Free Lightsaber Event Now Battling Lucasfilm's Lawyers (siliconbeat.com) 198
For eight years the arts collective Newmindspace had been staging free lightsaber battles, and in December they set a world record with 9,951 "combatants" simultaneously participating in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Seattle. But then in January they received a letter from the copyright attorneys for the Star Wars franchise. "We immediately stopped using the words 'lightsaber,' 'Jedi,' 'Sith' and 'The Force,' " the group's co-founder told the technology blog of the San Jose Mercury News, saying they've still been "aggressively pursued" for the last three months. '''In March we received further communication stating 'The Light Battle Tour' and 'light sword' were still too close to their trademarks, and we moved to settle the dispute to avoid legal action." Their new solution involves referring to the weapons as "catblades", and they've re-branded their upcoming series of events (which begins on April 30 in San Jose) as the "Cats in Space Tour".
Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise stated, because fuck you that's why.
Imagine if this had stopped 'Star Trek" conventions through the years. Would the franchise be nearly as popular as it was/is?
Here is a clue for the 1% media fucktards and their lawyer army. Something that gets people engaged and excited about your supposed "IP" is free word of mouth advertising. Word of mouth advertising is free, and far more effective than any other kind that you pay dearly for. The trade of is you cannot tightly control the message. Boo hoo.
Re:Because... (Score:5, Informative)
Where's the "apply for license" button? (Score:2)
Imagine if [copyright and trademark restrictions] had stopped Star Trek conventions through the years.
Star Trek conventions are licensed.
Handling Star Wars analogously would be fine if Lucasfilm had posted an offer of terms under which to host a licensed Star Wars convention. Has it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be fine if Disney published a report listing typical royalty rates for common licensing scenarios.
Butthole Astronomer (Score:2)
When Astronomer Carl Sagan objected to Apple using "sagan" as their internal code name for one of their projects, they changed the code name to Butthole Astronmer. Perhaps they should change the name of the catblades to C&D sabers. I wonder if Apple would lend them the name Sosumi.
Re:Butthole Astronomer (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipedia: In 1994, engineers at Apple Computer code-named the mid-level Power Macintosh 7100 "Carl Sagan" after the popular astronomer in the hope that Apple would make "billions and billions" with the sale of the computer. Apple used the name only internally, but Sagan was concerned that it would become a product endorsement and sent Apple a cease-and-desist letter. Apple complied, but its engineers retaliated by changing the internal codename to "BHA" for "Butt-Head Astronomer". Sagan then sued Apple for libel in federal court. In November 1995, Apple and Sagan reached an out-of-court settlement and Apple's office of trademarks and patents released a conciliatory statement that "Apple has always had great respect for Dr. Sagan. It was never Apple's intention to cause Dr. Sagan or his family any embarrassment or concern". Apple's third and final code name for the project was "LaW", short for "Lawyers are Wimps".
I think they should call these blades Litigation Exit Sabers or LitESabers for short.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Japan, self-published works are called doujin works. Many of them are derivative of existing works, like commercially published manga and anime. What's special about them is that they are openly sold. Comiket, the most popular event for buying and selling doujin works, has over 30,000 individuals and groups selling stuff, and over 500,000 total attendees. Twice a year. Not everything there is based on existing works, but a lot of it is.
It's not technically legal to sell these derivative doujin works, but
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a proponent for intellectual property rights but that shouldn't be read to mean that I believe the current system is ideal and wouldn't serve better with some reworking. One of the things that really needs to happen is, in my views, taking a good look at the affirmative defense that is known as "Fair Use." It's entirely subjective, at least from my reading of the law and from reading the results of lots of cases over the years.
An affirmative defense means that you basically say, "Yeah, I used the work b
Re:Because... (Score:4, Insightful)
"defending your brand" does not typically mean preventing any of your copyrighted words and names from being uttered in public.
Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
Lucas used to hand out free IP licenses all the time. He let people make amateur films based on Star Wars. You just sent him a letter asking for permission and you usually got it. As long as you aren't making loads of money off of it he didn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
That's stupid. thousands of fans so interested in their IP they're willing to show up for things like this, and this is the reaction from Disney/lucasfilm?
I imagine if the disciples had lawyers, Christianity would never have taken off... unlicensed proselytizing might weaken the brand and it goes without saying, they'd need to shut it down, right?
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, it is a bit difficult to differentiate between them when the USPTO keeps issuing trademarks for purely descriptive phrases like square donuts [techdirt.com] and design patents for things that would barely qualify for copyright protection.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize copyright and design patents are completely different things, right?
A design patent covers things that aren't copyrightable - they're for ornamental features of an object. You can't copyright a physical object by definition, but you can protect the look and feel of a physical object with a design patent.
Copyright affects creative works - typically music, movies, books, etc. As the "design" of this doesn't really appl
Re:Because... (Score:5, Informative)
Analog Magazine cover, 1969 [wikimedia.org]
The rod “ something in appearance like a cross between the flame of a welding torch and the arc of a static electricity charge crackled from the end of the rod even as it burst from the end of the rod the discharge from Galyan’s rod met the discharge from Slothiel’s head on, and the two lines of white fire splashed harmlessly into an aurora of sparks"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because... (Score:4, Insightful)
"There are only three forms of IP: trademark, copyright and patent."
And all of them illusions, in reality there are none.
Re: (Score:2)
There are only three forms of IP: trademark, copyright and patent.
Citation needed. Some definitions include trade secrets, trademark-like rights of publicity, copyright-like "mask work" rights (sui generis rights in integrated circuit designs), and copyright-like sui generis rights in ship hulls under the umbrella term.
Re:Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
He um, sold Star Wars. So no, don't blame him (except for originally 'trademarking' those things). The lawyers are Disney's and we know exactly how litigious they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
>His action of selling it caused this
Nah.
We get enough causality bullshit from the justice system, thanks. I'm no friend of Big ISP, but they aren't "enabling terrorism and child porn" by providing people connectivity. Besides, you and I are commoners and don't get to exploit the fallacy for our agendas, that's reserved for our righteous betters with Authority And Power.
Re:Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a deep dislike for the sentiments posed by the AC that you replied to. By blaming someone else, they're taking the blame from Disney and that's where the fault truly lies. It's like those who want to blame ISIS on the US. No, the US isn't the one out there cutting heads off. If you want to blame the US for it then you might as well blame the League of Nations and the colonization that screwed up the whole area and whose actions gave rise to the situation we have today.
However, no... The Europeans (the US was not a member nation in the League of Nations) aren't to blame for ISIS either. The blame is squarely on the jackasses who are busy chopping heads and throwing gay people off of "Chuck-a-homo Bridge." They're the ones responsible. They're the people who are committing the atrocities. Trying to blame someone other than them is just shifting the attention and a method of refusing to accept the fact that this problem needs addressing.
Just like this - but slightly less severe when it's just about movie/fan rights. They might be light sabers but nobody is losing a head over this. Still, if the AC tries to blame Lucas then they're just shifting the blame from Disney. Disney is the controlling rights holder and Disney is to blame for this. I doubt we've got Disney shills here but that's pretty much what I'd do if I wanted to minimize the negative impact done to Disney's public image. I'd do what I can to make sure that Lucas was blamed and that Disney rarely came up in the conversation.
However, no... It's probably not a paid shill - or "online reputation management expert." It's probably just that the AC really isn't all that bright. I'd almost rather they be a paid shill but, alas, they're probably just stupid.
Oh, something I was thinking about while scrolling through but not really entirely related to this comment... I wonder what other sorts of protections Disney has. They could probably just have a yearly event and be careful to avoid the terms. I don't know what copyright would cover when it's transformed into look-alike products that bear a superficial relationship. I don't suppose they've gone so far as to get things like a design patent for this stuff? If they've done that, I'm not sure what that covers.
Re: (Score:2)
'your economic benefit' is hardly true. I as a citizen gained diddly squat for all of that. A few people in the 'right' places got a benefit, including the president at the time, but it hardly should be laid at the feet of the average person. I didn't get any more security. I just got a crap load of tax money going to shit that is a stupid waste of money when we have more pressing issues like poverty and unemployment... But no one want sot talk about those. Personally I keep voting against the current estab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Xerox, Kleenex, Google and Photoshop all say 'LOL'. Can you actually cite a case where a big name like this actually lost their trademark? You do realize this (false) maxim only applies to trademark, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Thermos, Escalator, and Aspirin.
Heroin, Cellophane, Trampoline.
Laundromat, Dry Ice, and Kerosene.
Zip Code, Yo-yo, and Zipper.
More recently, in 2011, Apple abandoned a fight over App Store. They abandoned the trademark as well.
All of the above failed to defend and lost their exclusive rights on the name. The company may still use it but they have lost cases since their inception because they failed to defend it. You can use Google and find a whole bunch of 'em. I knew a few of them and cheated to find the re
PR idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
I would have sponsored the event, it's obvious that there is a huge following of fans there.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. They could have sponsored them. Added a few extra small things like cosplay judging or something and then made out like thieves on crappy memorabilia.
Re: (Score:3)
Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of reaching out and asking if these people would want to become a sanctioned event, or a simple, could you please work with us to not violate our IP, they chose to instead swing the FUCK YOU hammer.
Lawyers are garbage.
Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who didn't see this coming when Disney bought Lucasfilm? This is just the beginning.
Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who didn't see this coming when Disney bought Lucasfilm? This is just the beginning.
This better hit 5 insightful.
Way back in time.... http://www.snopes.com/disney/w... [snopes.com]
In 1989, a day care center in Florida had some paintings of some Disney characters on the wall in their playroom. What better way to get little children to become fans and put more money into the coffers? Little kids begging for their parents to take them to Disney again and again to see the real characters that they fondly remember from a very young age
But Disney didn't see it that way, so they bitchslapped the the center with the threat of legal action.
Hanna Barbera stepped in and allowed the place to use it's characters gratis.
Oh, just wait cosplayers and Star Wars fans. Just wait until the court cases over Han shot first. The C and D lawsuits over sexy Leia bikinis.
If you thought Lucas was an asshole, welcome to your new overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
That case always gets brought out. :D Well, not always... There's a bit more to the story but nothing too huge.
They were also violating the local sign regulations.
http://articles.orlandosentine... [orlandosentinel.com]
Disney really, really are dicks:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.c... [sun-sentinel.com]
I can't find the last one but because the pictures were too large anyhow, and the day care didn't get the correct permissions - even after given a chance, the Hanna-Barbara pictures got painted over in 1992, I think? I think it was 1992. I can't find
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the fun part... Because Hanna-Barbara did that for *this* day-care, the original one, they ended up having some legal issues that came out of it, as others sought to license them at the same cost that the Floridian day cares paid.
Some days, people are very hard to like.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Wars half died for me when Lucas re-released the original 3 all screwed up in the late 90's, it was confirmed dead on the prequels.
I don't give a damn about the franchise and I do say franchise, because they are so transparent with it all. There's no veil of mystery, no universe to be interested in. Star Wars, like all fictional properties is a product. Problem is, with Star Wars, they really don't bother blurring the line at least, it's just outright, in your face BUY ME, BUY ME bullshit.
Haven't seen
Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... (Score:4, Informative)
Do you think a lawyer would do this on their own without somebody giving them money and a task to do?
Absolutely [wikipedia.org]. Prenda Law is well known for 'buying' rights from porn companies in order to use them to extort money from defendants. It's very doubtful that any company ever paid them to go after anyone, though the people behind Prenda law certainly had fun setting up shell corporations to try and make it look like it.
They were shut down in 2013 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of, but not really.
Prenda Law shut down, but the people behind it haven't faced any real consequences.
Paul Hansmeier was one of the people behind Prenda Law, for example. He's moved on to filing ADA violation lawsuits against small businesses using the same business model; demand payments that are a bit less than it would take to defend in court in order to drop the suit. He's filed over a hundred of those lawsuits in less than two years.
He's also trying to file for bankruptcy to get out of the debts
Re: (Score:2)
If you have too much of lawyers they will find someone to sue dont' worry.
Re: Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... (Score:2)
They (Disney lawyers) are not stopping because in their eyes the damage has already done (association with Star Wars) and people will associate the event with Star Wars and light sabers no matter WHAT the event is renamed as.
If they were SMART they would buy the event outright. It's a successful marketing vehicle for their franchise! WHY IN h double hockysticks do they not get it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of reaching out and asking if these people would want to become a sanctioned event, or a simple, could you please work with us to not violate our IP, they chose to instead swing the FUCK YOU hammer.
Lawyers are garbage.
Yup, that would have been good all around. Let them license the terms so Disney doesn't have copyright issues; the event holders could even put in a nod to Disney thanking them for being decent enough to work out a good solution. However, they instead decided to bring out the Death Star...
For me, the classic example how to do it right in such a situation is how Stevens Aviation settled with Southwest over the "Plane Smart" slogan. Stevens Aviation CEO Herwald challenged Southwest CEO Kelleher to an arm wres
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike a gun, a lawyer has the option to decline. It's like the old joke, "What is the difference between a whore and a lawyer?". "There are some things a whore won't do".
Cats In Space? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, is that the best name they could come up with it?
I would have went with the "Generic Glowing Space Sword" battle, which gets the point across while giving the middle finger to Disney and their copyrights.
They could have also done a Spaceballs themed Swartz battle, assuming that whoever owns that copyright also isn't an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose they could name an event Cats vs the bottom feeding mice? We do now know there is not much difference between, bottom feeders, mice and sith lords.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a copyright, but a trademark. Which also means it's the only time they technically have to sue to retain their 'brand'. However, I don't think it would hold up in court as a trademark. Usually you get a trademark on a product you produce within a given market. They neither make nor create 'lightsabers', though they do outsource some toy production of what could be called 'lightsabers' and are usually branded as such, and they don't create events utilizing them (that I've ever heard of).
So it seems
Re: (Score:2)
Should have just gone with "plasma sword" or "energy sword". There's tons of examples of such weapons in science fiction from before Lucas. Changing merely the word "sabre" to "sword" as admittedly a rather weak change.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit! What the event needs is a good lawyer. Lightsaber is barely not generic enough as it is given there are references to flaming swords in the fucking bible. It is not at all a unique concept, especially when you consider what 45 years of Sci-Fi wrought before Star Wars showed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Was I the only one here who actually tried googling [google.com] "Cats In Space"?
Re: (Score:2)
Disney made a movie with almost that title. It's "Cats from Outer Space." At least I think it was Disney.
Re:Cats In Space? (Score:5, Insightful)
They could have also done a Spaceballs themed Swartz battle, assuming that whoever owns that copyright also isn't an asshole.
That would be Mel Brooks, who I suspect would not only not sue, but would probably show up and make them laugh their asses off, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not go all Bible-y? Flame swords, the Angels, the Demons and, just to mess things around, the Ki?
Lemme get that. Because I somehow don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
So there is this huge event made by geeks that costs them not a dime, advertises their franchise with what is pretty much a public stunt show and they SUE against that?
"But what if they misrepresent it?"
Please! We're talking hardcore geeks here. Anything that could remotely, possibly be consider by someone not-canon would be axed if not nuked with more zeal and closer attention to detail and accuracy than any of the lawyers who have no idea about the franchise itself, only about its IP laws, could or would do. If anything, these things are going to be closer to canon and whatever the "designers" of the franchise create than any amusement park you sell your IP to ever would (because they don't give a fuck about canon as long as it is gimmicky).
So please explain that to me. It makes no sense.
Oh. It's covered by copyright law. Ok, never mind, carry on, that's not supposed to make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Just as long as nobody brings up Greedo shooting first...
Re: (Score:3)
Like Disney gives a shit about that, it's a miracle that they didn't retcon the first trilogy altogether so far.
Re: (Score:3)
That's roughly my point. You're arguing that fans aren't going to misrepresent Star Wars canon, but you're also aknowledging that there's a (growing) disagreement between fans and the property owners about what actually is canon.
In such a disagreement, the side with the bigger lawyers usually "wins".
Re: (Score:2)
It's how trademark law works (Score:5, Informative)
And at this point, I don't think the franchise cares about any more advertising, free or not. It's pretty much reached the saturation point in mindshare.
Just change the name (Score:3)
It's as valid as renaming Snarf to Jar-Jar and then making the character horribly annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair Use (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, so their business strategy for keeping their business is to gain revenue from fans by alienating fans.
This is quite a novel approach to business. Ok then. If they can dictate what English words other people should use, then i will dictate how my money that i created will be used.
I won't buy anything Star Wars ever again, and will only pirate any and all media they get out.
Two for two.
Re:Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
All say "boo". Walk away and find another franchise.
Honestly, never "got" Star Wars anyway, certainly not the modern prequel crap, and can't bear to sit through any of them.
But the problem is that people think it's "a franchise for the fans" when it's just "a franchise for the finance". They honestly don't care about your fan club, they just want money from you. And fucking idiots keep giving them money.
Let it die. Go "Oh, yeah, that was a good movie when I was a kid". Then forget about it. Not even out of spite. Just forget it exists and move on. It had its time. Like "The Matrix", it was great, it was milked for all it was worth, let it then die, and at least remember the first as a great movie.
Incidentally: Star Trek, Dr Who (??? Seriously don't understand this, despite being British), etc. are all the same.
Let it remain in your childhood as a fond memory, rather than playing a kid for the next 40 years and handing people money for doing nothing and screwing over actors.
Every movie and TV show I ever watched as a kid? Nowhere near as fun as I remember. Just keep them in your head, they are funnier there, and cost nothing.
Angel east of Eden (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a saber anyway. A saber is curved and single edged. "Lightsabers" have no edge at all and definitely aren't curved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution... copy someone else's parody? (Score:5, Funny)
A better solution.. (Score:3)
Since Lucasfilm/Disney would be better served by not having lawyers running after a good-will event like this, it seems like everyone might be better served if Lucanfilm/Disney would require them to collect a $1 entry fee, all of which is required to go to a charity. Now, no on looks like the bad guy, everyone has fun, and people get some help.
This could get interesting (Score:2)
Scientology (Score:2)
"Scientology" is also both an established religion and a closely guarded trademark-copyright complex.
Re: (Score:2)
Could turn into something resembling a holy war -- a Jed-ihad?
I'm sorry, I'll let myself out. No wait, I'll submit it as a screenplay for Episode 8 !
I've been to Newmindspace events before... (Score:2)
...not this one in particular, but I get emails from them on how this stuff works.
All I can say is: whoop-dee-shit, Disney. Someone calls a cardboard tube* a lightsaber, and you're getting pissy? Why? Who's making such a great profit off of these very, very flimsy things that anyone anywhere EVER would mistake them for the genuine article, and therefore a substitute to a licensed product that you might sell? Believe me, you are losing virtually NO profit from anyone in any event like this using somethin
Billionaires (Score:2)
What they should have said (Score:2)
Dear Lucasfilm Lawyers:
We have stopped using your trademarked terms Jedi and Sith, your laughably descriptive term "lightsaber" and even the obviously generic "Force". However, we are drawing the line at dropping the word "light", even when in combination with "battle" or "sword". Your resemblance to the Prince of Darkness does not give you a monopoly over light. Please fuck off now.
Fuck Disney (Score:2)
And the mouse they rode in on.
The last Star Wars was crap anyway, and not worth the measly $2.00 I paid RedBox to see it.
#freemickey
And you thought Episode 1 was boring (Score:2)
"We immediately stopped using the words 'lightsaber,' 'Jedi,' 'Sith' and 'The Force,' " the group's co-founder told the technology blog of the San Jose Mercury News, saying they've still been "aggressively pursued" for the last three months.
Episode 1: story opens with a trade dispute
Episode 8: story:
Eh, I'll still go.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah! And enough with books and music and television and movies. Everyone should stay in their basement and never expose themselves to anyone else's creative works, much less celebrate them!
Or, you know, we could continue to behave like humans have behaved since the beginning of recorded history.
Sharing stories and celebrating them is a fundamental part of human interaction. We use stories to share our knowledge, beliefs and morals. Stories entertain and educate and act as a form of common ground that people can use to connect to and understand one another.
Celebrate free works instead of proprietary ones (Score:2)
<sarcasm>And enough with books and music and television and movies. Everyone should stay in their basement and never expose themselves to anyone else's creative works, much less celebrate them!</sarcasm>
I think 110010001000's idea is supposed to be that people are supposed to write their own "books and music and television and movies", put them under a license intended for sharing [freedomdefined.org], and celebrate them instead of celebrating proprietary works. It's like e-sports: people take up a proprietary video game as a sport and then act all surprised when the game's publisher wants to tax or even shut down tournaments [arstechnica.com] under its exclusive right to perform the work publicly. This realization about e-sports [harddrop.com] is why I quit
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have some drastic misunderstandings of the boundaries of the law. Talking about a copyrighted work or trademarked term is not illegal, despite some companies happily pretending that they think it is in order to file lawsuits that stifle free speech by making it too expensive to defend in court.
Copyright law was never meant to overrule freedom of speech. Copyright law was written into the original constitution and the protections given in the first amendment supercede copyright law. In point of
Golan was narrow; WB v. RDR; public performance (Score:2)
In point of fact, some aspects of copyright law have been ruled as unconstitutional because of this
You refer to Golan v. Holder [wikipedia.org], which was a narrow ruling that the First Amendment defense against copyright term restoration applies only to "reliance parties", who had been using a work prior to the restoration of copyright in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). The URAA originally limited the duration for which reliance parties could make grandfathered use of a work whose copyright was restored. The Tenth Circuit in Golan held that this limit changed the contour of copyright in a way that violated t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From wikipedia:
The derivative work card (Score:2)
Come up with your own stories.
That's easier said than done when the incumbent publishers' lawyers can play the "derivative work" card, claiming that your work is too similar to that of their clients.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
My daughter makes costumes for herself and her husband. Often they are characters from a movie, but sometimes from a book. Last year I helped her make a metal belt buckle for her Gamora costume.
Don't be dissing people for the things they like. Who are you to judge? And if they're making something, that's extra cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, if they were actually making something interesting, creating something new, that would be one thing. But they're just imitating things that others created.
At least try to do something that even the creators didn't. If these people were for example building real plasma swords, then I'd have more interest. But they're just hitting each other with big mass-produced plastic swords, the same sorts of toys that little kids play with.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason it irritates me when i go to the renaissance fair and see idiots walking around in elf ears or have fox tails. You somewhat sound like you might be one of those idiots or maybe a cheerleader who encourages them.
Sometimes people just want to experience a fantasy. There is nothing wrong with that if they are not harming others. There is nothing wrong with them wanting to share in the fantasies of others. Let them have their fun before someone brings a machine gun to a D&D outing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes people just want to experience a fantasy. There is nothing wrong with that if they are not harming others. There is nothing wrong with them wanting to share in the fantasies of others.
Bingo. Let people enjoy themselves however they want to, even if it doesn't fit neatly into what someone else thinks is the "right way" to have fun.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, if they were actually making something interesting, creating something new, that would be one thing. But they're just imitating things that others created.
So what? Let them be fans and get their rocks off over what they like. It's not my thing, but lots of things aren't my thing, and you know what? I'm okay with it.
What I find petty and grasping is when a creator feels like he or she is owed money every time mention is made of something they created. Note to creators: fans are what MADE you popular, cut them some slack FFS. Stop being such greedy, grasping dollar whores. You've made your millions, relax a little and enjoy your money without being such a bunch of robot-like revenue-seeking pricks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I like dressing up as Montgomery Scott and reciting Jorah Mormont's Doom poem whilst spanking Slave Leia with Andúril – that I bought from a sword maker at the Renaissance Festival that time I went dressed as Rexor from the 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian – I suppose you'll be telling me that I'm a worm because that doesn't fit into your version of the correct way for one to entertain oneself.
It's not that it doesn't fit into Rei's version as much as that it doesn't fit into the respective copyright owners' versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. At least that would be creative.
My objection wasn't to "people doing whatever makes them happy". My objective was the characterization of "poorly imitating someone else's preexisting work" as "creative".
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? How are you reading:
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, that's how I originally read their post. The rest of it, the assumptions and insinuations, appear to be things you've added to their post - things that were neither stated nor implied. Perhaps you're a bit overly sensitive and the easily offended type, the type who sees slight where none was nor was any intended.
Don't lie about your great works of art unless they're truly great works of art. It's possible to do some of the things you may do and to be imaginative. Imaginative and creation is not simple
Re: (Score:2)
Real geeks are creative. But not these San Fransisco wannabes.
But only if they're also True Scotsman. So, if the geek in question is not wearing a kilt and sporran (or brandishing a broken bottle of Irn Bru---wouldn't want to accuse the Glaswegians of not being true scotsmen) then they're a fake wannabe.
Re: (Score:2)
Just gifting a Glasgow Kiss should be sufficient for identification purposes. The kilt would not, then, be mandatory. Of course, it would liven up the scene a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's "the intentional taking of one's own life." Nothing about a fan base in there. Seriously, if somebody told you, "My brother committed suicide last year", would you respond, "What an idiot - what good did he thing would come of attacking his fan base?"
But how to build momentum for a boycott? (Score:2)
Let's boycott disney?
If people want to reenact a story, and Disney is unwilling to offer reasonable terms to license its stories for reenactment, a boycott is the legally and morally correct answer. But if the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 wasn't enough to inspire a boycott that gains enough momentum to have a noticeable effect on Disney's policies, I can't imagine what is.