[Prev][Next][Thread Index][Subject Index]
Re: Read only if you love TREK
In article <01bbed04$89657380$LocalHost@mrmunter>, mrmunter@worldonline.nl
says...
>
>
>
>Joyce Harmon <jlharmon@mail.crosslink.net> wrote...
>> In the trek newsgroups, I have noted a tendency of Trek fans to believe
>that
>> due to their long devotion, they actually *own* Trek, rather than the
>actual
>> copyright owners. The law says otherwise. A similar situation arose a
>few
>> years ago when the Margaret Mitchell estate contracted with a romance
>writer
>> to write a sequel to Gone With The Wind. I thought it was a dumb move
>> (though of course it made them a bundle, so perhaps not so dumb), but
>many
>> GWTW fans were incensed and tried to say that the Mitchell estate didn't
>> have the RIGHT to do that. On the contrary. As holders of the
>copyright,
>> they had every right to do it.
>
>Technically you may be right, but I feel the need to point out that 'having
>the right to etc.' is not by definition decided by what the law does and
>does not say. The net total of considerations a judge weighs in his or her
>decision is also made up of jurisprudence and 'the general consensus on
>justice' in a society on any given moment. Sometimes the latter two can
>overrule what the lawbook says. Now I realize that such a case would be
>hard to present where copyrights are involved, but surely not impossible.
>
>In Mitchell's case it might very well have been ruled that the combined
>interest of all her fans outweighs the right of some heirs to make a quick
>buck out of a famous title (rather tastelessly done too should you ask me).
The combined interest of all her fans? I would dearly LOVE to see someone
make this case in court!
Mitchell owned the copyright, and she had the right to will it as she saw
fit. It then became the property of her heirs, who could then do with it as
they saw fit. I fail to see what standing the book's fans, who had no part
in the production of the original work, would have to interfere with
Mitchell's right to dispose of her property according to her wishes.
As for a "combined" fan interest, I didn't read the book - it sounded silly
to me. But many GWTW fans read it and loved it. So I don't see how you can
treat the fans as a monolithic entity, even if they did have a say in the
matter.
>To return to Trek I'm not sure that I see where Paramount would be losing
>money; the owners of the closed sites sure weren't charging anything for it
>and it's doubtful how many of those who surfed into them would have cared
>to become part of MSN.
I would like someone to tell me which sites got the cease and desist
letters, and what they were displaying.
>> Now. Having said that, I still think Paramount is being ridiculous for
>> trying to shut down sites that are simple appreciation and fan activity.
>
>> But are they within their legal rights? The answer to that probably
>varies
>> from site to site.
>
>'Legal' in the sense of 'lawful': maybe. But in the sense of 'rightful'? I
>doubt it, frankly.
The fans were and are displaying their interest in Star Trek. Nothing wrong
with that. But I think quite a number of them crossed the line - and I
still believe it was the posting of First Contact scripts that got
Paramount's dander up in the first place. There are plenty of people on
these groups who would argue their right to do this. I strongly disagree.
Joyce
References: