Better Copyright Through Fair Use and Ponies

Balinares writes "With even harmless parody sites like Peanutweeter now getting shut down by twitchy lawyers in the name of brand dilution concerns, the situation with fair use has become bleak. Yet some companies are learning at last. Variery reports that when parodies of their latest production started popping up online, Hasbro not only allowed it to happen, but started contributing some of their own. Now their My Little Pony reboot has gained a huge following and reached cult status. Fair use does make everything better. That, or it's the ponies."

Comments

Bleak.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

the situation with fair use has become bleak

The situation with fair use has always been bleak. It doesn't help that its an amorphous concepts--uncertainty in the law makes it hard to comply with and has a chilling effect on free speech.

The situation with copyright generally has gone from bad to worse. It used to be it was only a civil offense if a violation was non-commercial. Now it's a criminal violation if the infringement exceeds a certain dollar value--so quoting a song lyric on a medium-sized listserve is arguably enough to make you a felon.

Re:Bleak.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

The situation with fair use has always been bleak. It doesn't help that its an amorphous concepts

... as shown by my polymorphic number disagreement and apostrophe-limited analysis... time to get some sleep. :)

Re:Bleak.

[cpt kangarooski]

The situation with fair use has always been bleak. It doesn't help that its an amorphous concepts--uncertainty in the law makes it hard to comply with and has a chilling effect on free speech.

Of course, it has to be: any use could be fair, though no use necessarily is. It's totally dependent on the circumstances of the particular case. A bright line rule would inevitably reduce the scope of fair use. Given that it's been applied to uses that were unforeseen at the time that the doctrine was established, or when a codified version appeared, it's been good to have elasticity.

If you want bright line rules, that's fine, just get a separate exception in the statute to cover that particular case. For example, no one ever argues that selling used books is a fair use, because it is handled separately under the first sale exception. Something like a 'non-commercial use by a natural person' exception would be fine, it just demands being handled apart from fair use is all.

Re:Bleak.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Your "always" is probably about 20 years by 3300 x 2006 miles "big".

There was no copyright anywhere before about 100-150 years ago. And creativity prospered. Not despite, but because of that fact. As multiple studies have shown, that compared the already-in-copyright UK with still-no-Urheberrecht Germany (which still doesn't have copyright but the equivalent to authors' right, which can't be given away and is always implied on everything).

The problem with things like "fair use", the GPL, CC, etc is, that they acknowledge the existence of copyright in the first place. So they acknowledge the delusion, and their thoughts are inside its model of reality. Which is like trying to stop drug abuse by spreading other drugs that don't harm anymore but still are addictive. Not. A. Solution.

I ended the whole thing. Whatever I create, is created as a service. I demand money for doing the service. You know... actual work. And when it's done, I don't have to give a fuck about who does what to it. (Ok, actually, the more it spreads, the better for me. :)

Copyright is the same as asking money for not doing any more actual work.
And "fair use" is like saying: "Well, actually, our not doing any more work is still worth something, but we'll make an exception for you".
It's not worth anything in the first place! Because you've done nothing more in return!

Re:Bleak.

[Sique]

Interestingly there are very creative industries who don't have any copyright at all, namely cookery and fashion. You can't neither copyright a recipe nor a fashion design, and I never heard of a crisis of either industries. And no, Coca Cola's recipe is not copyrighted, you have every right to take it and brew your own soda.

Re:Bleak.

[king neckbeard]

It may be best expressed under a different doctrine, but I would think that a nice, clear set of rules exists for which a use is unquestionably deemed fair, and that anybody that has the gall to sue under something within that box is hit with hefty fines. For more ambiguous usage, we'd still have the four factor test.

Re:Bleak.

[Anonymous Coward]

An even more surprising thing about Japanese doujinshi culture is that Japanese copyright laws make no exemption for parodies as fair use. So under Japanese law, all doujinshi are technically infringing, regardless of whether the doujinshi makes a critique of the original work (and most would fail this definition.)

Doujinshi's function as a breeding ground for future talent has secured its survival; doujinshi event organizers get more grief from morality police than copyright holders. But I think there are two characteristics of the Japanese population in general that allowed doujinshi to first come into being:

1) Japanese have not just a higher level of appreciation, but a stronger urge to participate in art.
2) Japanese have less inclination to take people to court, period.

I think these are two qualities we can all admire.

Re:Bleak.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Coca Cola's recipe is a trade secret, and it would be patented if it weren't a trade secret. Copyright has nothing to do with it.

Cookery and Fashion Design (1) do not cost a hundred million to make a product, and (2) in the case of fashion, where you buy something is a huge status symbol. There's not the same need to incentivize new works.

Re:Bleak.

[elsurexiste]

Which is like trying to stop drug abuse by spreading other drugs that don't harm anymore but still are addictive. Not. A. Solution.

Actually, it is exactly how to treat opioid addictions: transition to a more manageable drug, namely methadone.

Re:Bleak.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Yes, so who will pay you enough to make it worth your while in the first place? Without copyright or patent, the money available to the producer of a work is much smaller, so really expensive works, including many prescription drugs and blockbuster motion pictures, will not get made. A agree it's over-done, and there should be shorter copyright terms, but modern society will function better with copyright than without. (Patent included because it has the same issues.)

You are basically going with a purely Lockean earned-income approach. That's a legitimate philosophy, but there are cases where it isn't the best thing for society.

Re:Bleak.

[bws111]

Not this stupid argument again. For cookery, there are two markets: making your own food, and prepared food. In the making your own food market we have cookbooks. They, and the recipes in them (except for the lists of ingredients) are in fact protected by copyright. In the prepared food area the recipes are protected by trade secret - they just don't tell you what the recipe is. If the recipe is really unique, you can patent it. Your example of Coca Cola is perfect - you MAY duplicate Coke, but in over a hundred years of trying no-one has succeeded.

In fashion, we again have two markets: mass market, and haute couture. Any IP that exists in the mass market is protected by trademark (branding). The mass market companies are not investing much in design, they just copy each other and try to convince people to buy their version by marketing the brand (differentiating on quality, cool factor, etc). In haute couture, the value is in being different. There is no point in one designer copying another's work, because that is not what the customers want.

Neither of these industries are anything like industries protected by copyright. You can't keep a book, recording, or movie a trade secret and still sell it like you can with prepared food. There is no value in branding books, recordings, or movies, because every copy is exactly the same as the other copies.

Every industry has some kind of protection for its IP.

Re:Bleak.

[cpt kangarooski]

If they're unquestionably fair, it strikes me that unfair things might occasionally slip by; the point of the present system is to sort out what is fair from what isn't, difficult as it may be to tell, and dependant as it may be on subtle details. So it may be better to speak of the new exception as simply covering uses that would be non infringing.

Out of curiosity, what currently infringing activities would you make non infringing? You may want two classes of them: plaintiffs may have adequate information to justify filing a lawsuit (it's not supposed to be done otherwise, though not every detail needs to be known in advance) without knowing that one of these new exceptions applies. And just because a defendant may claim that one applies (perhaps in advance of any lawsuit) that may not make it so. So maybe the "hefty fines" should only apply sometimes, or only for some of the exceptions and not others?

Re:Bleak.

[king neckbeard]

It's actually a bit more complicated than that, as a lot of the costs associated with producing an innovative product are licensing from others. The pharmaceutical argument is pure junk. Under Bayh-Dole, Pharmaceutical companies are having the government front most of the bill anyway, and are shifting focus of research (and federal research funds) to low priority drugs that aren't particularly useful to society, but can bring in signficant profits.

Re:Bleak.

[cpt kangarooski]

here was no copyright anywhere before about 100-150 years ago.

Well... it was invented in England in 1710 (assuming we're talking about modern copyright and not the very different stationer's copyright that predates it), and started showing up in the United States in 1783, and a different sort appeared in France in 1793. So, they're a bit older than 100-150 years, but it's true that they mostly spread via colonialism, and the 19th century was really a golden age for that.

Regarding your main argument, I disagree. I think that if properly formulated, copyright can provide a benefit to the public greater than its cost to the public; the issue is holding onto that ideal formulation and avoiding corruption. But I suppose that it's possible that under the right circumstances copyright might never provide a net public benefit. Only in that case would I support abolition, which is why that option should remain on the table.

Re:Bleak.

[bws111]

Ah yes, the good old pre-copyright days. How many books did the average person own in those days? How many concerts, operas, plays did the average person attend in his lifetime? How many wandering musicians stopped by to play different songs every day? On the other hand, how many books do you own? How many different songs have you heard today? How many movies and TV shows have you seen this month?

I get paid every two weeks. That covers the work I did in the previous two weeks. Under your idea, I should not get paid, because that money is for something that happened in the past, and I don't have to do any more work THIS week to earn LAST weeks pay. Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

If you are creating things 'as a service' then by definition you are not creating mass market goods. How would you get paid 'as a service' for writing a novel?

The creation of mass market goods (including their development) is ALWAYS paid for when the consumer buys it. It doesn't matter if you are talking about a book, a movie, a cheeseburger, a pair of jeans, a car, a computer, or anything else. And the more you sell, the more money you make. And making money is why the thing was made in the first place. Stop trying to act like things protected by copyright are somehow paid for differently than any other consumer good.

Re:Bleak.

[cpt kangarooski]

In the making your own food market we have cookbooks. They, and the recipes in them (except for the lists of ingredients) are in fact protected by copyright.

Copyright (in the US, at least) doesn't apply to procedures, though it may apply to a particular expression of them. (So for example, a book that explains how to do double-entry bookkeeping may be copyrightable, but anyone else can write their own book that explains precisely the same thing)

Furthermore, where there is only one or are only a few reasonable ways to express an procedure, those expressions are not copyrightable due to the merger, lest they effectively provide a copyright on the underlying, uncopyrightable procedure. Nor are stock expressions that are typical of a genre copyrightable, due to the scÃnes à faire doctrine. So the portions of a recipe to the effect of "mix well" or "serves 4" or "cook until brown" wouldn't be protectable.

Really, the best you can hope for for a typical recipe that is clearly written, straightforward, and all business, is a copyright that protects it from verbatim copying; even then anyone could rewrite it (in many cases without having to change much of the wording per the above paragraph) and not infringe. And I wouldn't want to bet money that even that level of protection could be obtained.

Really, about the only substantially copyrightable things in a cookbook are 1) the photographs (if any) that accompany the recipe to show you what the food should look like, and 2) the selection and arrangement of recipes, provided that it rises to the level of copyrightability (and this only protects the compilation, not the individual recipes themselves).

Your example of Coca Cola is perfect - you MAY duplicate Coke, but in over a hundred years of trying no-one has succeeded.

I doubt that. Pepsi is probably entirely capable of it, but why would they? Even the most shell-shocked veteran of the infamous Cola Wars knows that the point was always differentiation. If they all tasted the same, there'd be a huge loss in brand loyalty.

You can't keep a book, recording, or movie a trade secret and still sell it like you can with prepared food.

Computer software source code, if you only sell the binaries?

Re:Bleak.

[king neckbeard]

What I had worked out was that total use of a work had to be 30 seconds or less of audio of a musical recording, 1 minute or less of audio/video, 500 gross words or less of text, or a cover at 1/4 or less of the physical resolution. In addition, outside of covers, the usage must be less than 10% of the work in total, and isn't protected if it's part of a 'concerted effort' (i.e. 11 parties host consecutive 30 second samples of the same 3:24 song) In at least music, the work must be 'of a different nature' than the original work. In other words, this defense does not apply to sampling.

The exact numbers could be tweaked a bit (and probably should), but it seems like a solid basis for a safe zone where people won't have to worry at all. Within these terms, I don't see any real room for usage to be unfair, the biggest concern being a possibility for ambiguity in the way certain bands gamed label contracts by making songs like 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' technically consist of 9 parts to get the full royalties for the album.

Re:Bleak.

[bws111]

True enough about the cookbook recipes. But how many 'new' recipes are in cookbooks? New recipes seem to either take the form of 'tastes like this dish available at this restaurant', and recipes put out by food companies so you buy their ingredients. Neither one of those care about protection of IP (if protectable, the first would be a violation, and the second one they want as widespread as possible).

Coca Cola and Pepsi want to differentiate themselves from each other, but there are loads of generic and local brands that try to copy one or the other of those, always poorly.

If computer source code is kept secret there is no need for copyright protection on the source. I have never heard of anyone being sued for copyright violation of trade secret source. Of course, the binaries still need protection.

Re:Bleak.

[s73v3r]

I highly doubt it would be patented, as that would require them to actually disclose the recipe, and then 30 years later everyone would be drinking Kookey Kola, Carmel Cola, and a dozen other knock offs.

Re:Bleak.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Okay, fair point--maybe it would just be still secret with every ex-employee selling it to the next guy for a billion bucks.

My point was that copyright was irrelevant to the question, since if it were in an IP regime, patent would apply.

Re:Bleak.

[cpt kangarooski]

So long as it does not substitute for fair use, I suppose I don't have any complaints, though I might differ as to the numbers involved, the types of works it's applicable to, etc. It generally doesn't seem too useful to me, though. Academic quotations might fall under this, but I don't think a good commercial review would.

(Incidentally, for a typical 3 minute song, you'd really only get 18 seconds, which is very low indeed)

Not sure why you are dismissive of sampling. While it really ought to be a fair use -- sampling is the audio form of collage, after all, and that is well protected -- the poor treatment of sampling in the courts really does warrant a strong exception for it.

Within these terms, I don't see any real room for usage to be unfair

You dealt with amount, but you forgot about
substantiality.

Re:Bleak.

[cpt kangarooski]

But how many 'new' recipes are in cookbooks?

If you're talking about novelty (i.e. never has been done before), that's irrelevant for copyright purposes. Only originality (i.e. not copied from elsewhere, regardless of whether or not it's been done before) matters.

If computer source code is kept secret there is no need for copyright protection on the source.

That's never stopped them.

I have never heard of anyone being sued for copyright violation of trade secret source.

It's not really unusual for a licensor to end up suing its licensee regarding the copyright to software that, while a trade secret, the licensor was allowed to access.

As for incidents where someone illicitly obtained the source, the only one that instantly comes to mind was NuPrometheus; that resulted in the FBI investigating, but I don't think anything came of it.

Personally, I'd prefer to have mandatory registrations for published works, and to require a deposit formality to get the registration, and to have deposit include any supplemental information that the Library of Congress or the Copyright Office wish to also be included, in whatever form they specify. Thus, to get a copyright on a binary, you'd need to provide clear, well commented source code, instructions for compilation, hardware requirements, etc., which would be copyrighted, but not a secret. (Much like patented inventions must be disclosed, and can't be a secret)

In this way, we would advance the public policy of having works be useful to the public when they're in the public domain (since people would be able to get at and change the source), when they're copyrighted (since there is an exception to copyright that allows the owner of a copy of a computer program (as distinct from the copyright holder) to modify it so that it can run on a system.

Further, since copyright isn't meant to protect the functional aspects of software, this would avoid interference with the advancement of the art of computer programming, since people could inspect one another's software and learn from doing so. For most works, there's not the same sort of difference between the 'manuscript' if you will, and the published version, where literary techniques or the like are used in one but not visible in the other. Software is a special case, and so it's acceptable to require more disclosure than merely a copy of the published work.

Re:Bleak.

[king neckbeard]

I certainly don't intend for this to substitute fair use, rather to supplement it.

as for sampling, Bridgeport was far too strict on it, but sampling 30 seconds of master recordings probably isn't going to fly. A good set of ground rules for sampling would probably be nice, though.

substantially is a complex matter, although it seems quite likely that had The Nation not been the first publisher, they would have gotten away with it (that and those meddling kids). Not applying this safe zone to usurping the first publication rights might be the best answer. I'm not sure if you could even reasonably come up with a bright line rule for substantially, but if we are conservative with amount, substantiality concerns would probably be minimal.

Re:Bleak.

[bmcraec]

I want someone to conduct a neuro-anatomy study on the people who back legal recourse over winning business models. I really suspect that they will demonstrate larger amygdalas and generally not be very capable of seeing long feedback loops that don't have large amounts of cash being taken from others and deposited in their accounts. Those who know intuitively that fair use is good for everyone will clearly have larger anterior singulate cortexes, and be able to feel compassion for the whole eco-system, and be able to craft concepts that benefit more people for longer than their brutish, neanderthal-like legal attack dogs.

Re:4chan

[Anonymous Coward]

Visit ponychan sometimes. We're all about love and tolerance.

Re:Oh god.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never thought I'd have to read about My Little Pony here. Today is a sad day for me.

And Slashdot just became 20% cooler.

Re:4chan

[Anonymous Coward]

...and hugboxing galore. Now, the most even-handed community, aside from r34 fics and pics (which are spoilered as a rule), is actually the MLP General's on 4chan's /co/ board: http://arch.413chan.net/mlpgeneral/ Very little evangelizing (since they had to be contained back in February), still somewhat critical opinions on content there, and it's just, well, general pony talk now.

Re:augh

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they weren't run off of SA for being really creepy, they were run off of SA because SA really hates anything that's happy or isn't unabashedly misanthropic. If SA banned anything that was creepy, they would have shit-canned ATDRW a long time ago.

Re:Oh god.

[bersl2]

I never thought I'd have to read about My Little Pony here. Today is a sad day for me.

And Slashdot just became 20% cooler.

Sadly, ponies cannot effect a miracle and do better than that.

But oh sweet Celestia, I might spend more time here again if Taco brought back OMG PONIES theme but updated it for FiM. Sure, it might drive away the last vestiges of what made /. great; but, I mean, how much worse can the noise in the articles, headlines, and comments get? (Don't answer that.)

Also, the thought of Big Macintosh doing advanced mathematics makes me happy.

Clearly it's the ponies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ponies make everything better!

(Seriously though, make-show-to-sell-toys is a good analogue for make-mp3s-to-sell-merch-and-concert-tickets for musicians, so it works out).

Re:Clearly it's the ponies.

[Allicorn]

April 1st 2006 was the high-point of Slashdot's history.

Brony here

[ChromeAeonium]

Just before everyone starts hating, it isn't all that bad. I'm normally more a fan of a bit more violent programming, but it is a unique change of pace (and does have the occasional joke that would go over it's target audience's head...good night folks!), and MLP kinda grows on you. Yeah, go figure. I'm not saying it's for everyone, nor am I saying it would be my absolute first choice of cartoon, but don't knock if you haven't tried it.

Re:Brony here

[Apothem]

You make it sound like it's a drug or something......

Re:Brony here

[king neckbeard]

I haven't tried it, so I won't knock it. I will however, stand over there uncomfortably when others are discussing MLP .

Adult targeted jokes in children's shows, either through secretly naughty bits, pop culture references children won't get, or best of all, secretly naughty pop culture reference bits children won't get, are quite enjoyable, although I'm not sure if I can reach the same appreciation without it being a show I watched as a kid myself.

Re:Brony here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd wager that it is. Because of the positive feelings it evokes, super bright colours, and frequently relatable characters/stories in it, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some psych researchers looked at it and realized "Yeah, there are some similar mechanics going on in the brain when you watch the show as when you're on non-intoxicating drugs".

Re:Brony here

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't tried it, so I won't knock it. I will however, stand over there uncomfortably when others are discussing MLP .

That's how it starts with everyone. It's OK.

The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt it, but the point of Remix Culture is that the listener/viewer is no longer sure as to what's corrupting what.

To that end, I've actually never seen more than a few seconds of the actual show, but who could resist Weird Al Yankovic doing 80s pop songs? Polkas on 45? 30 years later, someone drops a new meme on it, turns a parody into a parody of a parody, and suddenly it's funny all over again.

Just yesterday, Pinkie Pie herself showed up in the as an example of how not to do software testing on the GitHub Bumblebee thread on software testing, I think it's OK to admit it. I think the MLP viral fad is funny. I enjoy it. There, I've said it, and I feel better.

After the Presidential Press Conference announcing the long-overdue demise of OBL, watching the trailer for Serenity, the lead single and polka track off the new Weird Al album, Reggie Watts, Wu-Tang, or Rebecca Black (just kidding) sung by ponies, you won't care.

All links SFW graphics, a few naughty words, and thoroughly NSFS (Not Safe For Sanity).

Re:Brony here

[SharpFang]

You got the old preconception of "hidden concept aimed at adults". While MLP has some cultural references, it remains quite tame both on the obvious and non-obvious layer. The hidden part is in "inconsistencies". There are some not-quite-obvious plot holes. Parts, where a character could act, according to the archetype they represent, and prevent all the trouble, yet they didn't and hilarity occurs. And later in the show, similarly inconsistent behavior on the part of the character is displayed with a little more visibility. And near the end, in all obviousness. And as you begin to notice the archetype is a facade for a completely different archetype, suddenly the old events click into place, and the behavior becomes not an awkward omission, but very a intentional act, that adds a whole new layer on the old episode, the story completely retold with a twist.

Just to say the gentle and wise Princess Celestia fully deserved the brony nickname "Trollestia".

Re:Brony here

[elsurexiste]

My brother is a brony, and he made me watch the show. The first episode I saw is the one in which Pinky Pie goes schizophrenic... yeah, you read it right. I didn't expect this kind of content, so it was quite a shock. The next one was Rarity making dresses, essentially a joke on professions like ours: everyone asked for changes, time was ticking, unhelpful customers, freaking out and messing up... This, once again, surprised me: shows for the little people are devoid of content or flavor, like a rice cracker; MLP had instead some major stuff going on. Not all episodes are like this, mind you, and I haven't seen them all (nor planning to). Just don't discard it just like that! It's not like Rocko's Modern Life, where sexual references are small and sparse, in MLP the interesting themes (shall we call them adult?) work along the plot.

I would argue though that the best thing MLP brought to the world is the OC that flooded 4chan for a while. Also, this.

Re:Brony here

[Kitsuneymg]

It is.
If I don't get a daily does of Rainbow Dash I get the shakes.

Look Before You Sleep lakes my pegasus of choice? And has the marshmallow? WHY?

Re:Brony here

[vegiVamp]

Looking at how my boyfriend reacts to it, it is.

Re:Brony here

[SharpFang]

Oh, I haven't noticed the thing at the end of your post, "the show you haven't watched as a kid". Nope. Most of Bronies didn't watch original MLP or at most watched a couple episodes and gave up. The general consensus is that the old show sucked bad. There are crossover fanfics that mock the old show mercilessly. You absolutely don't need to have watched the old show, and you'd get weird looks if you said you liked it... because, honestly, it WAS bad, even for a kids show.

Re:Brony here

[The Archon V2.0]

The first episode I saw is the one in which Pinky Pie goes schizophrenic... yeah, you read it right.

Worth noting (for anyone curious) that every one of the six main characters has at least a short scene where they suffer some severe problem of that sort. Looked like quiet, sweet, loving, friend-to-all-animals Fluttershy was going to get away without one. And then the season finale happened and she earned the nicknames "Flutterrage" and "Psychoshy".

Essentially, every pony has their special talents that help them shine. Fairly standard kid show stuff, but this series occasionally inverts that by showing that if their special talent is consistently frustrated it has rapidly-mounting negative effects for the pony's psychological health. So it's a cartoon about friendship and rainbows with occasional catatonia, schizophrenia, psychosis, dangerous workaholism, delusional breaks from reality, and nervous breakdowns.

Personally the show initially gained my respect by using mythological creatures, and giving them the right names. I saw a silhouetted monster and said "Hey, that looks like a manticore." Sure enough, they called it a manticore! There's stuff they made up, too (heh, diamond dogs), but I really did not expect to see reasonably accurate phoenixes, manticores, hydra, and cockatrices in a show like this.

Re:Brony here

[Kitsuneymg]

baked
bads

Re:Brony here

[Remus Shepherd]

Worth noting (for anyone curious) that every one of the six main characters has at least a short scene where they suffer some severe problem of that sort. Looked like quiet, sweet, loving, friend-to-all-animals Fluttershy was going to get away without one. And then the season finale happened and she earned the nicknames "Flutterrage" and "Psychoshy".

Fluttershy was well on her way to a reputation as the secretly most-dangerous pony in the show after the episodes 'Stare Master' and 'Dragonshy'.

What I love about this show is that, despite it ostensibly being for little girls, it's actually a show about a superhero team. The analogues to the X-Men and Avengers are so obvious I'm convinced they were deliberately planted. (Twilight's powers were activated in 'Celestia's School for Gifted Unicorns', in a scene very much like how Professor X restrained Jean Grey.) The subtext of the show is meaty and compelling. Kids can accept the surface story, that Twilight Sparkle accidentally met the perfect ponies to activate the Elements of Harmony. But adults put the clues together and notice that Celestia engineered all those events, for some purpose that is, if not sinister, at least well-calculated and subtle.

This show has adult male fans because it's a superhero show, with characterization and plotlines that are surprisingly deep. Hasbro gets credit for allowing the fans to go nuts and be creative.

Re:Brony here

[Weedhopper]

Above comment (currently at Score:4, Informative) could be 20% cooler.

Re:Brony here

[The Archon V2.0]

Fluttershy was well on her way to a reputation as the secretly most-dangerous pony in the show after the episodes 'Stare Master' and 'Dragonshy'.

Yeah, but she was up against hostile (or at least threatening) beings there. At the Gala, she just went nuts.

What I love about this show is that, despite it ostensibly being for little girls, it's actually a show about a superhero team.

Well, IIRC Lauren Faust did say she disliked the original G1 shows because when she played with her G1 MLP toys they went on adventures and didn't defeat their enemies by teaching them to share or by crying at them. .

Re:Brony here

[elsurexiste]

I lol'd. :)

nt

[shentino]

Fair use as a defense has absolutely NOTHING to do with why our rights in the digital world are going away.

The fact is even if you are on rock solid legal ground, you are first of all hamstrung by a severe cost advantage corporations possess by virtue of their large legal budgets and chances are you'll get drilled into the ground and bankrupted before you survive a trial, and second of all your fate is in the hands of twelve people that are probably going to be complete morons about copyright law, thanks to the plaintiff's attorney's striking anyone with even a clue of how things work.

Consequently, anyone who would in theory be entitled to make a parody, satire, or other such fair use of a copyrighted work will, if facing the wrath of a corporation that wishes to censor them, find themselves fighting a huge battle even if the law is on their side, and will more often than not either settle and cough up protection money rather than get bruised in court, or simply not take the risk in the first place.

Big media, knowing this, sees no downside to suing the crap out of anyone and everyone that even remotely looks like they are infringing, and they have no incentive to be reasonable or even negotiate with the smallest semblance of good faith. Compared to an indigent defendant they have nothing to lose from being wrong, whereas the defendant has plenty to lose even if they are completely right.

Bleem is a prime example. They paid for their victory with their lives, as the cost of being sued by Sony wound up bankrupting them, and they never had the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their battle, and they serve as a stern warning to any who would dare defy Sony in the future.

Re:nt

[nine932038]

I've occasionally wondered why one doesn't simply set up shop in a country that has more equitable IP laws and a more balanced judicial system. It certainly seems like the US has a system that favours deep pockets, but I wonder if the same would be true in other countries. I'm fairly certain that having deeper pockets doesn't necessarily work as well in Canada as in the US, though I admit that my knowledge of legal procedure isn't much beyond microscopic.

Re:nt

[Ihmhi]

Because a Predator missile would slam into the hosting company that dares tarnish important American intellectual property such as Jersey Shore and The Apprentice.

Re:nt

[retroworks]

I agree, but over the longer term think this is blowback from allowing multi-million dollar lawsuits against major corporations in the 1970s and 80s. People with "nothing to lose" began bringing lawsuits (McDonalds! Your coffee is hot!) and the corporations began settling them based on the risk of a ruling going against them. The lawyers are like gun runners, they sell the leverage to either side when it is cheaper to give in than to contest.

Re:nt

[drinkypoo]

Lik-Sang is an even better example. They were nailed to the wall for the crimes of providing hardware permitting people to play backups and hardware permitting users to defeat region coding. They were sued so hard they couldn't even afford to show up in court.

Lik-Sang: NEVER FORGET. Die, Sony, Die.

I think the wisest thing is to just increase the volume of work. If that restricts it to low-hanging fruit, so be it. Put that material out there any way you can. Mock their icons at every turn.

Re:nt

[king neckbeard]

Fair use is largely rooted in the First Amendment, so yes you do have a right to do what you've done, and if a certain usage is covered by fair use, it is NOT infringement.

Re:nt

[king neckbeard]

Despite it's drawbacks, the US has some of the most expansive exceptions to copyright. In fact, I would even go so far to say that the powerful US entertainment industry is so powerful largely because for most of the 20th century, the US had about the most permissive copyright laws in the industrialized world, which allowed creative industries to flourish. Then flourishing creative industries led to lobbying into the ridiculous situation we have today.

Re:nt

[RobbieThe1st]

They do. It's called China.
And you can buy just about anything from there, IP be damned! And it's cheap, too.

Re:nt

[cpt kangarooski]

To be more precise, the Copyright Act says that fair uses are not infringing (although of course there's no need to assert fair use unless a prima facie case of infringement can be made; if it couldn't be made, that ends things right there), and unless something else applies (eg libel), yes, you do have a right to engage in non infringing uses such as fair use.

Fair use is an exception to copyright, not a defense. But it's treated like a defense because generally the defendant is in the best position to know if it is possible or not (he knows the circumstances if his own use), so it should be up to him to raise the issue rather than to force the plaintiff and/or court to run down a laundry list of possible exceptions for him, about which they lack important facts until they involve him anyway. The system is slow enough without needing to play 20 questions, so we shift burdens around at times if efficient and just.

Re:nt

[TechnicalPenguin]

That particular lawsuit was not "McDonalds! Your coffee is hot!" so much as "McDonalds! Your coffee was hot enough to cause third-degree burns that required skin grafts to fix!" The person in question never asked for millions of dollars. She asked for $20,000 to pay her medical bills and only went to court when McDonalds insultingly offered her $800 instead. It was the jury who found McDonalds guilty and suggested a punitive damage award of $2.86 million (the amount of two days worth of coffee sales), but the trial judge refused that amount, reducing it to $640,000 instead. McDonalds then settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but most likely less than the trial judge's amount.

In other words, this case was not as frivolous as it seems. McDonalds hadn't been merely serving their coffee hot, they'd been keeping it much hotter than normal to avoid having to brew up a fresh pot, despite receiving more than 700 complaints about this practice before this one 79-year-old woman tried to recoup the cost of her medical bills. An overzealous jury tried to make them pay a ridiculously high amount, but the trial judge overruled them, so McDonalds never had to pay out millions of dollars and, nowadays, makes better coffee (though that's probably unrelated).

Your larger point, that the risk of multi-million dollar awards for frivolous claims might lead corporations to settle up rather than go to court even when the claim against them is dubious at best, might be accurate. But, the McDonalds lawsuit is not a good example of that.

The lawyers are like gun runners, they sell the leverage to either side when it is cheaper to give in than to contest.

You're absolutely right, here. It works both ways. For example, look at the RIAA, RightHaven, and various patent trolls, using dubious claims to shake down companies and individuals who either can't afford to go to court or who don't want to risk the high cost of losing. Whether it's a person suing a corporation or a corporation suing an individual, no matter how ridiculous the claim, it can be much easier to pay up a smaller amount than to spend more than that on going to court and risk owing a much larger amount.

Fair use isn't so hard...

[Code Yanker]

When you make a parody of something, think to yourself: "Would the average person (say, your own parents), having seen only the first 30 seconds of the parody, have any reason to suspect the parody was anything more than a parody?" If the answer is yes, your parody isn't fair-usey enough. At least that will be the instructions that the judge gives the jury. Be it right or be it wrong, that's how it works.

Re:Fair use isn't so hard...

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

When you make a parody of something, think to yourself: "Would the average person (say, your own parents), having seen only the first 30 seconds of the parody, have any reason to suspect the parody was anything more than a parody?"

If the answer is yes, your parody isn't fair-usey enough. At least that will be the instructions that the judge gives the jury. Be it right or be it wrong, that's how it works.

I would pay to see that written in a jury instruction. :)

"Is the defendant's work fair-usey enough?"

Euphemisms

[bill_mcgonigle]

parody sites like Peanutweeter now getting shut down by twitchy lawyers

Lawyers can't do squat except write some fancy papers. The implied threat of violence from the government is what shut down Peanutweeter.

I suggest going to buy stuff from James Hance now, before he gets put out of business too. I'll feel especially sorry for his daughter when that happens.

Re:Euphemisms

[artor3]

Typical anarchist bullshit. Yes, eventually, society does need to use force to enforce its laws. It's a last resort, but it must exist otherwise no laws would have any weight. That's the drawback of being physical creatures. But the only alternative is to have absolutely no laws at all. Only a crazy person would want that.

The problem isn't that government exists. The problem is that wealthy people are able to twist the government to their liking.

Re:Euphemisms

[Xacid]

Violence? Really, now?

Re:Euphemisms

[Raenex]

We have to abolish both wealth and government if we are to be free.

Tyranny of the mob. If you want to be truly "free", go live on an island by yourself. There's always going to be some give and take within a society.

Re:Euphemisms

[bill_mcgonigle]

The problem is that wealthy people will always be able to twist the government to their liking. Wealth is power, and power begets more power. We have to abolish both wealth and government if we are to be free.

Why do you figure one isn't sufficient? All huge amounts of wealth rely on government functions to acquire it.

Re:Euphemisms

[bill_mcgonigle]

Tyranny of the mob.

Which is mostly what we have. Look at all the entitlement programs, zoning laws, income taxes, etc.

If you want to be truly "free", go live on an island by yourself.

No longer a valid option, all the land is claimed.

There's always going to be some give and take within a society.

Of course. And people have had stable societies with fair community interactions for centuries without strong central governments telling them what to do (Iceland, for instance, before the Catholic Church took over).

Re:Euphemisms

[Hatta]

Nonsense. In the absence of political power to constrain it, economic power fills the void. Nothing makes money better than money, so any concentrations in money (and therefore power) will amplify over time. You have to abolish both.

Remember what Bakunin said, "freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality".

Re:Euphemisms

[bill_mcgonigle]

In the absence of political power to constrain it, economic power fills the void

What are the largest economic powers that you can think of that haven't had a government charter behind them?

Bakunin advocated violent overthrow, so his philosophy is not in alignment with mine. Satyagraha has proven to be the more successful path.

Re:Euphemisms

[cforciea]

And the implied threat of government violence is what keeps people from creeping into your home and murdering you while you sleep. What's your point?

Re:Euphemisms

[bill_mcgonigle]

And the implied threat of government violence is what keeps people from creeping into your home and murdering you while you sleep.

That's silly on at least three fronts:
1) people do get murdered in their sleep - fat lot of good that did.
2) sometimes people get murdered by psychopaths. They don't care about consequences.
3) knowing I'm probably armed is the best deterrent.
4) moral people don't go around murdering

The subset of people who would go a-murdering but decide not to because the cops might catch them is fleetingly small.

What's your point?

That it's not worth the human sacrifice of five million people a year to ensure that a dead guy's drawings can't be re-used because that might potentially risk some revenue stream to a corporation that holds a license.

Re:Euphemisms

[cforciea]

1) They do, but the risk is severely depressed.
2) If they get caught and put in jail/executed, then they only kill as many people as they can get away with before they get caught. Without law enforcement, you could well be the 118th victim.
3) Doubtful. Given a lack of law enforcement, my odds of successfully killing you in your home and getting away with it skyrocket no matter how big your arsenal is. Sure, my risk is trivially higher when I am in your home than if you weren't harmed, but nobody presumably has the resources to do anything about it if I finish the job.
4) Good thing there are whole piles of people of dubious morality perfectly willing to harm you and your family. See: any place where there is no law enforcement for an extended period of time and regional warlords get to set up shop and systematically enslave, murder, and rape whomever they choose.

The subset of people who would go a-murdering but decide not to because the cops might catch them is fleetingly small.

You're so full of shit that your eyeballs are floating. The type of world you are advocating has existed innumerable times in history. In any populated area, it lasts very little time before the guy with the biggest bag of money/hugest tracts of land/most loyal followers assumes control. You are going to have a government, whether you like it or not. You might as well try to pick one that isn't a despotic dictator that uses rape as a tool of subjugation.

Re:Hasbro is a toy manufacturer first and foremost

[mywhitewolf]

Wait, are you saying that there is a way to create new creative works and still generate an income WITHOUT suing pirates?

Dysfunctional Family Circus

[mykepredko]

I'm showing my age, but I still miss the "Dysfunctional Family Circus" and it is probably a great example of copyright owners shutting down a parody site rather than rolling with it.

You could argue that it was over the top (dad as a drug addled, homosexual S&M freak) but I daresay it didn't damage the brand and, in my own case, it gave me reason to start looking at the strip again (I thought it was nauseating when I was 10 years old) simply to start thinking about captions to contribute.

myke

Re:Dysfunctional Family Circus

[ChromeAeonium]

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, it makes you wonder how Garfield Minus Garfield, which is not only allowed to continue but approved by Garfield creator Jim Davis, affected that property. Positively, you would assume, because it doesn't seem like there is any sense to give up free publicity and fan following, and I suspect shutting things like that down is due to dated and uncreative thinking.

And if you like Family Circus, might want to give Dean's Comic Booth a shot (a few are NSFW).

Re:Dysfunctional Family Circus

[drinkypoo]

DFC was harmful to the brand, GwG isn't. Case by case.

Re:4chan

[tlhIngan]

The point of stuff like Transformers, My Little Pony, GI Joe, etc is to sell toys. Hasbro is a toy company. The fact that they can make 30 minute "ads" that children love to watch is a bonus.

Hell, Hasbro basically licensed Transformers to Paramount for nothing - Paramount keeps all the cash from the movie. Hasbro reaps the rewards of people buying the toys. (It may have changed with the success of the first movie - but it was true for the first - completely funded and Paramount kept the profits).

What's happening here is basically fans have created ads for Hasbro. If they sell more toys as a result, even better.

You laugh but

[Code Yanker]

that's exactly why our legal system uses juries. For much of our law, it comes down to what a "reasonable person" thinks. And "reasonable person" is legalese for the agregate of six or more random shmoes we pulled off the street. The jury instructions are there to keep these shmoes from having to use legal critical thinking. It's actually a pretty clever system, I think.

Re:You laugh but

[Remus Shepherd]

"Reasonable person" I understand. I can even accept "fair-usey enough" as a description. But what do you mean by "anything more than a parody"?

Does a parody have to be also a work of art or a political statement in order to be legally acceptable? Or are those bad things? Is a parody supposed to look like an original work? You seem to be saying that the more original the parody, the less legal it is, which frankly just breaks my brain.

Whatever. I may not understand copyright law, but I know when a company is behaving well, and Hasbro deserves a lot of kudos for their acceptance of the brony fandom.

Re:Oh god.

[DigiShaman]

I'm sure Rainbow Bright will make a comeback too. Sorry man. When it rains, it pours. :(

What a Coincidence

[Pooua]

Just a few days ago, I was thinking about making a parody of "My Little Pony," and I wondered what the legal repercussions might be.

MOD PARENT UP

[martin-boundary]

He's ponying up the goods...

That article is flat out awesome

[cheros]

My compliments. It doesn't just lay down the problem properly, it also links to a YouTube video that would make any lesser brand manager nervous.

Hats off to the copyright holders here: VERY smart move. I'm to old to say "Respek" but I'll do it anyway - I love remixes :-).

Re:That article is flat out awesome

[cheros]

I think it's very intelligent. To BUY that sort of marketing costs a fortune - they get it for free. Ir remind me of something that Johanna Blakly said at TED: those who buy copies are probably not customers anyway. Clever use of the alternative market IMHO.

Who owns the discours?

[mvdwege]

The last paragraph nails the problem:

"Really it all comes down to a question of control for big media companies," McIntosh says. "They can either attempt to clamp down on remixers and fan communities or they can embrace the new creative digital world and see transformative works as a positive thing for their franchises."

The question we should ask ourselves is: who owns the public discours? I think the keyword is 'public'. You put something out there to invite a reaction, then it should not be reasonable to expect to control it forever. Anything that is not blatant copyright violation or fraud should be fair game.

Re:4chan

[retroworks]

Correct! The only thing Hasbro has in common with Peanuts is in the form of a question (Is this fair use and what is the best legal response?). The answer is different. Hasbro is not in the business of selling images of their toys, and by participating they are continuing to show leverage. If someone actually started producing Hasbro TOYS/products, they would respond more like Peanuts lawyer responded. In the case of the Peanuts strip, setting the precedent of allowing your complete comic to be reproduced with no control over the words, the lawyer would be negligent to allow the easement. If I was running something like the twitterpeanuts, it might occur to me to ASK permission, which would have generated a "nicer" letter (probably still saying no, but who knows).

Re:augh

[drinkypoo]

SA is really fucking creepy to begin with, as opposed to /. which is also really fucking creepy. Both boards consist of fringe aspergers.

Shit, you had to say "fringe", didn't you? Don't you know many will take that as a challenge?

Legal immigration

[tepples]

I've occasionally wondered why one doesn't simply set up shop in a country that has more equitable IP laws and a more balanced judicial system.

Probably because these come with hefty requirements for lawful resident status.

Re:Legal immigration

[drinkypoo]

Not to mention that some nations (like the USA) will come and hound you no matter where you are unless you manage to give up your citizenship. There is a procedure for doing this, but in the past some people who have attempted it have effectively been denied.

It's the ponies

[thegeekprofessor]

I'm a "brony" (male in his 30's). I was already a huge animation fan to begin with, but I'm extremely picky. Very few "cartoons" are worth talking about, but the new version of My Little Pony is.. hard to describe in a short space. Let's just say that I consider the 2nd best American cartoon of all time. And it's only in season 1.

Ponies, again with the ponies

[me.at.work]

OMG!!! Ponies!!!

http://stevezeidner.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/pink_slashdot.jpg

Now

[gregthebunny]

you're thinking with ponies!

Re:Now

[Kitsuneymg]

My Little Portal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM9IQ95iJlk

Not right about fashion

[slew]

Fashion design is actually a field that uses copyright heavily.

Although IANAL, the way I understand it is the basic test is that although most fashion design fails the intrinsic utilitarian test for copyright, if the designer included pictoral, graphic, or sculptural features, those elements of the design are available for copyright protection.

As a specific example, although you can mostly copy the general size and shape of a pair of glasses, if the designer embeds a sculpture on the design or a designer specific pattern which serves no functional purpose (e.g, like oakley has an embedded O sculpted in their frame designs, or gucci which has a G), that design for that pair of glasses can be copyrighted.

That's why you see designers spray their logos or other design elements all over their items these days. It's to ward off the "exact" duplicate knockoffs. Since it is not possible to copyright design elements that are actually intrinsically useful, they deliberatly put in stuff that is not functional into their designs.

As for the recipies, although you can't copyright the recipe for coca cola, you can't sell you soda in a bottle shaped like the classic coca cola bottle, because that bottle is copyrighted as it includes design elements that are not necessary for its function as a bottle.

Re:Not right about fashion

[Migraineman]

I you wanted to write a book on the pop-culture impact of the Coca Cola soda bottle (no pun intended,) you'd still need to get copyright permission from Coca Cola to use the imagery, short of technical schematics. You can't create your own "pop culture" art from the era as an alternative. Writing a PhD thesis would be fine - it's an academic use - but as soon as you publish it in exchange for money, you run afoul of our busted copyright system. And this bustedness will persist until 100 or so years after you and I are dead.

Copyright is supposed to be a contract between we-the-people and authors/artists/performers. They get a limited-time monopoly to control their work, then it reverts to the public domain to benefit everyone. So, exactly, when to we benefit from our part of the bargain?

Re:Not right about fashion

[bws111]

How many books are available for you to read? How many songs? How many movies? There is your benefit.

Re:Not right about fashion

[Migraineman]

The availability of books/etc is not the "benefit" in question. It is *a* benefit, and is explicitly called out as an objective of the copyright legislation - "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

However, at the end of the specified term, the work is to enter the public domain for the benefit of all. That part has been stolen from us via creative bait-and-switch legislation. Retroactive copyright extension has made the term effectively "infinity - 1."

For example, I would like to use some artwork from coin-op video games manufactured in 1980. The artwork is a collage of iconic arcade game characters - an original work by me which includes derivative elements. I wish to sell said artwork on a t-shirt. The machines has been out of production since 1981 ... 30 years ago. Under the current US copyright legislation, another 65 years must pass before Atari can't sue me for copyright infringement. I would be unbelievably fortunate to live that long.

Re:Not right about fashion

[Sique]

As I said: It's not the fashion design that is copyrightable. It's the picture, the sculpture or whatever has copyright protection also outside of fashion, which is protected. The design, the cut, the fabric chosen, the colors - they aren't copyrightable, not even in the context of the given combination.

Re:Not right about fashion

[Repossessed]

As a specific example, although you can mostly copy the general size and shape of a pair of glasses, if the designer embeds a sculpture on the design or a designer specific pattern which serves no functional purpose (e.g, like oakley has an embedded O sculpted in their frame designs, or gucci which has a G), that design for that pair of glasses can be copyrighted.

IANAL and all, but I'm pretty sure those are trademarks and not copyright. That O is there so the consumer knows whats an Oakley and whats a (non counterfeit) knock off. Actually, I'm also pretty sure the coke bottle falls under trade dress. Trademark (and dress) have totally different rules than copyright.

Re:Not right about fashion

[Repossessed]

The coke bottle isn't covered under copyright, but trademark. So as long as its clear that your book is *about* Coca Cola (its always legal to use a trademark in a nominative fashion) and not *from* Coca Cola you have the legal right to publish it without their permission (this won't necessarily keep them from suing you of course, which is the real problem, not the laws).

IANAL and so forth.

Re:4chan

[Kitsuneymg]

/co/? Even-handed? RainbowDashLaughing.avi Nope. /co/ is a cesspit. It's far worse than /b/ ever was. Youtube 'pony thread simulator'. That's /co/. I'm not sure WHERE to go for a lightweight introduction, but 4chan ain't it. I'd say either http://www.synchtube.com/r/Yaridovich or maybe chat.freenode.com #flankbook-np or #flankbook-pr. All three places love newfoals. http://www.synchtube.com/r/Filly is a 'cleaner' mlp channel, but sometimes, the mods are still asleep.

Re:augh

[couchslug]

Why is that a Troll?

It''s Funny and Insightful.

Hasbro is not a television company.

[Cyno01]

Hasbro is a toy company. They own the "My Little Pony" IP, but the show, no matter how well done, it little more than a 22 minute toy commercial for them. They want to make money off the dolls. I'm sure if someone were selling "Your Little Pony" knockoff dolls Hasbro would be all over them like stink on rice.

Although thats just my assumption, and Hasbro does seem to be pretty cool with people selling modified ponies, although thats a completely separate legal issue, so who knows.

Why Big Media Sues so much

[hillbluffer]

Big Media always asks one question about _anything_ using "their property". "Does it put money in my pocket? No? _Then_SUE_ them and stop it NOW!"

Re:Oh god.

[Kitsuneymg]

I really want this, so very badly.

Wait- I have stylish...

brb

ponies

Re:Oh god.

[Kitsuneymg]

VI is for casuals!
GGP is like Hitler
<link to goatse&gt
Apple sucks and is too expensive
PS3 has no games

But I thought you waaaaanted trolling?

Re:call in the trol

[Kitsuneymg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7uWBHrhX3M Call in the [weather pa]trol

Re:Oh god.

[jnpcl]

Obligatory Penny-Arcade:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/6/15/

Peanuts vs Garfield

[hicksw]

Garfield minus Garfield - living artist, gets the joke, lends a hand.

Peanuts - dead artist, copyright vampires suck/spit blood.

Is there some kind of difference between these two cases?
--
Valuable free advice -- worth every penny.

Re:4chan

[Psmylie]

You want an introduction, try Equestria Daily at equestriadaily.com
Pony news, links to art, music, fics, and videos, no explicit rule 34 posted on the site itself (at least that I've ever seen) and generally speaking a good place to go for pony community stuff.

Re:4chan

[Kitsuneymg]

I actually am a prereader at EqD (kits).
I don't consider anything that posts as much fanfiction as we do an introduction to the fandom. I mean, fanfics turn a lot of people off of a lot of things. Plus we have way too many inside references and memes of our own to be a good intro. There is very little in the way of discourse since it's a blog.
Maybe the EqD irc channels. I'd hang out in there more but I'm too busy with the rest of my pony life.