[Prev][Next][Thread Index][Subject Index]
Re: NEWS: Paramount is Shutting Down Trek Websites!!!
In article <sjrobyDyCI1n.1Dv@netcom.com>, sjroby@netcom.com (Steve Roby) wrote:
> pirateq@ix.netcom.com (Quark's Latinum Lady) writes:
>
> >Katie with an E <KatiE@justalittledog.com> wrote:
>
> >>I just went over and read the letter. Did you all catch the part about
> >>artistic representations of Trek being banned?
>
> >>The way that was worded, we can interpret it to to mean that if you draw a
> >>stick figure and call it Data, you're in trouble.
>
> >>The clamp is coming. Some might say it's here.
>
> >Yes, I did see that. Some poor Kindergarteners doodling Picard are
beginning their lives
> >of crime! Oh, how sad!
>
> Although only a couple of messages are quoted above, the following
> is my response to all the people bemoaning the actions of the evil
> ones at Paramount, including the fellow whose web page says he's been
> "censured" by Paramount (I suspect he means censored).
>
> Ever hear of a company called Disney? If your daycare centre has a
> mural featuring their characters and they hear about it, you will be
> hearing from their lawyers very quickly.
>
> You can bitch about Paramount, or you can learn the context in which
> this is happening. Acquaint yourself with the concepts of intellectual
> property, trademarks, copyrights, etc. Learn how Disney deals with
> similar situations. I've heard that Lucasfilm has also been keeping
> fan activities under close scrutiny since the first Star Wars movie.
> Paramount has actually shown some restraint.
>
> It's like this: Star Trek is NOT your property. I don't care how
> much you have done to keep the show alive, by collecting action
> figures or novels or videos or computer games; whether you've
> created web sites or fanzines or posted works of great insight
> and wisdom on r.a.s.*; whether you bought the show in syndication
> for a TV station, if you happen to work for one. None of that makes
> Star Trek your property. Being part of the Holy and Noble Collective
> of Star Trek Fandom gives you no legal claim to Star Trek.
>
> All of us feel that Trek is in some way ours. But it has always
> been a commercial enterprise. Gene Roddenberry himself created
> the first organization designed to cash in on Trek fandom, Lincoln
> Enterprises.
>
> If you don't want Paramount hassling you, create something of your
> own.
The fundamental purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that Paramount
is active and involved in the protection of its intellectual property.
Paramount has to demonstrate that it is actively protecting its franchise
or they establish a negative precedent in possible future litigation. In
other words, if they let A, B, & C slide without comment it makes it
difficult to mount a case against Violator D.
It is a fucked up, idiotic game among lawyers.
The idea that Disney would lose its rights to Mickey Mouse if it didn't
tear out the throats of preschoolers who drew Mickey on the blackboard is
LUDICROUS. But that is how the game is played. That is how the game
works. This is the same vicious, litigous horseshit writers encounter
when they mention Kleenex or Tampax or Xerox in their novels.
Paramount cannot sue the entire world, so I recommend everyone do their
own thing, use Paramount's property just as you always have. As long as
you have not profitted from doing so, you have a strong legal precedent on
your side. This is the same precedent that allows one to reproduce
materials for personal use. The lawyers will go after the egregious
violators and leave the small fry alone.
While I do support the concept of intellectual property (keeping the
profit in ideas is what ensures the ideas stay good, folks), the
consequence that ordinary citizens who are not profiting from the
redistribution of such materials are prey for attys who are only
interested in scoring precedents for future trials is shameful. There is
a balance somewhere.
We live in strange times, where the very concept of copy protection and
intellectual property is at odds with the free and open dissemination and
redistribution of information. Some day it will all be worked out. In
the future we will wonder how this could have ever been an issue. I
recommend "civil disobedience" as the surest means to ensure it works out
in a mature way that is compatible with the realities of technology and
information transfer. It happened that way with the CDA. It will here,
also.
--
Tim Johnson
codex@primenet.com
References: