"fan fiction "......

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm a little surprised that out of all these hundreds of completely innocent site owners, doing no wrong, and convinced that they were not breaking copyright law, one could not find a lawyer to take on Paramount pro bono. It makes lawyers look good to take on large corporations and win.

Where is this place where lawyers are falling all over themselves to do pro bono work taking on big corporations? The person with deeper pockets can often get people to comply even if their case is shaky. Sometimes lawyers pro bono, but it isn't that often, and it is usually when the plaintiff's case is obviously flawed.

If I let someone walk through my property, and then tell them to stop, that doesn't mean they have done anything wrong before I told them to stop.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by HarryT

MR quite routinely receives "cease and desist" letters from rights holders claiming that something is violating their rights. If you know that you're doing no wrong, you can tell the writer of such a letter where to stick it, and they can't do a thing about it.

It depends greatly on how big the person sending the cease and desist is. It is much harder to tell someone to stick it if they can crush you with legal costs.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But surely one site would have had the guts to say "we're not breaking the law - we're not shutting down" if they felt that they were not breaking the law? It seems remarkable that all these hundreds of sites, all of whom were (some seem to be claiming) doing no wrong, would spontaneously decide to shut down, merely because somebody asked them to, does it not?

In general you would have to be nuts to take on a big corporation in a copyright case, even if you are clearly in the right. It is well known that cases involving intellectual property can take years and often cost far more than most individuals can afford.

I think we need to also look at what was actually hosted on those fan sites. A fan site is not necessarily a fan fiction site. If the sites had been hosting lots of copyrighted material like images and scripts, then the case is much more clear cut than it would be for fan fiction.


--
Bill

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm a little surprised that out of all these hundreds of completely innocent site owners, doing no wrong, and convinced that they were not breaking copyright law, one could not find a lawyer to take on Paramount pro bono. It makes lawyers look good to take on large corporations and win.

I find that totally believable since the risk is assymetric. If you loose you have to pay a lot of money. If you win you only get the money for your work.

[LucyLu]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thank you very much indeed for sharing your knowledge on the subject, which is obviously greater than that of most of us here (certainly mine).

It's a pleasure Harry! I'd like to make a confession.....In my life I've read a lot of fan fiction. Despite some previous comments you can find some well plotted and well written fan fiction out there.
Some time ago I had an animated discussion with some friends about this matter. After that I tried to search answers and...the links were the result.

Unfortunately I've not found absolutely nothing about the Italian law.

[LucyLu]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you know that you're doing no wrong, you can tell the writer of such a letter where to stick it.

Oh my.....such a vivid image!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't you remember when Paramount had a "purge" of Star Trek fan sites some years ago. Could they have succeeded in doing that if the sites were not breaking the law?

The ISPs and web hosts are often not interested in the vagaries of copyright law--they care about profit without hassles.

Paramount didn't need a viable case to shut them down, just the threat of the *possibility* of filing one--and the hosts shut down the fansites, because even if the fansites were 100% legal, proving that in court wasn't worth it to the host company. They didn't want the trouble, and the fansites weren't bringing in enough income to go out on a limb to try to keep their business.

However, there are still plenty of Star Trek fansites, and huge swarms of Star Trek fanfiction, and Paramount has failed to take any of them to court. Isn't that just as much evidence that Paramount doesn't think those sites are infringing? (Of course not. Neither removal nor tolerance of websites is any indication of legal status regarding copyright; both are cases of someone deciding to take the practical path of least resistance.)

[HarryT]

I think we might be better off accepting that we perhaps hold different views on this matter, Elfwreck. I suspect that we're not going to change each others' minds .

[plib]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've only read the third one of these links, but it's excellent. Thank you very much indeed for sharing your knowledge on the subject, which is obviously greater than that of most of us here (certainly mine).

It's interesting that any law lecturer I've ever had, qualified people who presumably knew what they were talking about, was very loth to pronounce with finality on any even moderately complicated legal situation. They would usually emphasize that legal decisions could vary dependent on the "facts of the case" and used phrases such as "how the judge or jury interprets (x)" and "(y) may be considered a precedent or may be distinguished".

Definitive, absolute legal conclusions appear to be reserved to people who don't actually have a legal education.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by HarryT

MR quite routinely receives "cease and desist" letters from rights holders claiming that something is violating their rights. If you know that you're doing no wrong, you can tell the writer of such a letter where to stick it, and they can't do a thing about it.

And MR has caved when they weren't doing anything wrong, either.

I'd say more, but we're forbidden to even mention the software involved, and I don't want to get banned.

Really, what kind of world do you live in where 'not having enough money to fight it' equals 'guilty'?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think we might be better off accepting that we perhaps hold different views on this matter, Elfwreck. I suspect that we're not going to change each others' minds .

I can accept that.

I'm mostly arguing to convince lurkers, who may not have considered the various issues involved. (You may not either--but I trust that, if it became directly relevant to your life, you would.)

[plib]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Really, what kind of world do you live in where 'not having enough money to fight it' equals 'guilty'?

Unfortunately the kind of world where all too many of us live, as described in more detail in this document.

Another innovator explained that the labels said “we’re not going to sue the company, we are going to sue you personally” since “we can make all kinds of allegations and it’s your job to prove you’re not infringing” and “the lawsuit is going to cost you between 15 and 20 million bucks.” The innovator decided that he could “find better uses” for his money “than to give it to lawyers.”
A third respondent noted how “stressful” it was when he was sued personally. It was “definitely very scary” when they came with the “multiple inch lawsuit for a couple billion bucks.” The innovator was afraid of the “unknown” and worried that he could have a judgment “the rest of [his] life.”
A fourth participant relayed a comment from a high-ranking official in the recording industry who said “it’s too bad you have” children “who are going to want to go to college and you’re not going to be able to pay for it.” The innovator recognized a “real undisguised intimidation factor” and commented on the “thug-like nature” of the “behavior of the record companies

But that's OK, If you know you're doing no wrong you can tell them to "stick it", because your lawyers will work pro bono.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by plib

But that's OK, If you know you're doing no wrong you can tell them to "stick it", because your lawyers will work pro bono.

But they do that. I've TV shows where they do, and TV is like real life.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But they do that. I've TV shows where they do, and TV is like real life.

What I find really sickening about the whole current situation is that you could make a convincing argument that the original concept and purpose of copyright was indeed "pro bono publico", in the sense of encouraging and stimulating the arts and culture in general. Now it's been taken over by sleazy corporations, and even sleazier politicians, in an attempt to convert it into nothing more than an endless cornucopia of revenue streams, largely for the benefit of people who had no creative input into the works in question in the first place.

In the process that has led to grotesque abominations like SOPA and ACTA and situations where a child writing "fan fiction" can potentially be harassed for "illegal behaviour". My vocabulary isn't adequate to express my contempt for that whole process.

[WritePR]

I used to be a prolific fanfic writer. Guess what horrible things happened to me because of it? I met several of the cast members of the TV series I wrote fanfic for and they became my friends. I also make a very nice living as a freelance writer. The popularity of my fanfic gave me the confidence to make my dream happen.

Harry, you should be ASHAMED of yourself for what you did to Spindlegirl. It goes way beyond the pale to accuse the mother of a special needs child of taking advantage of her and encouraging her to commit criminal acts. The girl writes for her own amusement and that of her friends. Harmless!

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to name call, harass and otherwise be hurtful to those who see things differently.