[Prev][Next][Thread Index][Subject Index]

Re: URGENT!! The Wrath of Viacom!


Robert Oliver <roliver@mint.net> writes:

>That would seem to imply that if I make a negative post about Klingons
>(TM) in one of the RAST groups then Paramount has the right to sue me
>for defaming their creation? If they don't like what I say about
>Klingons (TM) do they reserve the right to stop me from ever venturing
>forth an opinion about Klingons (TM)? I can easily write a long-winded
>post about how much I hate the Klingons (TM) and how annoying they are
>and how unrealistic they are and how goofy their ridged heads are, etc.,
>etc. This is not what I actually think of the Klingons (TM), but could I
>write such a post? Might someone decide not to watch any episodes or
>movies with Klingons because of my opinion and therefore deprive
>Paramount of profit?

Uh, yes, you could.  There is a nice little legal cop-out called "Fair Use",
which was written specifically to allow for critical commentary of
copyrighted work.  It basically says that you can violate copyright to a
small degree in order to make a point, justify an argument, provide an
example, etc.  Likewise, the presentation of Star Trek news is exempt from
prosecution, either under Fair Use or under the concept that such news,
being newsworthy, is in the public domain (I've never been clear on the
news side of this).

>Paramount has an obvious right to protect their copyright, but just how
>far are they going to push this? It sounds like they want to obliterate
>fandom...the very thing that has filled their pockets for decades. Is
>Paramount going to publish a guide for us so that we know what we can
>do?

Bottom line is that Paramount is going to do whatever will get them the
most money.  They are attacking sites because they feel that 1) they aren't
making money that they should from unlicensed and copyright-violating
sites that are out there, and 2) those sites are saturating the market and
detracting from legitimate, licensed, money-making enterprises.  But they
will most definitely balance any action they take against negative
publicity that will hurt their customer base.

I highly doubt that Paramount is going to publish a guide.  I have no doubts
that they have a guide of some sorts which they provide to newly-licensed
business partners of theirs.  But there's no benefit to their publishing a
guide for non-licensed people.  In the first place, such a guide exists -
it's called the U.S. legal code.  In the second place, their actions have
a greater effect if they don't announce their intended limits, in that it
will cause violators who aren't sure of their position to stop what they're
doing out of fear of legal action, without Paramount actually having to do
anything.

>I have 700+ pages of Star Trek research that I have spend 5+ years
>working on. It has never made me a cent or deprived Paramount of any
>money (or, for that matter, been seen by more than a few people). I
>guess I have to delete the files now for fear of a squad of lawyers
>coming to my home and dragging me off to prison.

>In fact, this very post is probably illegal and a copyright violation.

>Resistance is futile...you will be trademarked!

No, not at all.  If this is legitimate research and not just a piece of
fan fiction, then in all likelihood, its use of Star Trek copyrighted
material and trademarks falls under Fair Use.  Look at it this way -
if it weren't for Fair Use, Siskel and Ebert would violate copyright
every week.

				Jim

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Griffith  /--OO--\     | Two great powers are on our side: the power of
griffith@netcom.com        | Love and the power of Arithmetic.  These two are
BEWARE BATS WITHOUT NOSES! | stronger than anything else in the world.
References: