speaking of copyright infringement, how bout you copy and paste that article here for the unsubscribed!!!!
:) patrick At 11:37 AM 12/11/2001 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >This ought to open a very big can of worms: > >http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html > >Michael Corrigan >Programmer >Endora Digital Solutions >www.endoradigital.com >630/942-5211 x-134 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: C. Hatton Humphrey > To: CF-Community > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:17 AM > Subject: RE: Lucasfilm shuts down fanfic site > > > > > > Of course, one could make the point that the Constitution > > > does _not_ say > > > > your right to not be pissed is protected. Although many people >would > > > > disagree, see various "hate speech" type laws around the >country. > > > > Personally, I think the more an idiot is allowed to spew > > > hate speech, > > > > the more people will realize... well, that they are an idiot. ;) > > > > > > Agreed, but you miss my point. My example was more along the > > > lines of a > > > slander or libel, not hate speech or anything along those > > > lines. You can be > > > pissed all you want about an idiot spewing, but when someone > > > takes your name > > > and uses it in a slanderous way, then the law can be involved. > > > > > > > Personally, I think libel/slander should be legal as well.... in >theory. > > I should be able to say that you have three arms, even if that is a > > complete lie. I'm kind of an absolutist when it comes to free >speech. > > (Of course, nothing works in absolutes, and it would be different if > > Newsweek said you had 3 arms.) > > I would hope that any competent person would see a difference between >the > absurd (your 3 arms suggestion) and the graphic (such as the stories >that > were pulled.) The first difference is that while you can draw me with >3 > arms 4 legs and a pair of horns, these stories took a step down the >Dark > Side (sorry, couldn't resist). My example of slander or libel would >make > the implication that people were involved in rather interesting sexual > escapades. That is what this "slash fiction" does. Some may not find >lies > to that scale disturbing, others would be threatening lawsuits if they >found > their name and likeness put into such a situation. > > My personal opinion in the matter is that once your freedoms begin > restricting mine or attacking my personal beliefs directly with >attacks > aimed at me personally, we have problems. > > We're also going a little off the topic by using that example. I >think a > better case might be made if your company (blah.com just to throw an >example > out) had a group of characters that were used in commercials. What >would > the reaction be if someone took those characters and then created an > explicit (and to some minds immoral or unethical) carnal story line >that > bordered on the bizarre. If this was done without permission (since >the > characters are copyright) then using the character's name and possibly >image > in the story would be considered copyright infringement. > > Had the names been altered, the setting changed from what the >characters are > normally found in... then that might be enough of a change to be >considered > artistic license. No changes are made though. > > Hatton > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
