you prefer to control how your work is presented? What if someone
> did a retrospective on your work focusing only on the least impressive aspects
> of it? And wouldn't you rather SELL your work than have really large chunks of
> it given away?
Of course- that is why the best thing for Fox to do would be to seek out the best
websites, give them official status, and set down guidelines.
I would work with my fans...to maintain that quality.Or reward the best sites, just
cause I'd be drawn to them anyway. I mean, on a couple of the projects I worked on,
I did surf the web, and those that had the primo stylish well done websites- oh
yeah, I did contact them and say "nice job". Absolutely.
and- having something I did on a website be considered giving it away free?
No. Because a picture is just a picture. It's not a print.It's not a cel, it's not
a drawing. It's not an original. It's a copy. That's all.
Least impressive aspects of it? Yeah- I suppose. But if it's my professional work
it's a matter of public record. Many actors leave some of their early stuff off
their professional resumes. I've seen resumes for say Susan Sarandon.. is Rocky
Horror on it? It might be now- because it's got cult status, but it wasn't in her
Bull Durham days...
God- I hope I never see one particular show that has my name on it. I know it's out
there. I know it was sold in some small markets. It's still my work. ut - I still
hate it.
Another point... Publicists exist to make sure that you and your work appear in the
best light. But is that necessarily a good thing? There is such a thing as too much
control - when something becomes artificial, rather than real.
It doesn't help my argument, but it does raise a thorny little issue... when does
it become burying the truth.
Maybe, in someone's eyes, I really do suck. Do I have the right to say to them -
you can't say that, and close down their site? Beyond the libel issue.. they've
proved I suck. Then what? Isn't that free speech?
>
> My, I'm cynical.
LOL>
> Phil Farrand who did "The Nitpickers Guide To The X-Files" was very careful not
> to be too content-heavy in his episode summaries. He commented up a storm on
> the episodes in his book.
>
> When asked if he would be doing a 2nd volume of The Nitpickers Guide For
> X-Philes he said no, the industry was scared of even the most legal books now.
> It seems Paramount sued the publisher of a modest little book called "The
> Joy of Trek" that stepped a tiny bit outside 'review and fair use' for
> something like $100 million. Result: commentary books like "The Nitpickers
> Guide" were not going to published any more.
>
> Sucks.
It does- and that's a lot of my argument. When is there too much control?
> They are selling tchotchkes, stills and scripts and such on the fanclub site.
> It's theirs to merchandise as they choose. From what I heard, and the source on
> this may have been full of shit (again), one of the people associated with The
> Official Fan Club was extremely negative when fans asked for shirts to be sold
> in XXL, and 3XL. She didn't think fat people were a good advertisement for
> their show. So, you know, fuck them and their merchandise.
Exactly. But it wasn't until FTF and a big screen franchise, that they started
really merchandising. Before there were keychains, mugs, and teeshirts and hats.
That's about it. Hell- in the early days there wasn't even teeshirts. I remember
going to a couple of SF or Media conventions in '94 or '95 where there was no XF
merchandise- even though the demand was there.And yes - there was fan made
merchandise. It was pretty nice too... and in sizes 2 and 3 X if I remember
correctly ..but now I'm off topic, sorry!
<BEG>
> Why, that infringes on our right to merchandise...
> >and fans say:
> >Well - hey Fox lawyers... where are we supposed to get episodes that Fox
> >hasn't
> >released on video yet? Hello- doncha think you are missing the boat on that
> >one?
>
> >
> >Bottom line- quick fix.
> >
> >Nail those that directly affect your profits.
>
> They believe that unauthorized marketing through fan sites does affect their
> profit, evidently. It does arguably dilute control and distribution to some
> extent, and they equate control and distribution with profit. I'm not saying I
> wholly agree with that but that's evidently their rationale.
>
But is it really, I wonder? Or have they just said, to some high powered law
office, "vigourously protect our copyright and let slip the dogs? " Who really
decides who gets shut down? Personally I think it is a very arbitrary decision. I
think they should have to prove liability. A fan club doesn't dilute control. Does
a fan site?
Again- they should issue guidelines if this is a problem. You can put this up- not
this. A clip this long is okay- a clip this long is not..
>
>
> >Where's the fairplay in all of this.
>
> There is little fair play in the law.
> >
> >Personally - I think Fox's lawyers bank on the fact that poor little web
> >geeks will
> >freak when they get that official letter.
>
> Precisely. Because who can fight Fox? Who has more money than Rupert Murdoch?
>
> Frankly, I'd like to see somebody
> >stand
> >up to Fox and challenge them in court. Nobody likes to see big corporate
> >business
> >shake down the little guy. With the right lawyer- I think the little guy
> >would win.
>
> That won't happen. Law sometimes has little to do with justice, fairness or
> morality.
>
Yeah- just look at the OJ Simpson decision!
>; )
I appreciate your point of view, Kim, I hope it doesn't apppear I don't.
But I think the underlying thing here is not a simple view of the law- but rather a
large corporation bullying and threatening those it should be helping, or
appreciating.There is a tremendous feeling of injustice.
We all know the law isn't fair. But I like to slip on my rose coloured glasses now
and again, and remember the sixties, when the little guy sometimes stood up to
theMan- and won. Where people who banded together, made a difference. Who banned
the bomb, burned their draft cards and our bras, stopped the war in Vietnam, and
made changes.
And the children of the hippie's Peace and Love generation grew up to be Fox
corporate lawyers. Who'd a thunk it? Greed is good.
I am!
Kimba
Teddi Litman
Kim wrote:
>
>
> It's not so much that the fan is making a profit off the site, it's that Fox
> doesn't control the site and that Fox cannot market what you can get off a fan
> site.
>
> Suppose I had a fan site oriented strongly toward the show, rather than being a
> mishmash of biography, links, and fanfic as it is now. Suppose I had the
> ability to produce fantastic and appealing graphics, cool wavs, transcripts,
> commentary, links, etc. Fine. Good. Appealing. Good PR, right?
>
> Then suppose I put a huge banner at the bottom of the page that says:
>
> "Fuck the X-Files for not having Skinner on it enough, with his shirt off, too,
> damnit!"
And one can argue that's clearly commentary and therefore fair use.
>
>
> I doubt Fox would find my site to be appealing in terms of PR. Theoretically,
> any fan site could present the show in any way they choose, including a
> negative way.
Yes they can. And Ebert can show clips of movies on his show,
point out what he doesn't like about them and give the movie a thumbs down.
>
> But wouldn't you prefer to control how your work is presented? What if someone
> did a retrospective on your work focusing only on the least impressive aspects
> of it?
Not pleasant to be sure; but that's life. No one likes bad reviews;
but they aren't illegal.
>
>
> Reviews, etc. come under 'fair use.'
See, now *you* are saying it too.
>
>
> Phil Farrand who did "The Nitpickers Guide To The X-Files" was very careful not
> to be too content-heavy in his episode summaries. He commented up a storm on
> the episodes in his book.
>
> When asked if he would be doing a 2nd volume of The Nitpickers Guide For
> X-Philes he said no, the industry was scared of even the most legal books now.
> It seems Paramount sued the publisher of a modest little book called "The
> Joy of Trek" that stepped a tiny bit outside 'review and fair use' for
> something like $100 million. Result: commentary books like "The Nitpickers
> Guide" were not going to published any more.
>
> Sucks.
>
It does; and it doesn't mean the law is cut and dried on this issue or that
it is being carried out the way it was intended. It just
means big companies are using their power to manipulate the
highly interpretive "fair use" laws in their favor. It's not so
much about the law as who does and doesn't have the money
to argue their side of it in court. We don't, so it ultimately
doesn't matter what the laws say. We lose. I'm *certain*
there are judges out there who would decide your
theoretical Skinner site falls under "fair use." Yes, there
would also be judges that would decide the opposite.
The fact remains you would probably never get a *chance* at
the (sometimes) roulette game we call a legal system; because
you don't have the money Fox does.
That's why I don't think we should try to approach this
from a legal stance. I think the Buffy fans might have the right
idea. Fans who have their sites shut down need to
write to newspapers and even TV newsmagazines
(those that aren't produced by Fox.) Big bad networks
harassing little fans is bad PR. Pointing out how stupid
they are being, as the article I mentioned at the start
of this thread does, is also very bad PR. Negative
publicity might be the thing that gets them to back off.
Teddi
Teddi Litman
Kim wrote:
>
> >
> >It's not so much that Fox doesn't have some rights
> >to protect their property. It's the fact that the
> >extremes to which they are going to do this just
> >makes no sense. A better analogy would be
> >hiring 24 hr armed guards to keep the neighborhood
> >kids from walking on your lawn.
> >
>
> But enough traffic makes the grass die. <g>
>
>
With the money you spend on the 24 hr armed guards,
you could have your lawn resod several hundred
times over. Plus the armed guards alienates
everyone, so you end up alone with big guys with machine guns
tramping over your grass. At least you don't have to pay
the kids.
Teddi
solo84
think something needs to be done and wish there was something you could do,
then
please. Visit The Buffy Bringers: http://buffy.acmecity.com/undead/214/ .
There is soon to be an XF sister site, but check out the cause now. See what
we're doing, how we're progressing and find out how you yourself can help.
--
solo84
The Buffy Bringers
http://buffy.acmecity.com/undead/214/
"Tell FOX we're comin'..."
The New Buffy/Giles Relationshippers
http://www.bgshippers.com
Kim
>
>Yes, it's FOX's property -- no one is disputing this. It's FOX's property,
>but
>not because God came down from Mount Sinai and deemed that all moral rights
>vested in FOX --
This is a straw man argument. You set it up and knocked it down. Nobody is
arguing this.
it's FOX's property because there's a statute that protects
>it. If the statute didn't exist, there would be no property and the X-Files
>would have no value. And there is nothing illogical or wrong about arguing
>that the statute which protects FOX's property is way too broad, and that
>FOX
>has far more legal rights than it needs in order to provide it a reasonable
>return on its investment in producing the X-Files.
So your argument is with the statutory and common law concepts of intellectual
property?
Right, fine. I'm not going to get into a jurisprudential debate over the
legitmacy of 'private property' as a concept. You need Ronald Dworkin (NOT
Andrea) for that.
>
>The fact is, though you argue that you'd read a transcript rather than go
>out
>of your way to see Rain King, I think as a general matter it's unlikely
>that a
>fan who cares enough about the X-Files to go online and seek out a transcript
>is going to care so _little_ that he or she doesn't watch the episode, if
>he or
>she is able to do so. And I also think it unlikely that a short videoclip
>is
>will serve as an adequate substitute for seeing the episode in full.
Fine. Whatever.
>
>And one might say that even if there is some _small_ number of fans who
>feel
>the transcript is an adequate substitute, it's still up for debate whether
>morally -- if not legally -- having a full and free discussion on the internet
>about the show, complete with fan participation in the form of these sorts
>of
>postings, serves the public interest _more_ than providing copyright
protection
>would. After all, the whole idea behind copyright is that we give creators
>a
>_limited_ right in their works in order to give them a monetary incentive
>to
>create, but we also recognize that there is value in giving the public the
>right to disseminate the material as well, which is why copyrights are not
>unlimited and eventually expire. The argument here is simply that the current
>legal system gives FOX far stronger rights in its creation than are necessary
>in order to provide an incentive to create, and that this is being done
>without
>regard to the competing benefits we as a society reap by having full and
>free
>rights to use the material.
"Full and free rights to use the material."
Commentary, review, satire, parody - all recognized rights of fair use of
intellectual property. No argument there.
You want to outright USE the material your way? Let's explore that.
What would be your criteria for an unfair use? Profit? Complete appropriation?
90% appropriation? 65% appropriation? Where's the limit?
I don't suppose it means anything to you that Fox took the risks of developing
this show, paid the salaries and expenses associated with it? But it's yours to
'use'?
>
>Fan sites are an important part of participation in the popoular culture
>-- we
>can either have a society in which corporate interests serve up their visions
>of society like so much pablum and viewers are expected to accept those
>visions
>uncritically, or we can have a society in which viewers are permitted to
>"reconceive" the material, offering their own interpretations and commentary,
>so that what once might have been, say, a story of heterosexual romance
>between
>Mulder and Scully suddenly becomes a tale of homosexual domination and
>submission between Mulder and Krycek -- thus blocking attempts to impose
>a
>single meaning on a cultural text, a meaning likely to accord with the
>interests and backgrounds of those with the money to pay for production.
Riiiiiight. OK.
This is not about pop culture, evil corporations, rebellion, homosexual
domination or anything along those very interesting and very muddy lines.
It's about property rights. I've explained this more fully elsewhere. Your
argument seems to be with the existence of intellectual property rights which
somehow squelch what you see as free and nonharmful 'use' - which is not yet
defined - by any and all.
> If we
>prefer the latter kind of society, we need to loosen up the rights that
>corporate copyright holders enjoy in order to permit fans the leeway to
>comment
>on the material and share their visions with others -- because right now,
>fanfiction and much of the other content on these websites is quite definitely
>infringing.
Commentary is not an infringement. Another straw man argument.
Fanfic? Very likely. So far it's gone unnoticed pretty much or it's been a
PR/financial decision to leave it alone.
>But just because the law says that this is what is, doesn't mean that this
>is
>what _ought_ to be.
Fine. Vote people in who will change the laws to suit your views.
Kim
<responding to my point about a hypothetical fan site>
>I agree. But I don't understand why you feel that FOX's opinions on this
>matter should trump the fans -- do you really think that we, as a society,
>should favour the corporation attempting to silence criticism of its product
>over the rights of the individual attempting to express an opinion?
I'm sorry, you are entirely missing the point.
The debate was, of course, that fan sites hurt nothing, often help and should
not be shut down. I was responding, if you'll go back and read, to the
arguments that fan sites are free publicity for the show, that many have had a
positive presentation of the show, that many excite interest in the show.
All those things are true. The point is, however that Fox doesn't control the
fan sites, the fans do. Thus they can't rely on fan sites for free positive PR
- if they want PR that's positive, they have to do it.
Thus, my point is that Fox should not freely allow concessions of unlimited
copyrighted materials on 'fan sites' in the name of 'positive promotion.' The
only guaranteed positive promotion is Fox's own.
After
>all,
>your hypothetical site could hurt FOX in one of two ways -- it could
"displace"
>FOX's market, so that fans who would ordinarily spend their time watching
>to
>show and buying the products would find adequate substitutes on the fan's
>website, or it could damage FOX's market by highlighting the flaws in the
>show
>and thus causing viewers to lose interest.
>
>The First Amendment of the Constitution would seem to imply that this latter
>type of damage is not one that the law recognizes -- FOX doesn't have the
>legal
>right to shut down criticism of the show.
I never said it did. I was rebutting the argument that free use for fansites of
copyrighted material would lead to a positive presentation of the property.
This is not about free speech. Again, that's a very interesting argument, but a
straw man. There is not an issue of censorship going on here. There is an
issue of people who haven't paid for or been authorized to use great amounts
and varying kinds of copyrighted material. There is an issue of the owner of
those materials asserting control over the materials.
Let me be really simple here: Would you go on the Fox lot and just take one of
their vehicles and not expect to be busted? What's the difference here?
And the former type of damage
>might
>be _extremely_ unlikely, given the difference between the content available
>on
>the website and the content marketed by FOX. And whatever damage might
>be
>sustained by FOX due to displacement, we might reasonably decide that it's
>hardly going to be of such a magnitude that it dissuades FOX from investing
>in
>the X-Files and that therefore we should favour the fan's right to speak.
The freedom to comment upon The X-Files is there for you and me and everyone.
> The
>trouble is that right now, FOX has the right to shut down such a site even
>with
>no showing of a significant number of lost profits -- and it's likely to
>do so,
>not because it truly believes its profits to be threatened, but because
>it
>wants to stifle criticism.
Do you think TD's site was critical? It was not. It was nothing but
appreciative of the X_Files. . You are lost in the wrong issue as stemming from
the hypothetical.
The hypo was about the positive effects of fan sites for PR purposes, and to
rebut that, I demonstrated that they can also have negative effects. Now you
are off on 1st amendment and censorship issues, and off with all kinds of
morass about showing damage. No. Really, Iocaste, the point was that unlimited
use by noncontrolled parties of copyrighted material for PR purposes can
backfire. It was a limited point. It has nothing to do with what you're saying.
Iocaste
journ...@aol.com writes:
<< Iocaste said:
<
I'm sorry, you are entirely missing the point.
The debate was, of course, that fan sites hurt nothing, often help and should
not be shut down. I was responding, if you'll go back and read, to the
arguments that fan sites are free publicity for the show, that many have had a
positive presentation of the show, that many excite interest in the show.
All those things are true. The point is, however that Fox doesn't control the
fan sites, the fans do. Thus they can't rely on fan sites for free positive PR
- if they want PR that's positive, they have to do it.>>
No, I think you're missing the point.
The debate wasn't about whether it _is_ illegal to use the material in certain
ways -- the debate is about whether FOX should enforce its rights, or whether
it has a _moral_ entitlement to everything it claims as well as a legal
entitlement. The debate is about whether it's an error in judgment for FOX to
target fans, or whether they _should_ be permitted to do so. And as for PR, I
think the point made was quite accurate -- sure, there are always gonna be some
"X-Files sucks!" sites out there, but the number of positive and supportive
sites that serve as free advertising are, as an empirical matter, far more
common. This is why the WB apparently supports such sites. So, yeah, FOX is
within its legal rights -- that doesn't mean it's actions are right or smart.
h<<
This is not about free speech. Again, that's a very interesting argument, but
a
straw man. There is not an issue of censorship going on here. There is an
issue of people who haven't paid for or been authorized to use great amounts
and varying kinds of copyrighted material. There is an issue of the owner of
those materials asserting control over the materials.>>
Untrue. It's exactly about free speech, because when I write something on a
webpage -- even if it's copied from FOX -- it's speech. There is a tension in
the Constitution between the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment --
because even copied speech is, in fact, speech.
If I write a piece of fanfic in which I make Mulder and Krycek lovers, I am
quite definitely expressing a particular political and societal viewpoint, and
am almost certainly writing something very personal. And I am also, quite
definitely, infringing on FOX's copyrights by creating an unauthorized
"derivative" work. And if a court issues an injunction ordering me to
dismantle the webpage where I have posted my website, the government has
absolutely stifled my expression. Now, we currently live under a legal regime
where FOX's copyright claims get precedence over my First Amendment claims, and
my First Amendment claim will only win if my fanfiction fits into a neat little
box called "parody" -- but if it's not parody (and most fanfiction isn't), it's
infringing and unprotected.
A real-life example: There are, or were, a number of websites devoted to
"Barbie." Many of these were overtly feminist sites that used Barbie to make
points about the status of women in our society. So Mattel sent cease and
desist letters to all of them alleging trademark infringement, and mostly, they
caved. And it's very likely that had the cases gone to court, at least some of
the sites would have been shut down, because there isn't even a parody defense
for trademark infringement.
Does this not look like a free speech case to you? The legal "box" it would be
put in -- trademark infringement -- does not alter its essential character as a
battle over censorship.
<<Let me be really simple here: Would you go on the Fox lot and just take one
of
their vehicles and not expect to be busted? What's the difference here?>>
The difference is vast.
Absolutely, there is a legal regime in place that makes it illegal for me to
steal a car. And, I concede, there is a legal regime in place that makes it
illegal for me to post fanfiction to a website. However, that doesn't mean
that both legal regimes are equally "good" or "wise." Because the difference
between intellectual property and physical property is that more than one
person can enjoy intellectual property simultaneously -- the argument made by
the fans is that their use of FOX's copyrighted material does not deprive FOX
of any significant benefit, because the likelihood of fans preferring the
infringing material to the actual television show is minimal. But if I steal a
car, FOX can no longer gain any of the benefits of the car, because I have
appropriated them all for myself.
<<
The freedom to comment upon The X-Files is there for you and me and everyone.
>>
But only in prescribed forms. I'm allowed to discuss the sexual tension
between Mulder and Krycek, but I'm not allowed to write a story illustrating
it, even though the story might be more powerful and make my point more
effectively. In other areas of free speech doctrine, we explicitly protect the
rights of people not only to express their ideas, but to also choose the form
in which they will express them -- for instance, we allow flag-burning, because
even though I can stand and scream "America sucks!" at the top of my lungs, the
Supreme Court has recognized that the act of burning a flag is more visceral
and has a different effect on the listener. But, (mistakenly, in my opinion)
courts have not yet recognized the importance of the form of expression when
dealing with copyright and trademark cases involving expressive commentary on
the original work.
<<> The
>trouble is that right now, FOX has the right to shut down such a site even
>with
>no showing of a significant number of lost profits -- and it's likely to
>do so,
>not because it truly believes its profits to be threatened, but because
>it
>wants to stifle criticism.
Do you think TD's site was critical? It was not. It was nothing but
appreciative of the X_Files. . You are lost in the wrong issue as stemming
from
the hypothetical.>>
I thought we were talking about your hypothetical "Skinner sucks!" site. And
certainly, Mattel's actions were about criticism, not about intellectual
property rights. The point is that the current regime makes no distinction
between actions taken in order to preserve monetary benefits and actions taken
to stifle dissent. And further, the current regime makes no evaluation of
whether the incremental benefit to FOX of being able to prevent 2 minute clips
from being distributed on the Web is worth the loss in free expression.
<< Really, Iocaste, the point was that unlimited
use by noncontrolled parties of copyrighted material for PR purposes can
backfire. It was a limited point. It has nothing to do with what you're
saying. >>
Yes, I'm sure it can. But you're missing my point -- the intellectual property
rights FOX has are _not_ _intended_ to give FOX the right to have uniformly
positive PR. FOX has its rights so that it can prevent people from
underselling its ideas. Your argument about the fact that fan sites might not
be positive doesn't respond to the essential point that even as currently
designed, the copyright laws do not exist to allow FOX to control its PR.
Further, the _fact_ is that most sites are very positive which means that FOX's
actions reflect bad judgment. And it's hard to see how targeting all sites
with downloadable clips does anything to police its PR anyway.
-stark-
> Yes, it's FOX's property -- no one is disputing this. It's FOX's property, but
> not because God came down from Mount Sinai and deemed that all moral rights
> it. If the statute didn't exist, there would be no property and the X-Files
> would have no value.
>
Not entirely true. The position of the current law is that upon
creation and/or registration, the "work," whatever it is, is the
property of the creator or the owner, and the laws simply *enforce*
that position. The Internet is changing things, but not when it comes
to ownership. The owner is still the owner, be it in print or online.
Bottom line: It's Fox's right and responsibility to protect their
intellectual property. Are they being huge dicks about it? Yes.
But, as has been shown MANY times in the past, if you cannot prove in
court that you have ACTIVELY protected your property, it can be
declared public domain and you lose the right to control it's
distribution. This applies to both trademark AND copyright law. The
two are inextricably tied together anyway...
That someone could lose their rights to work they own is wrong no
matter how you slice it. The ramifications are so far reaching that I
would rather diligently protect my work than give it up.
So I guess I'm saying I see their side. I also think there is a lot
of wiggle room to call a transcript site a "research resource." If I
were a professor teaching a media class, and I were a Phile, I'd be
hosting it on a university server and telling Fox to kiss my ass, it's
being distributed, in whole and unaltered, for the purposes of
education.
;)
--
-[stark]-
"say it. say it."
"your kung fu is the best...
Help me win more geek toys! Visit the following URL and vote for
entry #71! http://contest.x10.com/contest.cgi?DATE=1999-12-04
Iocaste
you?"
Hester said that she felt -- not legally, but _morally_ -- that FOX didn't have
the right to squelch fan sites and that it ought to be grateful for them. This
was not an account of the current state of the law -- this was an account of
her sense of right and wrong. And you jumped down her throat for daring to
advocate something other than the legal system _exactly_ as it is, and when she
asked why you were so hostile, you swore up and down that "not everything was
about her" and you weren't attacking. But I read your post -- it was hostile,
and it was personal.
And now, someone else (myself) has dared to disagree with you, and once again,
you become hostile and personal. You're really not into the concept of
reasoned debate, are you?
>"Full and free rights to use the material."
>
>Commentary, review, satire, parody - all recognized rights of fair use of
>intellectual property. No argument there.
>
>You want to outright USE the material your way? Let's explore that.
>
>What would be your criteria for an unfair use? Profit? Complete
>appropriation?
>90% appropriation? 65% appropriation? Where's the limit?
You're right, absolutely. I can't define an exact place where the limit would
be. But apparently unlike yourself, I don't take a look at where the law is
today -- the _very_ narrow concept of fair use and the parody exception which
was created to appease the Constitution -- and decide that of course, this is
exactly where the law _should_ be. I can certainly say that I believe
nonprofit uses should be allowed where there is no reasonable probability that
they will displace the market for the product or for derivative works -- and
that's certainly the place where two-minute downloadable clips fall.
Fanfiction is a more difficult decision, because it is so clearly expressive
and at the same time so clearly a more than adequate substitute for things like
X-Files novels and so forth, and therefore would seem to "take" something from
FOX.
You're right, I don't know where the line should be -- but that doesn't mean
I've decided not to ask the question, or to worship the current United States
Code as is with some rigid sense that if it's law, it must represent the best
policy.
>
>I don't suppose it means anything to you that Fox took the risks of
>developing
>this show, paid the salaries and expenses associated with it? But it's yours
>to
>'use'?
>
I said it before, and I'll say it again -- the only reason we have property
rights of any kind -- intellectual or otherwise -- is to serve certain types of
functions in our society. The property rights extend as far as the function.
I can't do _anything_ I want to with my land (say, store toxic chemicals on it)
because doing so hurts my neighbors. I also can't put up an unsightly fence
just to bother my neighbor, even though it's my land. These categories were
not handed to us by God -- they were developed because they seemed reasonable
and they served a purpose.
Same with intellectual property. It serves a purpose -- it protects FOX so
that FOX makes enough money off of the X-Files to justify its investment. This
means reasonable return, plus extra to account for the risk it took in
developing the material. But there is _certainly_ room for debate as to just
how much protection FOX needs in order for this end to be served. You,
however, seem more interested in dogmatically stating the law as it is -- and
then mocking anyone who disgrees with the way things are now.
>
>Riiiiiight. OK.
>
>This is not about pop culture, evil corporations, rebellion, homosexual
>domination or anything along those very interesting and very muddy lines.
Try again, without the sarcasm.
>
>It's about property rights. I've explained this more fully elsewhere. Your
>argument seems to be with the existence of intellectual property rights which
>somehow squelch what you see as free and nonharmful 'use' - which is not yet
>defined - by any and all.
>
>
I've never said any and all.
I fail to understand why, for you, if it's about property rights, it's
therefore not about free speech. If I walk into a private mall and start
handing out leaflets and the owner tries to evict me, the courts will have to
decide whether my right to leaflet is more important than the owner's right to
private property.
More importantly, just because we gave the name "intellectual property" to a
bunch of concepts -- patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets -- doesn't
mean that we should think about these things as presenting the exact same
issues as physical property. If we'd called it "ishkabibble," your analysis
shouldn't change -- and yet I get the distinct impression from your argument
that if we called that field of law "ishkabibble" instead of "intellectual
property," you'd have a different legal analysis.
>
>Commentary is not an infringement. Another straw man argument.
See other post -- it _is_ when you do it in fanfiction form, or in the form of
a doctored photograph.
-stark-
> The First Amendment of the Constitution would seem to imply that this latter
> type of damage is not one that the law recognizes -- FOX doesn't have the legal
> right to shut down criticism of the show.
>
Why do people think the First Amendment applies to a private company
and a guy running a fan site?
The First Amendment is a pretty simple piece of text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See how there are NO periods anywhere before "to assemble, and to
petition...?" Deconstrusting a legal sentence isn't easy, and it's
especially hard with 209-year-old verbage, but: this one is not hard.
The right applies to the people and the press to gather together in
groups and vocally address problems in the Federal Government, and/or
to ask for those problems to be formally addressed *by* the Federal
Government. Further it says that Congress shall NOT pass any laws at
all that favor one religion to the exclusion of any others, nor shall
they stop people from practicing any religion.
It's saying, you can't stop people from talking, or gathering to talk,
and asking the Government to stop screwing up or to point out what it
is that they're screwing up.
Part of the key to interpreting these things is knowing that in ALL
legal documents, terms are defined and then used consistently. the
capitalized word "Government" is used throughout the Constitution to
represent the Federal Government. After all, these men that wrote the
rules were not writing a seperate set for each state, they were
addressing the rules on a federal level.
The First Amendment does not apply until you are talking about the
Federal Government stopping your from talking about *it*.
Calling Fox's protection of their intellectual property a First
Amendment issue cheapens the spirit of the amendment and weakens it
for future use.
Kim
>Jesus, Kim. To quote Carla on Cheers, "You're a bitter little person, aren't
>you?"
Oh my. I thought she had confined this to email. Not so lucky I guess.
Well, here's my reply.
It is regrettable that you saw a nonpersonal debate as personal.
I have no idea who you are personally and have no beef with you. I'm exploring
a topic, not your value as a person.
Your approach highlights some interesting points to explore, but since you've
been upset or hurt in some way by my approach, and no, I haven't been by yours,
this is now over.
For the record I don't worship the US Code. I was stating some of the
rationales for the law as it exists, which does not necessarily state my
opinion on how it should exist.
Bye.
No Such Agency
>
>hey, look, ioc...@aol.com said...
>> The First Amendment of the Constitution would seem to imply that this latter
>> type of damage is not one that the law recognizes -- FOX doesn't have the
legal
>> right to shut down criticism of the show.
>Why do people think the First Amendment applies to a private company
>and a guy running a fan site?
>
>The First Amendment is a pretty simple piece of text:
etc.etc...
Well if you Americans had just stayed a colony (*jk*!!) you would eventually
have had a Charter of Rights & Freedoms written in modern language like we
lucky Canadians have :-)
Ours guarantees: "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
including freedom of the press and other media of communication"
As numerous examples have shown, however, our government has about as much
respect for our rights as your government has for yours, ie. _none_. This is
why large corporations are allowed to f**k people using the very judicial
system that's suppoed to protect them. Even a sympathetic judge cannot do much
when a defendant has to give up due to exhausted financial resources or
unrelenting harrasment. And most people, or their ISP's, are not willing to
fight very hard just to keep a TV fan site up.
END RANT HERE :-)
IMHO, Fox and other companies are too afraid of the "other 57 channels" of
perceived competition. They don't understand that a devoted following (such
as this one) is going to vastly prefer a creative "community" to iron-handed
control of images etc. surrounding the subject of their obsession. I mean, who
ever stopped watching a show because they preferred to be online reading
fanfic?
Yeesh, dumb bunnies.
Allison
Iocaste
>> it. If the statute didn't exist, there would be no property and the
>X-Files
>> would have no value.
>>
>
>
>
>Not entirely true. The position of the current law is that upon
>creation and/or registration, the "work," whatever it is, is the
>property of the creator or the owner, and the laws simply *enforce*
>that position.
What I meant was simply that if there were no law stating that the creator of a
work is its "owner" and that it has the right to exclude others, the work would
have no value. Because why pay money for something if the law allows you to
have it for free? The law's protection for FOX's property is what gives it its
value -- that's all I meant.
>f you cannot prove in
>court that you have ACTIVELY protected your property, it can be
>declared public domain and you lose the right to control it's
>distribution. This applies to both trademark AND copyright law. The
>two are inextricably tied together anyway...
>
They are tied together, but I believe you're mistaken about copyright -- TM's
require you to enforce to maintain them, because they are based not on property
but on consumer confusion. Copyrights do not require enforcement to maintain
rights, although there is an article someone wrote for the Loyola Law Review
suggesting that perhaps FOX is being vigorous in its enforcement because it
fears that the trademark standards might eventually carry over to copyrights.
Iocaste
>>
>>hey, look, ioc...@aol.com said...
>>> The First Amendment of the Constitution would seem to imply that this
>latter
>>> type of damage is not one that the law recognizes -- FOX doesn't have the
>legal
>>> right to shut down criticism of the show.
>
>>Why do people think the First Amendment applies to a private company
>>and a guy running a fan site?
I'm sorry, I missed the original post, so forgive me if I'm taking this quote
out of context --
The First Amendment applies to private enforcement proceedings. If FOX brings
a suit to shut someone up, the only way this can be enforced is through
government action -- a court order, etc. This is why the First Amendment
applies.
For this reason, the First Amendment is very important in libel law -- sure,
it's just one person against another, but the court must enforce it.
Similarly, the parody exception to copyright was created by the Supreme Court
out of respect for First Amendment rights.
mox.f...@fib.gob
[...]
> Bottom line: It's Fox's right and responsibility to protect their
> intellectual property. Are they being huge dicks about it? Yes.
> declared public domain and you lose the right to control it's
If it has been showm many times, name SPECIFIC and unambiguous examples.
> distribution. This applies to both trademark AND copyright law. The
> two are inextricably tied together anyway...
[...]
"A trademark is different from a copyright or a patent. A copyright
protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an
invention." http://www.uspto.gov/ Apples and oranges.
mox.f...@fib.gob
Here, in atxf? Impossible!
-stark-
> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 05:14:53 -0500, -stark- <j...@nospam.kenefick.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > Bottom line: It's Fox's right and responsibility to protect their
> > intellectual property. Are they being huge dicks about it? Yes.
> > But, as has been shown MANY times in the past, if you cannot prove in
> > court that you have ACTIVELY protected your property, it can be
> > declared public domain and you lose the right to control it's
>
> If it has been showm many times, name SPECIFIC and unambiguous examples.
Well, I cannot give you specific case citations yet, but give me a few
days on Westlaw and Lexus and I'm sure I could find something.
I can give you an "anecdotal" example right now. Nine Inch Nails was
persuing a t-shirt bootlegger a few years ago who did not use the
trademarked NIN logo, but rather reprinted lyrics on a shirt.
Copywritten lyrics...not images or trademarks. This guy was
apparently fooling Winterland into believe his product was licensed,
and it ended up in stores all across the country. Again, I do not
have a case number for you, I'm working from memory, but I believe the
position of the Court in the end was that allowing the shirts to
continue to be sold, even though they do not specifically violate a
trademark, violated the spirit of the law and certainly should be
stopped.
If you really want me to find an example of intellectual property
becoming public domain when left unprotected I will look, but even if
I fail the spirit of what I said remains the same: they have the right
to protect it if they own it. It's not yours to do with as you
please. Until archive sites can be classified as research archives by
a court...there's no arguing the legal point here.
Morally it's a whole other issue.
>
> > distribution. This applies to both trademark AND copyright law. The
> > two are inextricably tied together anyway...
> [...]
>
> "A trademark is different from a copyright or a patent. A copyright
> protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an
> invention." http://www.uspto.gov/ Apples and oranges.
Well...definitions are fun to make a little jab at your opponent with,
but the law does not treat them as absolute. They are constantly
interpreted and redefined, bent, broken and ignored. You may be
arguing what is black & white, and I may be arguing what a court or a
corporation is going to do in the thousands of shades of grey in
between.
-stark-
> >Recently, j...@nospam.kenefick.net said...
> >>
> >>hey, look, ioc...@aol.com said...
> >>> The First Amendment of the Constitution would seem to imply that this
> >latter
> >>> type of damage is not one that the law recognizes -- FOX doesn't have the
> >legal
> >>> right to shut down criticism of the show.
> >
> >>Why do people think the First Amendment applies to a private company
> >>and a guy running a fan site?
> For this reason, the First Amendment is very important in libel law -- sure,
> it's just one person against another, but the court must enforce it.
> Similarly, the parody exception to copyright was created by the Supreme Court
> out of respect for First Amendment rights.
>
Yeah...out of the MEDIA's right to communicate in the form of
lampooning and parody of someone influencing national policy!
Don't confuse that with the right of some sweaty, pasty-faced dork
running a "Carmen Electra is My hot fuck toy" fan website or someone
running an archive of legally trademarked and copywritten works that
do not belong to them! it's NOT the same thing, and the First does
NOT apply, imho. But then, I'm not a judge nor am I on a jury,
so...my opinion is worth squat.
I will grant you that the Internet is changing the rules about what
"The Media" is, but we're talking about current law, not what may be.
BTW: The First is not the cornerstone of libel/slander law...the
yardstick of the truth is the cornerstone. When you say something
awful about someone, your speech is NOT protected if that statement is
false, but if it's true, and you can rove it's true...you're
protected, not by the First Amendment but by local, state or federal
libel/slander statutes.
The key is to be able to prove it, or to convince a judge or jury that
your proof is valid and reasonable.
For the record: Fox is still a big bunch of assbagging jackmonkeys,
rights or no rights. ;)
Kimba
No Such Agency wrote:
>
>
> Well if you Americans had just stayed a colony (*jk*!!) you would eventually
> have had a Charter of Rights & Freedoms written in modern language like we
> lucky Canadians have :-)
>
> Ours guarantees: "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
> including freedom of the press and other media of communication"
hmmm- see, maybe this colours my view of the issue. I wonder... have any Canadian
XF sites been taken down? And if so, could that be challenged under Canadian law?
How much would it apply?
Just a thought..
I am!
Kimba
mox.f...@fib.gob
> persuing a t-shirt bootlegger a few years ago who did not use the
> trademarked NIN logo, but rather reprinted lyrics on a shirt.
> Copywritten lyrics...not images or trademarks. This guy was
...*selling* those T-shirts? Making a profit?
[...]
>> "A trademark is different from a copyright or a patent. A copyright
>> protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an
>> invention." http://www.uspto.gov/ Apples and oranges.
> Well...definitions are fun to make a little jab at your opponent with,
> but the law does not treat them as absolute. They are constantly
> interpreted and redefined, bent, broken and ignored. You may be
> arguing what is black & white, and I may be arguing what a court or a
> corporation is going to do in the thousands of shades of grey in
> between.
It may be confusing sometimes for some people, but the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office will not let you register a copyright, and the U.S.
Copyright Office won't let you register a trademark or patent. Those
definitions are clear enough for them.
mox.f...@fib.gob
[...]
> They are tied together, but I believe you're mistaken about copyright -- TM's
> require you to enforce to maintain them, because they are based not on property
> but on consumer confusion. Copyrights do not require enforcement to maintain
> rights, although there is an article someone wrote for the Loyola Law Review
> suggesting that perhaps FOX is being vigorous in its enforcement because it
> fears that the trademark standards might eventually carry over to copyrights.
*an article someone wrote*...
*might*... *eventually*...
Not exactly an overpowering legal argument for Fox.
Meg, the pasty paste eating diva
-0500, Tara Charnow <ta...@erols.com> went forth and said:
>On Wed, 08 Dec 1999 17:44:21 -0500, Kimba <ki...@golden.net> wrote:
>
>
>>what doesn't make sense is the way they are going
>>about it- why are the spoiler sites not touched?
>
>Because the Fox legal department are just as half-assed as the Fox
>"creative" department.
Actually, I've always thought the Fox Legal Department to be fairly
creative itself.
Meg
--
"I'm sorry, but this is like good cop-insane cop." (TXF)
http://fisticuffs.org | meggers[at]fisticuffs[dot]org
jaka
sites, but the companies that pay 20th Century Fox for a piece (license) of The
X-Files or Buffy certainly don;t want the competition. I think the pressure is
coming from them.
jaka
solo84
encourage such things and they weren't even aware of Fox's actions until
recently.
--
solo84
The Buffy Bringers
http://buffy.acmecity.com/undead/214/
"Tell FOX we're comin'..."
The New Buffy/Giles Relationshippers
http://www.bgshippers.com
jaka <ktho...@mvp-media.com> wrote in message
news:38518C64...@mvp-media.com...
laura capozzola
> Online polls don't mean a damn thing. Nielsen ratings do.
Actually, I think on-line polls do mean something especially if the poll
is conducted by a magazine. It lets the magazine know who is popular
out there (to on-line fans) which in turn helps them to make decisions
as to who they feature in their magazines, especially if the on-line
fans represent the group the magazine is trying to target. By having
its stars/producers in feature stories in magazines, Fox in a
back-asswards way, reaps the benefits as any publicity for the show is
good. I'll usually vote in a magazine conducted on-line poll because if
the magazine features someone I like who is associated with The X-Files,
then as a fan, I benefit, too.
With regard to fan websites, instead of the legalese mumbo-jumbo FOX
should just plain-speak what it will allow and what it won't allow and
what the consequences will be for the infraction. All of the networks
should do this.
Example: If you put a video clip on your website that comes directly
from the show, you will be advised by our legal department to remove it
and your Internet Service Provider will also be contacted. If you do
not comply, you will be sued for XYZ number of dollars under the blank
law.
One thing I have noticed is that many fan sites that claim to be
personal not-for-profit websites carry advertising which probably
defrays the cost of the website or totally eliminates it. In a way,
those fans are "technically" profitting from their website even though
no money actually changes hands. I'm not sure if networks, like FOX,
think then, in turn, that the advertiser is also profitting from their
copyrighted material.
I have always thought TV networks go about this in the wrong way. In
the beginning of the season, they should make up these promotional and
VARIED fansite webkits so that selected appropriate sites can offer
things like screensavers, wallpaper, photos, and even screen clips,
etc., on their related websites. It would help FOX promote the show. I
thought they should have done this to help promote Harsh Realm. It
would have been so cheap to do. Fans could get this stuff up on their
websites months before the show premieres and help get the buzz going.
I think this would especially work for new shows created by a known
producer and especially for spinoffs.
I happen to be enamored of FOX XF and Millennium print ads, myself. I
look at them as if they were visually appealing commercial works of art.
I would consider it an honor to be allowed to display print ads on my
website *BEFORE* an upcoming ep aired because, well, I just happen to
like print ads. I have 2 old ones up there now. I suppose if I was
into audio files or promos/teasers or screensavers, etc., that would be
what I would want on my site. I just think FOX lawyers and FOX
Promotional people could get together and figure out a way to make this
mutually satisfying to both them and us.
Laura
##***************************##****************************##
Merry Christmas from: "All Things Chris Carter"
http://users.erols.com/lauracap/index.html updated 12/4/99
"Carter is the glue that holds the show together. Neither
David Duchovny nor I want to do the show without Chris,
anytime, anyhow." - Gillian Anderson, 1997 -
HEY FOX - WE WANT TO SEE THE UNAIRED HARSH REALM EPS!
##***************************##***************************##
laura capozzola
1. Has anyone with a David Duchovny or Gillian Anderson or Nick Lea or
Mitch Pileggi or Chris Carter website been asked to remove any XF
related material by FOX? (You know, instead of the show or the
characters, you have one for a real person...)
2. Has anyone with an XF actor website been asked to remove anything by
someone other than FOX? For example, let's say you have something up
there of DD or GA from one of their non-XF movies -- ever been asked by
the movie people to remove anything?
mox.f...@fib.gob
> Speaking from experience, I don't think 20th Century Fox has any oppostion to fan
> sites, but the companies that pay 20th Century Fox for a piece (license) of The
> X-Files or Buffy certainly don;t want the competition. I think the pressure is
> coming from them.
> jaka
The only pressure here is coming from the compressed bleep in their
skulls.
Cynthia Schmidt
>Two Questions:
>
>1. Has anyone with a David Duchovny or Gillian Anderson or Nick Lea or
>Mitch Pileggi or Chris Carter website been asked to remove any XF
>related material by FOX? (You know, instead of the show or the
>characters, you have one for a real person...)
>
I run a Gillian site and have never been asked to remove anything. I
have been doing it for about 4 years, and well it is a mass of
information from as many of Gillian's projects including the x-files.
Actually many people tend to list gaws as an x-files site. Which it
is not, but because the x-files is currently the big project in her
carreer right now it does get alot of attention on gaws.
Cyn...
================
The Official Gillian Anderson Web-Site
http://gaws.ao.net/
================
Neurofibromatosis, Inc.
http://www.nfinc.org/
kyle.
Then when they threaten me let them take me 2 court!!
I'm doing it 4 the Deaf XF lovers who cant actually enjoy the whole "Xperience"
kyle.
~Da Pimp Of Da Nation~
FM, STEVIE, SHERYL, DMB TRADE:
http://members.aol.com/CigSM/index.html
http://members.aol.com/CigSM/BTM.html (Behind The Music)