[Prev][Next][Thread Index][Subject Index]
Re: NEWS: Paramount is Shutting Down Trek Websites!!!
In article <52bhtd$425@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, bakslash@nicom.com says...
>VH>...to the great god Bill Gates and subscribe to the Microsoft
>VH>Network, eh?
> You'd think they'd like the free advertsing... I can understand
>them going after sites with First Contact scripts/spoilers/etc.; or
>"Voyager sucks" sites, etc. I'm not saying I *like* it, but I
>understand.
Isn't there a law (or at least a legally accepted precendent) which says
that you either have to completely defend your copyright / trademark or not,
but you can't do it *selectively?* I remember a biography of Charles M.
Schulz (the creator of Peanuts) where it was stated that the lawyers for the
cartoon syndicate went after a farmer who had a large picture of Snoopy on
the side of his barn; even though Schulz personally liked the picture, he
(or the syndicate) had no choice but to demand the farmer erase the picture
because otherwise they could not stop others from drawing Snoopy anywhere
doing anything.
For most part, though, the showbiz companies tend to ignore such
violations precisely due to the ad value, but I guess for ST, they decided
getting the Microsoft money outweighed the ad value. (Or they were going
after *all* sites with FC sypnosis to protect the value of FC.)
>Jack M. Cooper (sdjpe@atl.mindspring.com) pointed out:
>JC>Well, they did say that he was posting the FC script synopsis...
> There you go.
>J "Darkwynd" Martin asked:
>JM>I wonder if MSN had anything to do with this.
> Does the word "DUH" mean anything to you? How can they make people
>pay to visit their site when there are other Trek sites that are free?
>What they want is called a "monopoly"; and if they get away with owning a
>monopoly on on-line Trek info, who knows where they'll go next? Maybe
>MSNBC will prohibit anyone else from having news sites...
Isn't there some ways to get around this stuff rather easily? It seems to
me, if the sypnosis was proceeded by "Reliable sources at Paramount stated
that..." and de facto treated it like a news report (even an amateur one,)
Paramount couldn't touch you legally since it falls under "fair use."
(though it may still hassle you and threaten you anyway, and in the worst
case, you may have to defend yourself.)
>JM>I wonder what Roddenberry would say to this shit.
> Don't kid yourself, he was in it for the money too.
I remember a Roddenberry interview in Newsweek around the release of ST IV
where Roddenberry said he would have preferred a "big fat check" to
adulation of the fans. (The context, though, was that while Paramount was
making hundreds of millions off ST, the actual people involved in ST made
relatively little money; including Roddenberry. From what I understand, GR
made little money off Trek until he got involved in TNG - again,
relatively speaking.)
--
**************************************************************************
"We want to reach everyone. People who aren't open to rational
arguments; people who only respond to emotional assaults, such as the
illiterate - or the intellectuals." ...Victor Koman "The Jehovah Contract"
Junsok Yang (yanjuna@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu)
(yanjuna@minerva.cis.yale.edu)