Fox Sends Cease & Desist Letters To Firefly Fans Selling Jayne Hats, Because Money
from the pissing-off-fans-left-and-right dept
As a whole bunch of you sent in, via a variety of different sources, apparently a maker of "Jayne hats" from the cult TV show Firefly has received a cease & desist letter from the legal attack dogs at Fox, just as an "authorized" version has shown up for sale on Thinkgeek and other sites.
Recently, though, Ripple Junction, a company that produces licensed apparel, obtained the rights to mass-produce the Jayne Hat. It instantly became a hit seller on popular nerd sites like ThinkGeek. It seemed that getting a Jayne hat was easier than ever. But that ease came with a price.The good folks over at ThinkGeek, who are known for being generally cool and with it -- and not at all prone to dickish legal behavior -- were quick to put out a statement about all of this, noting that they had nothing to do with the cease and desist letters, and in fact, they're happy to compete with the homemade sellers.
Firefly fans are coming out of the woodwork, and they are hopping mad. Why? Turns out in the last few weeks many of them have received cease-and-desist letters or have simply been banned from Etsy for producing DIY Jayne Hats. This communal endeavor, it seems, is coming to a close, and fans of the show are asking themselves why. Isn't the whole point of the Jayne hat that it be homemade? Doesn't it mean anything that the hats are often auctioned off at charity events? After 10 years of nothing, isn't it unfair for Fox to suddenly force lifelong fans to cease production of something they love?
We just wanted you to know that ThinkGeek has nothing to do with the C&D notices. The hat is licensed by a vendor with whom we have a relationship and while the hat is not an exclusive to ThinkGeek, we did have a hand in its development and answered the difficult questions like, "Are the earflaps long enough?" and "Is that man afraid of anything?" (Yes and no, respectively.)See? Now that's a reasonable attitude to take. But big media companies like Fox tend to employ lawyers who aren't known for their "reasonable takes" on things, no matter how much goodwill it might destroy among fans.
Would the C&D have happened if we did not carry the hat on our site? We're not sure; we'll leave that question to sharper legal minds than ours. We're here to carry the shiniest of goods from 'round the 'verse, even maybe makin' them ourselves. We just want y'all to know that while we might not always aim to misbehave, we'll always be sure to get you the best stuff this side of the Eavesdown Docks.
The way we see it, if people want to make their own, shiny. For those out there who can't knit to save their gorram lives, we can help.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cease and desist, firefly, jayne hat
Companies: fox, thinkgeek
Reader Comments
The First Word
“UPDATE: ThinkGeek gets even Shinier!
http://www.thinkgeek.com/blog/2013/04/jayne-hat-proceeds-to-cant-sto.htmlSubscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UPDATE: ThinkGeek gets even Shinier!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Remind me again, who are the takers and who are the makers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why piss off the FANS????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Love Thinkgeek's notices
As far as I'm concerned, after the way Fox treated the Firefly franchise, they should have no say whatsoever what other people do with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously though, fuck copyright and all like intellectual property laws. This kind of thing is seriously just bullshit, and this kind of entitlement by Fox is unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What's next, a law against knitting?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: *self-correction*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Love Thinkgeek's notices
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
/s
Copyright: locking up expression since 1518.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This statement is actually incredibly narrow. I took it to mean that it would be fair use for someone to make a hat for themselves.
I think the cause of the C+D though was people that weren't making their own, they were making hats for others? Beneath the 'in 'verse' language, I find it annoying that they don't address this more explicitly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@NathanFillion "@PirateKnits:Captain, looking to unload illegal hats. pic.twitter.com/fR1V0wJA9b" You got a job? We'll do it. Don't much care what it is
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Dan S on Apr 11th, 2013 @ 6:18am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know this song...
Take me where I cannot stand...
I don't care, I'm still free,
You can't take my hat from me...
Take me out to the black,
My best show ain't coming back...
Burn the net and boil the seas
I've already turned to piracy...
Have no place I can be,
Since I found Serenity
But you can't take the sky from me
Instrumental
Take my love, for the land...
Take me to where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free
Fox forced me to pi-ra-cy...
Take them out, to the black
Tell them the show ain't comin' back...
Burn the land, boil the sea
Can't take away my me-mori-es
Have no place, I can be
Since I've found Serenity
But you can't take money from me...
outro
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So what? If I make a Mickey Mouse shaped pancake for myself I am fine, but should my local diner pour them a bit close together they should expect C&D orders from Disney?
Beyond the stupidity of telling fans that they cannot make something that resembles something they saw on a 15 year old TV show shut down in the first season, THIS IS A KNIT HAT.
I think anyone making and selling these should change the name to "Fox's A$$-Hat" and keep on selling them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's felony interference with the textile industry's business model. I'm surprised it isn't on the books already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This story proves that Fox isn't just crazy in the news room and it pisses me off. They didn't go after the Alien chest burster plushes, so why go after Jaynes's hat?
It should be noted that this is why George Lucas kept the merchandizing rights to StarWars so that people could make fan made stuff without a hassle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's a laugh 'n a half.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Now here is what I think Fox was thinking. They cut Firefly after one season citing that the show "didn't get enough ratings" or viewership under the Josh Wheaton name. Thing is, if Fox is blocking the sales of fan made things from the show that they licensed and gave a group permission to sell....the group actually made more money showing that there was in fact viewership...because of that the producers and writers and actors Fox short handed when they killed the show could have made more money than what Fox was paying them. In other words, Fox didn't pay the actors their due because the show got canceled from "lack of viewership".
The reasoning of Fox has been like this towards merchandise for years...which is truly the reason why George Lucas demanded that Lucas Films keep control over merchandise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
While over 100 million are unemployed in America? When McDonalds requires a college degree to be a cashier? -- Well, yeah, in the current economic milieu, YOUR degree is worth LESS than one from Hamburger University; at least they feed people, you just push crap out.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike daily proves the value of an economics degree.
03:00:43[d- 1-7]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UPDATE: ThinkGeek gets even Shinier!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright on clothes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Now, the question then becomes, can you legally recreate and sell the hat without using the term "Jayne"? If people are selling replica's but not referring directly to the show, would Fox be in its right to send a C&D? I wouldn't think so. While the hat had a unique look in the show (did you see any other knitted caps?), it isn't unique in the real world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
You've never tried knitting and seriously...why do you even bother with this out_of_the_blue? Is there some sort of personal problem you would wish to discuss with me? I am a psychologist and a counselor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
While Joss Wheydon created the show, Fox produced it and, apparently has the licensing rights.
While Wheydon would've been reasonable and worked out a deal for a nominal fee (which fans would've complied with since they love the guy), Fox goes in with an attitude of "MINE! MINE! MINE! GIMMIE! GIMMIE! GIMMIE!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright on clothes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright on clothes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Josh Wheaton created the Firefly universe....and did not ask to keep the merchandising rights to anything.
The bottom line is that you are referring to George Lucas pissing off his fans concerning the changes he made in the original StarWars films (Han did not shoot first, it was edited that way because he still moves his head as if dodging something in the original cut) you missed my point entirely. It is a merchandising issue and worse yet, Fox licensed the manufacturing rights to these people to make these hats and are suddenly pulling them because the hats are making money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Copyright on clothes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jebus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
People will often get more upset when their lives are actually interfered with actual interference in their lives than with hypotheticals. Once the rules get passed, the tracking happens *and* the gov't uses the info in a bad way, the individuals affected will certainly be more upset than about the hat.. Course it will be too late by then, but oh well!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
Second, if you are so worried about people making money then why are you arguing against someone who is trying to DEFEND PEOPLE MAKING MONEY FROM GOODS THEY ARE PRODUCING AND SELLING?
I stand by my original assessment of you which I made the first time I saw one of your posts over a year ago: high functioning mental retard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright Articles of clothing may qualify for copyright protection as a "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works", but it'd be pretty unusual and weak. The only parts that might be protected are those "features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article". 17 U.S.C. 102(a).
The utilitarian aspects of the hat are not eligible for copyright, in particular the physical design. So the general hat shape, ear flaps, and ties are definitely out. The pom-pom on top is potentially purely aesthetic, but it's also such a generic aspect of hats that it's not likely to be protected- scenes a faire essentially. The US copyright office won't register garment designs.
The color pattern has a better claim to being protected, but probably isn't. Cloth patterns generally can qualify for copyright. There's nothing particularly functional about the colors in the hat; it would be equally functional (as a hat) if it were purple, green, or black. So there is some creative expression in the color choice- it was obviously selected to be garish for the humorous effect. That being said, there's also not much creatively in terms of having two horizontal rows of solid colors (the solid row aspect might actually be functionally driven by the nature of knitting/crocheting). This was about the most simple two color design you could have, and it'd be easy for a court to just say there wasn't anything protectable in that.
Galiano v Harrah's, 416 F.3d 411 has some nice discussion on this.
Note that a written pattern for the hat probably would be copyrightable. Of course, someone could write up their own version of a pattern that results in a similar hat. And even if a pattern is copyrighted, the object you make from it (i.e., the hat) doesn't necessarily have any protection.
Patents The hat shape and design could potentially be patented, but it's expensive and unlikely anyone bothered.
Trademarks The hat itself probably can't qualify for a trademark. It hasn't been really used as a mark of the show or company.
Unfair competition/confusionA better issue is the use of the Firefly name or characters in the advertising. But some use of another's marks is allowed, including if necessary to fully describe your goods/services (e.g., We repair Toyota cars). To the extent that people need to refer to Firefly to identify where the hats are inspired by/duplicated from, that's probably ok. As long as people aren't trying to pass off their versions as official, Fox approved, or the like, there's not likely to be an issue with source confusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
Personally, this is one aspect of tough economic times that I actually like. Instead of being waited on by some kid more worried about his pimples and whether he will get to see Suzie's bra that night, I get someone who actually gets my order correct and gives me the correct change.
Well, yeah, in the current economic milieu, YOUR degree is worth LESS than one from Hamburger University; at least they feed people, you just push crap out.
Just venturing a guess here, but I would say that Mike's income is significantly more than a MickyD's cashier - so really not sure what your point is, Blue. Are you complaining that Mike's degree is worthless to YOU? The answer to that would be: "So fucking what? Who really gives a shit how much YOU value someone else's degree?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You should view your own work before trying to defend it in incompetent ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The trademark issue is that they were selling the hats titled "Jayne Hats". Fox gave ThinkGeek permission to sell them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
Believe it or not, this is the point of copyright.
Creative works become intellectual capital for new work. They are not a virtual land grab or a means to hide old works or suppress new ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright should have a merchandising statute of limitations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Copyright on clothes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
However, if FOX goes through with their threat to sue the makers of the hats, in order for the hat makers to make the above arguments in court, they would need to pay a lawyer far more than they are ever likely to recoup in selling the hats in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Love Thinkgeek's notices
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What he quotes at best says that they don't mind you making your own (which is and always has been absolutely okay even with current IP law), it doesn't mention - and then selling them(which is the issue).
It does however say that for people unable to make their own, ThinkGeek will sell them to them, with no mention of competition from any non-licensed source.
"if people want to make their own, shiny. For those out there who can't knit to save their gorram lives, we can help."
It's nicely phrased and non-aggressive and I honestly don't care but it just doesn't seem to say what Mike seems to think it says.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright on clothes
But it is to the TV Show that supposedly had a very little following. The title of the merchandise in question is "Jayne Hat" which is a reference to an episode where the characters aboard the Firefly class ship Serenity go to a post office in the middle of a bizarre at the ass end of outer space. One of the characters gets a post from his mother....in which includes a hat that had been in a wooden box for a large amount of years...in that pattern.
I'm not defending Fox as they claim it a copyright issue when it really is a trademark merchandising issue. Fox gave ThinkGeek permission to sell these hats but found that the group making then was making money from a show that they made money from without paying much IP property to Joss Wheydon. The entire reason the show got canceled by Fox was because the producer, Joss Wheydon, wanted to be paid more for his work as he almost didn't see a dime. Fox cited ratings and moved on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright on clothes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If sellers are using "Jayne" as a descriptive matter ("like Jayne wore in the show", "inspired by Jayne", "we can make you an unofficial Jayne-like hat") and are making it clear they're not official, sanctioned, or endorsed, then they're probably ok using the word "Jayne".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright on clothes
This is making me believe that Fox hid the true ratings of FireFly and since they cut the show when Joss Wheydon rightfully asked for a raise. They are sitting on FireFly.
Now as to your question...it is trademark in the title of the merchandise being sold....in reference to a character in the show on a specific episode where he gets a care package from his mom that was sent when he was 15 years old. So it's a trademark issue because of the way "Jayne Hat" is titled. It's implying that it is a replica of the hat that the the character, Jayne, got from his mother.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright? For PD goods?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In terms of copyright, commercial vs non-commericial (private) use is a part of the fair use analysis.
There shouldn't be any trademark issues in privately making a hat for yourself. No customer confusion.
Patent analysis would be the same I think.
So it's not just likelihood of being sued- defenses might be better too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Can't stop the hats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Original Creator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright on clothes
Before and after firefly, it's also a pretty common name. If you ask me it's a toque probably made by a lady named Jayne that looks like one in an old tv show.
Anyway, if it's just a trademark on the title, thats easy. Just change the title to "not a Jayne hat"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Joss Whedon. You turn in your badge too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That being said, ThinkGeek operates under various fan bases to sell relating merchandise to movies, video games, etc....the point is that the site always asks permission before selling merchandise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's true trademarks are an exception and shouldn't have much effect on you unless you are interacting with others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
And you are somehow able to measure the intelligence of the hat makers, how?
"While over 100 million are unemployed in America?" This has what to do with the article? (Or maybe, if there weren't any C&D's, the knitters could support themselves) Besides, 100 million unemployed? That's a third of the US population! The latest figures, from March, have the unemployed rate at 7.6%
"When McDonalds requires a college degree to be a cashier? --" What does this have to do with the article?
"Well, yeah, in the current economic milieu, YOUR degree is worth LESS than one from Hamburger University; at least they feed people, you just push crap out."
From Mike's Wikipedia page (yes, he has one, AWESOME!)
"He has a bachelor's degree in Industrial and Labor Relations and an MBA, both from Cornell University.[4]"
Cornell is an Ivy League university, not a "Hamburger" one, whatever the fuck you mean by that.
No, you have hit rock bottom here, you shit-eating bitch. Before, you at least padded out your attacks with some sort of reference to the article, some semblence of an argument, but here, you just turn up, drop your pants, wave your tiny dick around and insult all of us. Now fuck off, and never darken these comments again. You're not welcome, and you never will be. You have lost all possibility of being taken seriously here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is a fair use doctrine in trademark law. If you're a mechanic, you can say "we repair Toyotas" without a trademark issue. News organizations can report on the Boston Marathon, a trademarked term.
The point behind trademark protection is to prevent consumer confusion. If I start selling "louis vuitton bags", that aren't actually louis vuitton, then consumers are deceived about the source of the product. But a "louis vuitton inspired bag" is something different because there's no expectation that it's actually from louis vuitton.
So long as the hat sellers are making it clear the source of these hats is not Fox (or fox licensee), then they're probably fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know when you're hitting a nerve with the IP AssHats
Have been meaning to say "Congrats" for some time, now Mike,m so, Congrats!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To OOTB: Do you ever get bored of sounding like an ignorant ass, or are you paid well for that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So, I guess this action is thematically appropriate. Now, what was the punishment Mal suggested for that one?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
That lack of access was self determined whilst limited free time was spent building computers, making early versions of Red Hat work with a Windows 3.1 network, sailing, studying marketing and management at higher levels, and refusing to read that book about Assembly Language whenever I asked my friend who actually studied computers a why question, etc.
I have reversed my self imposed TV related moratorium, but am an expat on a cable system that could care less about my geekdom.
Mea culpa!
BTW, how does that tune go?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it were actually copyright, the salespersons would be called out on the use of the words being used rather than the product. Since it is a stop and desist notice/request on a product rather than the words, no matter how Fox botched up the filing, it is trademark clauses alone that can make this case.
I do agree with you that the takedown is in fact bullshit...but many others see this as a patent or copyright case when it really isn't. As I have cited on many of my comments...this is the EXACT reason Lucas Films kept the merchandising rights to StarWars out of the control of 20th Century Fox.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Fox had entirely abandoned Firefly and it's fanbase 10 years ago. Those who loved the show made themselves hats since they could not buy an official one anywhere. Those who could not knit bought them from those who could. They became popular enough that they created a market for them. Only then did Fox step back in to capitalize on that demand, shutting out those who had created it.
So just who is free riding on whose "time, energy, money, and skill" here? I think you've got it backwards.
BTW, the show was about people struggling to be free against massive corporations and the corrupt, oppressive government they control. This move seems precisely calculated to piss that fanbase off as much as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
This is EXACTLY, 100% of ootb's problems with Mike and everyone else that succeeds. It's all about how all this relates to HIM and his viewpoint.
ootb is a FAILED CREATOR who now trolls the internets taking shots at people who actually DO something with their lives, and who are far more successful than his worthless ass ever was. It's difficult to be a never-was, and ootb can't stand it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
Compared to watching Firefly, this is succinctly described as "being idle". ;)
Firefly is on Netflix or the *cough**cough* bay.
The opening is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmyO2xuI1qI
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Patents address invention, copyrights address creative expression, and trademarks address consumer confusion. If you don't think there should be any patent protection, fine- but don't expect there to be much in the way of pharmaceuticals when you have an infection or disease. If you don't think there should be any copyrights, fine- but don't expect the next season of Game of Thrones or whatever media you're enjoying today- Kickstarter ain't going to fund the Avegners 2. If you don't think there should be any trademarks, fine- but don't expect that "Intel" or "AMD" processor to actually work that well or your next "Coke" to taste like you expect.
The balance of protections may be out of whack, but personally I prefer the current system to no IP protection at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
Also, the show is aired on SciFi (still refuse to spell it the new way), but I'd recommend firing up your favorite torrent client and surf the pirate bay... Since the show was a space western about smugglers it's a little more fitting ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He's obviously getting paid for it because a) no one could be as defiantly stupid as he is (100 MILLION unemployed in the US? That right there disqualifies anything else you have to say about anything.) and b) having FAILED at his own endeavors and being a general failure in life, this is the only thing he is qualified to be paid for: raving, foaming-at-the-mouth ShillPiece spouting outright lies and FUD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
As much as I would personally love to be watching season 10 (the show started in 2003,) a friend of mine (also a fan) pointed out something I didn't think about. The show was the best thing on television then, and likely would have still been good now had it been allowed to run its course, but in many ways it means so much more to us because it failed due to stupid forces beyond the fans control. The show never got a chance to jump the shark, or produce a bad episode, or get to the point where it became sour. It never had its 5th and 6th season of Lost moment.
I hated him for saying it, but I think he has a point. Had the show run for 10 years, would it still have been the show it was when it only ran for part of a season. I think it would have, but they also pointed out that Buffy had the whole killing a god thing, and wrote themselves into a corner, which never happened with Firefly.
Still...it would have been awesome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Love Thinkgeek's notices
Amen! 1,000,000xAmen.
Orphaned works should not be allowed to remain orphaned.
Of course, if we figured out a better way to handle getting artists their fair pay for their work instead of copyright (which only rewards large companies that can buy up and lock up copyrights,) we'd be a lot better off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UPDATE: ThinkGeek gets even Shinier!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
Hmmmm, Firefly, torrent. Firefly, torrent. Deprive Fox of my eyeballs seeing their advertising revenue (or SciFy and whatever they pay to Fox) on a show I cannot watch? And now YOU guys suggest that I commit the most horrific act imaginable by todays society (err Big Business Overlords) and view this series via illicit means? Nay, you seem too insist...I am loosing self control, I must torrent. I must torrent...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should I even address your second paragraph that consists purely of false dilemmas? They are all essentially the same "Piracy is killing Hollywood" defense. Only a total ignoramus would believe that it would rain cats and dogs if there was no intellectual property at all. Somehow these industries still continue to survive when these things can all be duplicated.
I could go out and label a can "Coke" right now and sell it to a limited market, and do so possibly without repercussion if nobody reported me. I'm not going to be able to compete with Coke under it's identity, so organically I will want to chose another name if I am looking for a signifigant profit. What copyright sympathizers like you are worried about isn't that my Coke won't taste like Coke, but that it will. You are worried that your beloved corporations would only have a fraction of the profitability once I am able to go on a corner and sell my Tech Dirt Reader Cola on a street corner and have it so it is not only could taste like Coke, but possibly improve upon the formula making Coke obsolete. As for the rest, there are still laws that prevent false advertising without copyright. I could sue a person if they sold me a processor that didn't perform the way they promised. What makes people like you crap their pants is if it did exactly what it was supposed to. This just one more example about trying to maintain the ability to have a monopoly on production of a product.
Hollywood and the rest of the content industry hasn't crumbled under the weight of piracy as it has deceitfully claimed all these years, and has in fact grown exponentially since the widespread use of file sharing. While Kickstarter is still young and there is no telling the scope of projects that will pop up in the future is, you aren't going to need them to fund Avengers 2, Game of Thrones, or whatever media you are into. Again, they just want the monopoly on content production.
Also your scaremongering that patents would lead to the end of medicine is just absurd. Last I checked society has a vested interest in healthcare. Just by virtue of being able to produce mass quantities of pills big pharma will be profitable no matter what. All the current sector of big pharma has to worry about with the absence of patents is free market capitalism and healthcare being more affordable to the needy. In the unlikely event current companies fail under the weight of new ones, well the people in those companies will still need jobs and probably won't be out for a career change. Again, all intellectual property is doing is protecting monopolies on production.
In short, intellectual property an enemy of a free society. It is evil, and should be destroyed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How exactly are current IP laws stopping you? You're free to go out and make and market Tech Dirt Reader Cola right now- well, you'd have to get approval to use the Tech Dirt name, but there's no Coke problem. If you come up with a better tasting cola, or even one that tastes exactly like Coke, IP laws aren't stopping you. I'm not worried that you'll make a better drink- I would be thrilled if you made a better drink.
What I would not be thrilled about is if I went to store and bought a can of "Coke" that was filled with Tech Dirt Reader Cola instead. And would you be thrilled if, after you established Tech Dirt Reader Cola as a reputable brand, I went out and sold cans of Tech Dirt Reader Cola filled carbonated anchovy juice? The whole point behind trademarks is to reduce consumer confusion.
While Kickstarter is still young and there is no telling the scope of projects that will pop up in the future is, you aren't going to need them to fund Avengers 2, Game of Thrones, or whatever media you are into. Again, they just want the monopoly on content production.
Of course they want a monopoly on production- every company wants a monopoly. But that doesn't mean the alternative is better. Moreover, if you want to make an indie now, that's fine- use a patron, use kickstarter, use whatever you want for funding.
Last I checked society has a vested interest in healthcare. Just by virtue of being able to produce mass quantities of pills big pharma will be profitable no matter what.
Uh, no. The margins on generics is pretty poor. And as far as society goes, there are 50mm people without health insurance in the US, we have the about the highest infrant mortality in the developed world, and universal coverage is a political non-starter. So, yeah, society has a vested interest, but that doesn't mean we're going to do anything about it.
Sure, getting rid of patents will certainly drop med prices today. I'm just worried about the next year and the next decade. Why should any company do original research or development? The major cost of making a new drug is all up-front; the actual production costs are relatively minor. So if I can copy your new drug and drive the price down to production costs, what's the incentive for you to do the research? And don't expect the government to step in. The US pharma industry spends ~$70B on R&D, and I don't think the govt would make that up.
Copyright and patent laws address a major market failure- free riding. Without patents and copyrights, companies and individuals will pass on making some new goods that would make society overall better off because they personally cannot capture sufficient returns. For these things where the first object to make is expensive but the subsequent ones are all cheap, the ability of competitors to drive the price down becomes a curse and not a blessing if the initial investment cannot be recovered.
Make the case that a world without IP would be better, not just that the current one is bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UPDATE: ThinkGeek gets even Shinier!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You know when you're hitting a nerve with the IP AssHats
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Lumping them all together and calling them evil accomplishes accurate categorization."
"In short, intellectual property an enemy of a free society. It is evil, and should be destroyed."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright on clothes
What I'm getting at is that this is a trademark issue but was filed as copyright and reported as such....ImNotYourLawyer explained it pretty well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IP doesn't really exist, anyway, it's just a trick of words.
Trademarks are *supposed* to be the exception, because trademarks, like you say, are supposed to be about ensuring honesty in business. Even that is now getting sullied as trademarks are starting to be used to suppress competition instead and cause other general grief with that "dillution" crap.
You don't need to make a case for how it would be better without IP. It's been getting worse and worse the more influence the mafiaa dudes get over the laws. It would be nice if they fixed some of the things really making us miserable, but it was better before, even to just stop making things worse would be nice. You can still call it "IP" if you really want (although it's a deception).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yes I admit misreading that. Though, in spite of my first sentence, I responded to this mostly:
"Good Guy George Lucas .... lol
That's a laugh 'n a half."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why not put a definite running length of a series, like Anime. I even have more respect to some of BBC series, cos they seem to put a definite limit to a series (or maybe the series I happen to watch is that way). Look at what Star Wars did "right" in this regard (that is, prior the prequels, after that, same 'ol money grabs). Create an engaging limited series and let the fans expand it, monetize by way of merchandise.
Ultimately, use the tabletop RPG strategy. Create a core product and let the fans expand it. AFAIK DnD still profit to this day despite the core is done at the end of '70s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright on clothes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UPDATE: ThinkGeek gets even Shinier!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.etsy.com/listing/129006395/controversial-hat-with-a-backstory
Yes. Controversial Hat with a Backstory FTW!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If Paramount had had that same attitude in the early 70s, there would have been no Star Trek franchise cash cow for them to milk for the past 35+ years. The fans gave value to their product. Without fans, their product has ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH value.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
My daughter wore the one I knit for her, proudly to the fan-fest last year. She had lots of compliments and inquiries about where she got it. Where are the ''legal' hats made I wonder and by whom? People who love the show and take the time and care to pick the colours and knit it, or some third world, crappy yarn with crappy workmanship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jane hats
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
First off, you're picking a fight with the Browncoats here at techdirt...this includes Wally who seems to be a lot like River....
Second....this C&D shit, which you think that the world should not be freaking out over, is done by the same types who support such measures to prevent intellectual property from growing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UPDATE: ThinkGeek gets even Shinier!
From Thinkgeek: 100% of profits go to Can't Stop the Serenity! Nathan Fillion strikes again ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
hmmmm a mashup of STNG and Firefly.. with tribbles everywhere!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
If Mike didn't defend the rights of dolts, you wouldn't be allowed to post here..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Change the name...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A bit of medical history and I do not expect to be treated differently. I suffered a head injury at 11 months old. The headaches are compounded during sudden pressure and temperature changes in my area of the US. I suffer mild achy stiffness as the temperatures vary suddenly and as storms approach. When we have a temperate low storm system coming through and the temperature drops 20 degrees F within 2 hours while raining...I get headaches.
Needless to say the trees in my area are having extremely hot, dirty, sweaty sex this year....and Mrs. Wally and I suffer a bit.....though she's better at hiding her symptoms than I am.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Love Thinkgeek's notices
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There were already sources for those who couldn't knit. On Etsy, Ebay, ArtFire, etc... You also admit you helped them develop the darn thing, just keep digging the hole. Oh, and Ripple Junction and Fox still get paid even of they donate their profit margin on the forst batch they got from their Partner (Again,m helped develop it, Ripple is merely a Supplier, they requested and ordered them...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]