Slash Fans Take Note

[rainy_lilac at yahoo.com]

> You are all missing the point.  WB has purchased the rights to the 
> characters.  A case can be made that slash and the reaction to it 
> lowers the value of the property, irrespective of whether or not 
the 
> fanfic author is making money off it.  It is analogous to Napster 
and 
> the MP3 music.  FYI, Napster lost big-time! The corporations who
> owned 
> the properties won hands down.  It is not a first amendment issue. 
> It 
> is copyright law.
> 


I humbly beg to differ.

I do not believe that this is as simple as you might think, nor do I 
think this is really comparable to Napster. Napster got in trouble 
because they were enabling people to download actual coprighted 
material instead of purchasing it. Even if Napster did not make money 
from its transactions (hmmm.. how did it make money, btw?), its 
actions DIRECTLY cost recording artists thousands of dollars in lost 
revenue. This does not appear to be WB's concern.

WB certainly has  stake in their trademark, I appreciate that-- but 
we also have a First Amendment which protects speech and the 
expression of opinions. I wonder what could be done with this.

Example:

What if I choose to write an offensive parody of HP? For Saturday 
Night Live or David Letterman? Is that protected speech, or is it the 
dilution of copyright? What is the difference between this and fanfic?

I am not a legal scholar, but I will hazard to guess that there might 
be some gray areas here worthy of discussion. 

What interests me more is what the larger ramifications would be in 
WB decided to pursue writes of slash fiction while leaving otehr fan 
fic writers alone. 

It does indeed bring up some issues.

Thoughts?

Suzanne