Slashdot Mirror


Free Lightsaber Event Now Battling Lucasfilm's Lawyers (siliconbeat.com)

For eight years the arts collective Newmindspace had been staging free lightsaber battles, and in December they set a world record with 9,951 "combatants" simultaneously participating in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Seattle. But then in January they received a letter from the copyright attorneys for the Star Wars franchise. "We immediately stopped using the words 'lightsaber,' 'Jedi,' 'Sith' and 'The Force,' " the group's co-founder told the technology blog of the San Jose Mercury News, saying they've still been "aggressively pursued" for the last three months. '''In March we received further communication stating 'The Light Battle Tour' and 'light sword' were still too close to their trademarks, and we moved to settle the dispute to avoid legal action." Their new solution involves referring to the weapons as "catblades", and they've re-branded their upcoming series of events (which begins on April 30 in San Jose) as the "Cats in Space Tour".

198 comments

  1. Because... by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Because people having fun and not tithing us is upsetting.

    Otherwise stated, because fuck you that's why.

    Imagine if this had stopped 'Star Trek" conventions through the years. Would the franchise be nearly as popular as it was/is?
    Here is a clue for the 1% media fucktards and their lawyer army. Something that gets people engaged and excited about your supposed "IP" is free word of mouth advertising. Word of mouth advertising is free, and far more effective than any other kind that you pay dearly for. The trade of is you cannot tightly control the message. Boo hoo.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Because... by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Star Trek conventions are licensed. All you guys have been duped by the marketing.

    2. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't defend your brand, you will eventually lose it. It sucks, but it's an understandable move by Lucasfilm. Blame the way copyright works.

    3. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gr8 b8 m8.
      That's how trademarks work not copyright.
      You can't lose copyright because someone else does something similar, or uses your IP somehow.
      There are only three forms of IP: trademark, copyright and patent.
      Is it really so fucking difficult to differentiate between them?

    4. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of kowtowing with the name change and going forward with the event, they should have come up with a new event called "Fuck Disney" that features the destruction and desecration of the Disney logo and Disney products. Don't promote Disney by waving lightsaber toys around, make people hate them for being dicks.

    5. Re:Because... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      To be fair, it is a bit difficult to differentiate between them when the USPTO keeps issuing trademarks for purely descriptive phrases like square donuts and design patents for things that would barely qualify for copyright protection.

    6. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The problem is we blame the lawyers.

      The person we should be blaming is George Lucas, he who pulls the strings of the lawyers.

    7. Re:Because... by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Analog Magazine cover, 1969

      The rod “ something in appearance like a cross between the flame of a welding torch and the arc of a static electricity charge crackled from the end of the rod even as it burst from the end of the rod the discharge from Galyan’s rod met the discharge from Slothiel’s head on, and the two lines of white fire splashed harmlessly into an aurora of sparks"

      --
      "Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh) ... "coccoon can do."
    8. Re:Because... by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Nice prior art find Rei. But we all know Lucas stole (synthesized) most of his ideas from other works.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    9. Re:Because... by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He um, sold Star Wars. So no, don't blame him (except for originally 'trademarking' those things). The lawyers are Disney's and we know exactly how litigious they are.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    10. Re:Because... by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "defending your brand" does not typically mean preventing any of your copyrighted words and names from being uttered in public.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    11. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With forcing their tech to train their foreign replacements the Disney lawyers should be circling the wagons not going out to battle.

    12. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out Trade Secret - which has specific protections as well.

      BTW, it's not IP (Intellectual Property - which only exists between your ears as grey matter); the more correct term is Intellectual Creations (IC).

    13. Re:Because... by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "There are only three forms of IP: trademark, copyright and patent."

      And all of them illusions, in reality there are none.

    14. Re:Because... by tepples · · Score: 1

      There are only three forms of IP: trademark, copyright and patent.

      Citation needed. Some definitions include trade secrets, trademark-like rights of publicity, copyright-like "mask work" rights (sui generis rights in integrated circuit designs), and copyright-like sui generis rights in ship hulls under the umbrella term.

    15. Re:Because... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Not true... please look up the term "nominative use".

    16. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are only three forms of IP: trademark, copyright and patent."

      And all of them illusions, in reality there are none.

      so you're saying that there is no real Imaginary Property?

    17. Re:Because... by wait_a_little · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Japan, self-published works are called doujin works. Many of them are derivative of existing works, like commercially published manga and anime. What's special about them is that they are openly sold. Comiket, the most popular event for buying and selling doujin works, has over 30,000 individuals and groups selling stuff, and over 500,000 total attendees. Twice a year. Not everything there is based on existing works, but a lot of it is.

      It's not technically legal to sell these derivative doujin works, but it's still allowed by the vast majority of copyright owners because the derivative works 1) don't duplicate or compete with the original, 2) help to create a fandom that draws in more people and sustains interest in the original work, and 3) train new talent who will go on to publish their own commercial works. The doujin scene is important enough that the prime minister recently announced that derivative works will continue to be allowed even if the TPP becomes law (or in other words, it will still be left up to the copyright owners to decide if they want to allow them or not).

      A particular success story in the doujin scene has been the Touhou game series, which has been authored and self-published by just one developer since the 90s. The series wouldn't have even a fraction of its huge popularity without the massive amount of derivative works based on it (manga, art, fanfiction, games, anime, music). There's now loads of commercially produced Touhou merchandise, and several manga series, and the series could be commercially even bigger if the author wanted it to be. But it would never have gotten this far without the doujin scene, and might not even exist in the first place without it.

    18. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was he forced to sell it? No, he did it voluntarily, therefore he is to blame for selling it.

      This is only happening because he sold it. Before he sold it, this wouldn't have happened.

      His action of selling it, caused this, therefore he is to blame.

    19. Re:Because... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      "IF SOMEONE IS USING YOUR "IP" IN PUBLIC, AND YOU DON'T SUE, THEN YOU LOSE ALL CONTROL."

      Xerox, Kleenex, Google and Photoshop all say 'LOL'. Can you actually cite a case where a big name like this actually lost their trademark? You do realize this (false) maxim only applies to trademark, right?

      --
      Good-bye
    20. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right.

      Disney won't let these terms become Mickey Mouse'd.

    21. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok mister philosopher, that's true from whatever moral mountain you are speaking from, but he's talking about the law.

    22. Re:Because... by wait_a_little · · Score: 1

      Copyright law would be unworkable if it actually worked the way you think it does. It's impossible for any company to have perfect awareness of every infringement out there, and only a few of the most wealthy companies would be able to take legal action against every known infringement. Courts would get completely tied up and companies would bleed themselves dry.

      It should be self-evident to you that things don't work like this, and that companies aren't regularly losing copyrights because they failed to sue someone.

    23. Re:Because... by Falos · · Score: 1

      >he is to blame for selling it
      Yes.
      >His action of selling it caused this
      Nah.

      We get enough causality bullshit from the justice system, thanks. I'm no friend of Big ISP, but they aren't "enabling terrorism and child porn" by providing people connectivity. Besides, you and I are commoners and don't get to exploit the fallacy for our agendas, that's reserved for our righteous betters with Authority And Power.

    24. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He sold some of it. Fox owns the original film, for instance.

    25. Re:Because... by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a deep dislike for the sentiments posed by the AC that you replied to. By blaming someone else, they're taking the blame from Disney and that's where the fault truly lies. It's like those who want to blame ISIS on the US. No, the US isn't the one out there cutting heads off. If you want to blame the US for it then you might as well blame the League of Nations and the colonization that screwed up the whole area and whose actions gave rise to the situation we have today.

      However, no... The Europeans (the US was not a member nation in the League of Nations) aren't to blame for ISIS either. The blame is squarely on the jackasses who are busy chopping heads and throwing gay people off of "Chuck-a-homo Bridge." They're the ones responsible. They're the people who are committing the atrocities. Trying to blame someone other than them is just shifting the attention and a method of refusing to accept the fact that this problem needs addressing.

      Just like this - but slightly less severe when it's just about movie/fan rights. They might be light sabers but nobody is losing a head over this. Still, if the AC tries to blame Lucas then they're just shifting the blame from Disney. Disney is the controlling rights holder and Disney is to blame for this. I doubt we've got Disney shills here but that's pretty much what I'd do if I wanted to minimize the negative impact done to Disney's public image. I'd do what I can to make sure that Lucas was blamed and that Disney rarely came up in the conversation.

      However, no... It's probably not a paid shill - or "online reputation management expert." It's probably just that the AC really isn't all that bright. I'd almost rather they be a paid shill but, alas, they're probably just stupid.

      Oh, something I was thinking about while scrolling through but not really entirely related to this comment... I wonder what other sorts of protections Disney has. They could probably just have a yearly event and be careful to avoid the terms. I don't know what copyright would cover when it's transformed into look-alike products that bear a superficial relationship. I don't suppose they've gone so far as to get things like a design patent for this stuff? If they've done that, I'm not sure what that covers.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    26. Re:Because... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Trade Secrets do not have their own specific protections, they are protected via contract law. I f I work for Coca Cola and have access to their processes and then replicate their recipe, I'd likely be in huge trouble for violating various clauses of whatever contracts I had to sign to work for them. If I as a person with no affiliation to Coca Cola and without access to any Coca Cola personnel recreate their recipe, I can do whatever I want with it, including publish it for the world to see without penalty.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    27. Re:Because... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Thermos, Escalator, and Aspirin.

      Heroin, Cellophane, Trampoline.

      Laundromat, Dry Ice, and Kerosene.

      Zip Code, Yo-yo, and Zipper.

      More recently, in 2011, Apple abandoned a fight over App Store. They abandoned the trademark as well.

      All of the above failed to defend and lost their exclusive rights on the name. The company may still use it but they have lost cases since their inception because they failed to defend it. You can use Google and find a whole bunch of 'em. I knew a few of them and cheated to find the rest. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re:Because... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm a proponent for intellectual property rights but that shouldn't be read to mean that I believe the current system is ideal and wouldn't serve better with some reworking. One of the things that really needs to happen is, in my views, taking a good look at the affirmative defense that is known as "Fair Use." It's entirely subjective, at least from my reading of the law and from reading the results of lots of cases over the years.

      An affirmative defense means that you basically say, "Yeah, I used the work but in my defense, the usage was fair." It can be rather expensive to take that to court. Some sort of intermediary would be nice as well as some way to state some basics. In other words, if it goes this far then we go to court - it might not be fair use. If it only goes this far, we don't go to court it's fair use.

      The problem is that any board or oversight (it would be something less than a judge and might need a speedy, streamlined, appellate system) would end up getting stuffed with representatives of the "industry." That's unfair to the people who have smaller market shares and less or no profit. It should be some sort of "plain word hearing" and prohibit representation by a third party. It should allow remote representation, be it by letter, fax, or email. Heck, it can even be video so that one can be sworn and testify - later admissible in court, if needed.

      It should also be the system where they deal with non-criminal infringements. If Joe Average got caught pirating a couple of songs and was streaming them then he shouldn't be facing criminal charges. He should be in and paying a reasonably fee that covers the costs of this new court system and provides renumeration for the wronged party. It should also be easily accessed by those who aren't legally minded as the larger companies are also guilty of intellectual property infringement offenses.

      There's a whole lot of things that need to get added to the above. It needs to have the rough edges taken away and it'd take too long to type it all out - and it would still need further refinement - but that's a start and I think it might help get things going in the right direction again. Fair Use is an affirmative defense and we should have some rights to Fair Use. Nominally, we do have those rights but the practice isn't quite as good as it looks on paper.

      I think we should shorten the duration for copyright as well. My head keeps saying that 20 years is a good duration and allowance for a single extension would not be a bad idea. I think that they should have to prove that it's still in use, still "working" and that there's value in their retaining the copyright for the extension. That could be a part of this sub-judiciary review process that I'm talking about above. I think it would be good to keep legal professionals out of it, inasmuch as it is possible, to ensure that it's plain-language based and accessible for the "common man."

      I've no problem with retention of ownership with intellectual property, none at all. I think to take, without permission, the rights of someone and to do so for your own monetary gain is pretty low. I have every reason to believe that copyright is an incentive to create. The ownership of the results is what motivates many people and we're not a world full of ideological people. However, I think the current system is pretty much trash and we really need to rethink this and see if we can make some adjustments to it. I think we can do better than the current system. I think we can do much better than the current system.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    29. Re:Because... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      That's stupid. thousands of fans so interested in their IP they're willing to show up for things like this, and this is the reaction from Disney/lucasfilm?

      I imagine if the disciples had lawyers, Christianity would never have taken off... unlicensed proselytizing might weaken the brand and it goes without saying, they'd need to shut it down, right?

    30. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even as it burst from the end of the rod the discharge from Galyan’s rod met the discharge from Slothiel’s head on

      Uhhhhhh......

    31. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only three forms of IP: trademark, copyright and patent.
      Is it really so fucking difficult to differentiate between them?

      I think you need to move with the times.

    32. Re:Because... by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      'your economic benefit' is hardly true. I as a citizen gained diddly squat for all of that. A few people in the 'right' places got a benefit, including the president at the time, but it hardly should be laid at the feet of the average person. I didn't get any more security. I just got a crap load of tax money going to shit that is a stupid waste of money when we have more pressing issues like poverty and unemployment... But no one want sot talk about those. Personally I keep voting against the current establishment as well, but our country is so messed up that's not likely to fix anything.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    33. Re:Because... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Copyright is not a patent. Prior art is irrelevant. ditto for trademarks.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    34. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I have a deep dislike for the sentiments posed by the AC that you replied to. By blaming someone else, they're taking the blame from Disney and that's where the fault truly lies. It's like those who want to blame ISIS on the US. No, the US isn't the one out there cutting heads off. If you want to blame the US for it then you might as well blame the League of Nations and the colonization that screwed up the whole area and whose actions gave rise to the situation we have today.

      However, no... The Europeans (the US was not a member nation in the League of Nations) aren't to blame for ISIS either. The blame is squarely on the jackasses who are busy chopping heads and throwing gay people off of "Chuck-a-homo Bridge." They're the ones responsible. They're the people who are committing the atrocities. Trying to blame someone other than them is just shifting the attention and a method of refusing to accept the fact that this problem needs addressing.

      So the war that fucked up the region and that was started by the US and friends has zero parts of the blame?

      If you were to apply your argument to some other parts of history, you could as well claim that the Jews were responsible for gassing themselves, due to having a certain reputation with certain other people. So will you?

      And while you're at at, also explain how women are responsible for their own rape.

    35. Re:Because... by madeye · · Score: 1

      Hah! They did (well, except the name was Dismaland not Fuck Disney). The death of the princess was my favourite part.

    36. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are only three forms of IP: trademark, copyright and patent."

      And all of them illusions, in reality there are none.

      So, just like physical property then, right?

    37. Re:Because... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Copyright needs a major overhaul. I think 20 years sounds like a good maximum limit. I would think 10 years with a 10 year renewal ought to be plenty in the modern world. In no case should copyright last longer than a lifetime, or really a "productive lifetime." (say retirement age of 65 minus starting working age of approximately 15) Basically if you have an idea inspired by existing copyrighted material, you should have an opportunity to create and sell your creative modification at some point during your working years. As it is now, I am 29 and Star Wars came out long before I was born, yet I will die before any of the Star Wars universe will go into the public domain. If I had a great idea for a story based in the Star Wars universe, I will never truly be able to control or publish that idea as my own.

      That doesn't encourage creative works, that discourages it... Which is exactly what current media empires want. They don't want to encourage new works, they want to limit them because they don't want more creative works competing against their cash cow of reboots, sequels, prequels, and complete lack of any originality.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    38. Re:Because... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      design patents for things that would barely qualify for copyright protection.

      You do realize copyright and design patents are completely different things, right?

      A design patent covers things that aren't copyrightable - they're for ornamental features of an object. You can't copyright a physical object by definition, but you can protect the look and feel of a physical object with a design patent.

      Copyright affects creative works - typically music, movies, books, etc. As the "design" of this doesn't really apply (you can't really apply for a design patent on the on the way the page is laid out, though you could if the book was shaped oddly - say you put a hole in the middle and some other things).

      What's with IT educated people wanting everyone to have a computer education and failing to learn about IP law? It's not hard (most of what you need to know can be covered in a short book)...

    39. Re:Because... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      You do realize the story is about a trademark dispute, not a copyright dispute, right?

      I didn't bring up the scope of copyright because it's not the issue here.

    40. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correct

    41. Re:Because... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      As the "design" of this doesn't really apply (you can't really apply for a design patent on the on the way the page is laid out, though you could if the book was shaped oddly - say you put a hole in the middle and some other things).

      You must mean Peter Newell's The Hole Book , published in 1908 - with a 'bullet' hole that went straight through the center of each page. It was a favorite when I was growing up. (Unfortunately, reprints leave out the physical hole - as well as the watermelon.)

    42. Re: Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you an idiot or replied to the wrong post? I dislike KGIII more than the next guy, but you misread his argument. He is saying the party doing the actual shit is to blame. To specifically answer regarding the Jews, his argument would be totally be the nazies, not the Jews. And the rapist, not the victim.

      Fucking moron.

    43. Re:Because... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Ah yes... The selective processing of history and stopping where it suits you most. How about we try this, then? (Maybe you'l be a wee less stupid in a minute.)

      No, the fault for ISIS lies squarely with the Europeans who colonized, abused, and the left the place in shambles with new borders drawn by the countries that were the League of Nations (which the US was not a part of).

      That applies to Osama, the Taliban, as well...

      So no, the US was cleaning up the mess that the Europeans created. History didn't start in the 1990s, after all.

      Now, you can be less stupid than you were a minute ago or you can display an unwillingness to learn. Which do you prefer?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    44. Re:Because... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Iraq was invaded by you not Europe, and was stable until you morons interfered. Iran was democratic before you installed a dictator. Israel gets away with genocide because of you, not Europe.
      Afghanistan is worse than before thanks to you.
      The only stupid here is you ignoring reality and yelling look over there.
      Being part of the US war machine has obviously rotted your tiny mind, you frequently lie about other countries, this is just another example you dumbfuck.

    45. Re:Because... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Do you think history started in 1990 or something? Go read a book.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    46. Re:Because... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Im well aware of history, you really are a pathetic case. Its clear that the US is the one responsible for the current situation, and despite your pathetic whining about history, the events i mentioned are recent, and fully the resposibility of stupid fucks like you.
      All the things i mentioned are nothing to do with the past and everything to do with you morons sticking your noses where you dont belong.
      What the fuck has history got to do with you invading Iraq based on lies?
      Youre a stupid old fart, with no answer to the issues except look over there.

    47. Re:Because... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the brilliance displayed by youth. You, sir or ma'am, are a fine example of why kids should stay in school.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    48. Re:Because... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the arrogance of the deluded believer, im 55 years old you idiot, and far better informed.

    49. Re:Because... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      I did stay in school, in a country with an effective education system, unlike the US, which produced uninformed jerks like you,
      Its quite funny when you call a 56 year old like me a youth. You really are an twisted old fart.

    50. Re:Because... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      So, other than look over there do you have any real answer other than your miserable ad hominem?

    51. Re:Because... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Of course you havent, perhaps senility is the issue.

  2. PR idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would have sponsored the event, it's obvious that there is a huge following of fans there.

    1. Re:PR idiots by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      Exactly. They could have sponsored them. Added a few extra small things like cosplay judging or something and then made out like thieves on crappy memorabilia.

    2. Re:PR idiots by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      Or at least they could have defended their brand by licensing it out for a dollar. That would have prevented any actually questionable infringement by other parties. The real reason to disallow it entirely is they're scum.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    3. Re:PR idiots by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Or, if Disney didn't want to do that, they could have at least told them to explicitly acknowledge the terms they might be using that are owned by Disney, and to state that Disney has not sponsored or endorsed the event, which would make their usage fall into nominative use, giving Disney no legally sustainable reason to sue them in the first place since nominative usage of a trademarked term, even in public, is considered non-diluting.

  3. Good by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You are supposed to be creative. Come up with your own stories. Enough with Star Wars.

    1. Re: Good by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Real geeks are creative. But not these San Fransisco wannabes.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I hate to say it, I have to agree. Start Trek Conventions, Star Wars Conventions, Lightsaber Battles . . . . . . . . enough already. Just fucking stop it already.

      Instead of spending a year in your mother's basement copying that LightSaber® or Star Fleet® uniform that someone else designed 50 years ago, how about you do something creative and original for a change.

    3. Re:Good by darthsilun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If someone spends a {week,month,year} creating something, at least they're actually creating something.
      My daughter makes costumes for herself and her husband. Often they are characters from a movie, but sometimes from a book. Last year I helped her make a metal belt buckle for her Gamora costume.
      Don't be dissing people for the things they like. Who are you to judge? And if they're making something, that's extra cool.

    4. Re: Good by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Real geeks are creative. But not these San Fransisco wannabes.

      But only if they're also True Scotsman. So, if the geek in question is not wearing a kilt and sporran (or brandishing a broken bottle of Irn Bru---wouldn't want to accuse the Glaswegians of not being true scotsmen) then they're a fake wannabe.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 1

      Look, if they were actually making something interesting, creating something new, that would be one thing. But they're just imitating things that others created.

      At least try to do something that even the creators didn't. If these people were for example building real plasma swords, then I'd have more interest. But they're just hitting each other with big mass-produced plastic swords, the same sorts of toys that little kids play with.

      --
      "Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh) ... "coccoon can do."
    6. Re:Good by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah! And enough with books and music and television and movies. Everyone should stay in their basement and never expose themselves to anyone else's creative works, much less celebrate them!

      Or, you know, we could continue to behave like humans have behaved since the beginning of recorded history.

      Sharing stories and celebrating them is a fundamental part of human interaction. We use stories to share our knowledge, beliefs and morals. Stories entertain and educate and act as a form of common ground that people can use to connect to and understand one another.

    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From wikipedia:

      There are several literary precedents in science fiction for a "sword" of pure energy that can cut through anything, notably:
      Dickson's "rod" showing the similarity it bears to a lightsaber.

              Edmond Hamilton's story Kaldar: World of Antares[3] (published 1933 in the April issue of The Magic Carpet Magazine). It was reprinted in one of Donald A. Wollheims well-known and widely-read Science Fiction anthologies, Swordsmen in the Sky, Ace Books 79276, 1964, and thus readily available to the Science Fiction reader community of the 1960s and 1970s.
              Fritz Leiber's Gather Darkness (1943): the priests' "rods of wrath" (energy projections) only end where they cut into solid matter, so that a single duel led to numerous casualties of bystanders and charred scores across all nearby walls.[4]
              Isaac Asimov's Lucky Starr series (1952): The force-blade is "a short shaft of stainless steel" which can project a force field that can cut through anything, making it "the most vicious weapon in the galaxy." Asimov's force-blade expands on his earlier invention of "a penknife with a force-field blade," first used in his Foundation novel (1951).[5]
              Gordon R. Dickson's Wolfling (1969): the rod “ something in appearance like a cross between the flame of a welding torch and the arc of a static electricity charge crackled from the end of the rod even as it burst from the end of the rod the discharge from Galyan’s rod met the discharge from Slothiel’s head on, and the two lines of white fire splashed harmlessly into an aurora of sparks, ".[6][7]
              Larry Niven's Ringworld (1970): Louis Wu uses his "flashlight laser" as a sword of indefinite length.[8]
              M. John Harrison's The Pastel City (1971): the energy baan are used by the Methven, an order of knights sworn to protect their empire.[8]

      Like Harry Potter, almost no single element of Star Wars is "original", its just a blend that was there at the right place and right time and got popular. So can we stop treating the creators of these franchises as creative gods and merely make them mere mortals again and doing what other creators have always done? That is copy and imitate and through enough thought and practice, sometimes put their own slightly original spin on something?

      Copying and imitating them in turn shouldn't become illegal just because they had the good fortune to get popular.

    8. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same with Tractor Beams ®, Phasers ® and Deflector Shields ®. All in Chronicles of the Lensmen before anyone else used them.

    9. Re:Good by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      For some reason it irritates me when i go to the renaissance fair and see idiots walking around in elf ears or have fox tails. You somewhat sound like you might be one of those idiots or maybe a cheerleader who encourages them.

      Sometimes people just want to experience a fantasy. There is nothing wrong with that if they are not harming others. There is nothing wrong with them wanting to share in the fantasies of others. Let them have their fun before someone brings a machine gun to a D&D outing.

    10. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just love it when someone presumes to tell other people what they should and shouldn't be doing. What they should like, and what they shouldn't like.

      If I like dressing up as Montgomery Scott and reciting Jorah Mormont's Doom poem whilst spanking Slave Leia with Andúril – that I bought from a sword maker at the Renaissance Festival that time I went dressed as Rexor from the 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian – I suppose you'll be telling me that I'm a worm because that doesn't fit into your version of the correct way for one to entertain oneself.

      Well, Mr. Perfect, tell us what it is that you do that's so clever? And then we can critique your likes and dislikes according to our rules? Sound fair?

      No? You mean you don't like it when other people project their values on you and dictate what you should like or not like?

      Srsly?

      One of the great things about being human is that we're all different, and different people like different things. If someone likes going to Light Sabre duels (or whatever they call them now, after the hounds have been unleashed), that's their business. You can take your opinions and go crawl back under your bridge, troll.

    11. Re:Good by tepples · · Score: 1

      If I like dressing up as Montgomery Scott and reciting Jorah Mormont's Doom poem whilst spanking Slave Leia with Andúril – that I bought from a sword maker at the Renaissance Festival that time I went dressed as Rexor from the 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian – I suppose you'll be telling me that I'm a worm because that doesn't fit into your version of the correct way for one to entertain oneself.

      It's not that it doesn't fit into Rei's version as much as that it doesn't fit into the respective copyright owners' versions.

    12. Re:Good by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look, if they were actually making something interesting, creating something new, that would be one thing. But they're just imitating things that others created.

      So what? Let them be fans and get their rocks off over what they like. It's not my thing, but lots of things aren't my thing, and you know what? I'm okay with it.

      What I find petty and grasping is when a creator feels like he or she is owed money every time mention is made of something they created. Note to creators: fans are what MADE you popular, cut them some slack FFS. Stop being such greedy, grasping dollar whores. You've made your millions, relax a little and enjoy your money without being such a bunch of robot-like revenue-seeking pricks.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    13. Re:Good by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Sometimes people just want to experience a fantasy. There is nothing wrong with that if they are not harming others. There is nothing wrong with them wanting to share in the fantasies of others.

      Bingo. Let people enjoy themselves however they want to, even if it doesn't fit neatly into what someone else thinks is the "right way" to have fun.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    14. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 1

      Indeed. At least that would be creative.

      My objection wasn't to "people doing whatever makes them happy". My objective was the characterization of "poorly imitating someone else's preexisting work" as "creative".

      --
      "Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh) ... "coccoon can do."
    15. Re:Good by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      You know how people get good at stuff? They make a LOT of drek in the process and learn from their mistakes.

      --
      Good-bye
    16. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was most certainly not your point. Nice attempt at backtracking, however.

    17. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wasn't a story writing contest, genius. Man you just open your mouth and say whatever stupid thing you think of first, don't you?

    18. Re:Good by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Well let the content creators do what THEY like and ask for money. It isn't my thing, but you know what? I am OK with it. So stupid. Go do something original, if you don't want to be original, pay the creators what they ask.

    19. Re:Good by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      OR we could come up with OUR OWN stories, instead of having yet another Star Wars/Star Trek commercial venture. Christ. It is a movie.

    20. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let's see here, basically what you're saying is "Your fun is wrong". Wow, you're not a dick, are you? And yes, that was a quote from somebody on Critical Role from Geek and Sundry, which of course you will now mock me for. Because god forbid if anybody enjoy something that somebody else made.

    21. Re: Good by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Just gifting a Glasgow Kiss should be sufficient for identification purposes. The kilt would not, then, be mandatory. Of course, it would liven up the scene a bit.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    22. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 1

      Seriously? How are you reading:

      Look, if they were actually making something interesting, creating something new, that would be one thing. But they're just imitating things that others created.

      .... as not being REALLY a complaint about the lack of creativity, but rather being an expression of hatred for fun?

      --
      "Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh) ... "coccoon can do."
    23. Re:Good by KGIII · · Score: 1

      FWIW, that's how I originally read their post. The rest of it, the assumptions and insinuations, appear to be things you've added to their post - things that were neither stated nor implied. Perhaps you're a bit overly sensitive and the easily offended type, the type who sees slight where none was nor was any intended.

      Don't lie about your great works of art unless they're truly great works of art. It's possible to do some of the things you may do and to be imaginative. Imaginative and creation is not simple replication, no matter how many ways you try to split it. And I say this as someone who was gaming, table-top role-playing, in the 1970s. I've been to the LARPs, I've been to the cons, I've been to the Rendezvous', I've been to re-enactments, all that stuff. And it's fine to do what you do - nobody is saying you can't or that you shouldn't.

      What they're saying (I think), and what I'll try to state more clearly, is that there's no reason to lie about it and pretend it's something that it isn't. You, you may even be one who is creating. However, the person who joined as a fad, bought a costume, and memorized a few lines so that they could be doing the "in thing" is not. There are a great many who fit that category and you know it. They're overly commercialized replicators - hardly creators, creative, or in any way imaginative.

      And, before you scoff... I still game from time to time. It's not uncommon for dice to never leave their bags. It's not uncommon for the players to never have a a character record sheet. It's not uncommon to even go whole sub-campaigns without a single die being cast.

      I'll speculate that I know a wee bit about what I'm talking about when it comes to creating.

      There's a big difference between that and someone running around with a plastic sword from Wal-Mart or an overpriced "authentic" version that they bought online. And no, that doesn't mean you have to create your own sword and learn to smith it yourself. (Then again, at my table you'd probably be expected to describe such a process if you wanted to do so. Skills are learned, after all.)

      Also, I'm familiar with the person's posting style. I can assure you that they'd have said what they meant and there would have been little room to mistake it - had they meant more than what they said.

      So, no... They're not saying don't do it. They're not saying you can't do it. They're saying that you should be honest with yourselves and others about what it is that you do. That you extends to your peers who also represent you as a group. You may be an exception that proves the rule. It could happen. I'll even give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are. However, you're making a whole bunch of assumptions about things they neither stated nor implied.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    24. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've made your millions, relax a little and enjoy your money

      These people don't "enjoy" anything - there's not an ounce of joy in their lives. Not even for money. They are control freaks, authoritarians, sadists.

      They are NOT the creators, they are the despoilers, the agents, the freeloaders. FOAD.

  4. Thanks to the lawyers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At every event they should make the announcement that the names have been change at the insistence if Disney's lawyers. With simple notices stating the same thing posted around the event and on the website.

  5. Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead of reaching out and asking if these people would want to become a sanctioned event, or a simple, could you please work with us to not violate our IP, they chose to instead swing the FUCK YOU hammer.

    Lawyers are garbage.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by StormReaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who didn't see this coming when Disney bought Lucasfilm? This is just the beginning.

    2. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not a lawyer but I do recognise it's the pricks that send in the lawyers for this sort of thing that are the real garbage. Do you think a lawyer would do this on their own without somebody giving them money and a task to do?

    3. Re: Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Danathar · · Score: 1

      They (Disney lawyers) are not stopping because in their eyes the damage has already done (association with Star Wars) and people will associate the event with Star Wars and light sabers no matter WHAT the event is renamed as.

      If they were SMART they would buy the event outright. It's a successful marketing vehicle for their franchise! WHY IN h double hockysticks do they not get it?

    4. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by ph0rk · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the lawyers probably aren't the ones that set the marching orders. They aren't screwing with these guys just for kicks, but because they are paid to do so.

      --
      semantics are everything!
    5. Re: Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they're the same entitled rich thieves that went to the same Ivy League schools. They just picked a different route to stealing from you.

    6. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you think a lawyer would do this on their own without somebody giving them money and a task to do?

      Absolutely. Prenda Law is well known for 'buying' rights from porn companies in order to use them to extort money from defendants. It's very doubtful that any company ever paid them to go after anyone, though the people behind Prenda law certainly had fun setting up shell corporations to try and make it look like it.

    7. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who didn't see this coming when Disney bought Lucasfilm? This is just the beginning.

      This better hit 5 insightful.

      Way back in time.... http://www.snopes.com/disney/w...

      In 1989, a day care center in Florida had some paintings of some Disney characters on the wall in their playroom. What better way to get little children to become fans and put more money into the coffers? Little kids begging for their parents to take them to Disney again and again to see the real characters that they fondly remember from a very young age

      But Disney didn't see it that way, so they bitchslapped the the center with the threat of legal action.

      Hanna Barbera stepped in and allowed the place to use it's characters gratis.

      Oh, just wait cosplayers and Star Wars fans. Just wait until the court cases over Han shot first. The C and D lawsuits over sexy Leia bikinis.

      If you thought Lucas was an asshole, welcome to your new overlords.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      If you have too much of lawyers they will find someone to sue dont' worry.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    9. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares - it's a stupid childish set of films. No wonder Disney wanted them. Any adult who likes this crap or wants to play act belongs in a mental institution.

    10. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Instead of reaching out and asking if these people would want to become a sanctioned event, or a simple, could you please work with us to not violate our IP, they chose to instead swing the FUCK YOU hammer.

      Lawyers are garbage.

      Yup, that would have been good all around. Let them license the terms so Disney doesn't have copyright issues; the event holders could even put in a nod to Disney thanking them for being decent enough to work out a good solution. However, they instead decided to bring out the Death Star...

      For me, the classic example how to do it right in such a situation is how Stevens Aviation settled with Southwest over the "Plane Smart" slogan. Stevens Aviation CEO Herwald challenged Southwest CEO Kelleher to an arm wrestling contest over the name. "Malice in Dallas" raised money for charity and provided a PR boost for Southwest and Stevens Aviation. A good writeup is at

      http://gizmodo.com/how-an-arm-...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    11. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lawyers didn't decide on this strategy, the right holders did. The lawyers just did what their bosses told them to do.

      Don't blame the gun, blame the hand. And in this case, the hand is Disney.

    12. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Unlike a gun, a lawyer has the option to decline. It's like the old joke, "What is the difference between a whore and a lawyer?". "There are some things a whore won't do".

    13. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That case always gets brought out. :D Well, not always... There's a bit more to the story but nothing too huge.

      They were also violating the local sign regulations.
      http://articles.orlandosentine...

      Disney really, really are dicks:
      http://articles.sun-sentinel.c...

      I can't find the last one but because the pictures were too large anyhow, and the day care didn't get the correct permissions - even after given a chance, the Hanna-Barbara pictures got painted over in 1992, I think? I think it was 1992. I can't find 'em.

      In a strange twist of events, I think it was about 2010 when they re-painted the Hanna-Barbara images. They had permission to do so from the town and I think they might have also made them smaller than the originals. They had a second ceremony with the Hanna-Barbara people when they put the new pictures up. I want to say that Hanna-Barbara charged them $1 for the license.

      Here's the fun part... Because Hanna-Barbara did that for *this* day-care, the original one, they ended up having some legal issues that came out of it, as others sought to license them at the same cost that the Floridian day cares paid. I don't recall the fallout from that but it's amusing how many times this has popped back up in the news, in conversation, etc...

      An oddity... The date for that article was 04/08/1989. Today is 04/10 and while it's not significant, it is amusing to note. Of course, I'm easily amused. But, it's really kind of funny how often this one comes up in conversation. It has been nearly 30 years and we still talk about it. There was some interesting fallout from that and the reverberations of Disney's antics still ring true today. Good.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Star Wars half died for me when Lucas re-released the original 3 all screwed up in the late 90's, it was confirmed dead on the prequels.

      I don't give a damn about the franchise and I do say franchise, because they are so transparent with it all. There's no veil of mystery, no universe to be interested in. Star Wars, like all fictional properties is a product. Problem is, with Star Wars, they really don't bother blurring the line at least, it's just outright, in your face BUY ME, BUY ME bullshit.

      Haven't seen the new one, don't intend to.

    15. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Here's the fun part... Because Hanna-Barbara did that for *this* day-care, the original one, they ended up having some legal issues that came out of it, as others sought to license them at the same cost that the Floridian day cares paid.

      Some days, people are very hard to like.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Scot+Seese · · Score: 1

      Remember when electronic music artist Joel "Deadmau5" Zimmerman was sued by Disney because his mouse helmet was too close to Mickey Mouse for Disney's' comfort? Well, Deadmau5 won.

      Disney took it reasonably well.

      No wait, I'm kidding, they started using actual clips of Deadmau5's music in their TV shows without licensing or attribution, and it took a very ugly and public threat of lawsuit by Zimmermans' lawyers, including Joel putting the entire C&D order on Twitter in PDF format one page at a time before Disney capitulated.

      Comedian Adam Carolla has stated repeatedly on his podcast from his own personal experience, and that of his numerous industry friends that Disney is the cheapest, most frustrating studio to work with in the business. They come at people with the asshole "we're the big company, it's a privilege to work with us" attitude, lowball everyone on compensation while they reap record industry profits.

      I have no doubt their employees on the content creation side are among the best in the world. Their C suite is filled with people you'd throw a cinderblock, leaving the life preserver on the dock.

      --
      THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
    17. Re:Lucasfilm and Disney are scumbags.... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Who didn't see this coming when Disney bought Lucasfilm? This is just the beginning.

      You don't know the power of the legal department

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  6. Cats In Space? by supremebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, is that the best name they could come up with it?

    I would have went with the "Generic Glowing Space Sword" battle, which gets the point across while giving the middle finger to Disney and their copyrights.

    They could have also done a Spaceballs themed Swartz battle, assuming that whoever owns that copyright also isn't an asshole.

    1. Re:Cats In Space? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      I suppose they could name an event Cats vs the bottom feeding mice? We do now know there is not much difference between, bottom feeders, mice and sith lords.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:Cats In Space? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      It's not a copyright, but a trademark. Which also means it's the only time they technically have to sue to retain their 'brand'. However, I don't think it would hold up in court as a trademark. Usually you get a trademark on a product you produce within a given market. They neither make nor create 'lightsabers', though they do outsource some toy production of what could be called 'lightsabers' and are usually branded as such, and they don't create events utilizing them (that I've ever heard of).

      So it seems like classic Disney overreach. I mean Disney sued the media they created their own media from at one point. You really can't get more lawyer sleazy than that.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    3. Re:Cats In Space? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Should have just gone with "plasma sword" or "energy sword". There's tons of examples of such weapons in science fiction from before Lucas. Changing merely the word "sabre" to "sword" as admittedly a rather weak change.

      --
      "Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh) ... "coccoon can do."
    4. Re:Cats In Space? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Was I the only one here who actually tried googling "Cats In Space"?

      --
      "Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh) ... "coccoon can do."
    5. Re:Cats In Space? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They could have also done a Spaceballs themed Swartz battle, assuming that whoever owns that copyright also isn't an asshole.

      That would be Mel Brooks, who I suspect would not only not sue, but would probably show up and make them laugh their asses off, as well.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Cats In Space? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Bullshit! What the event needs is a good lawyer. Lightsaber is barely not generic enough as it is given there are references to flaming swords in the fucking bible. It is not at all a unique concept, especially when you consider what 45 years of Sci-Fi wrought before Star Wars showed up.

    7. Re: Cats In Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battle of the Schwartz!

      Just in time for Passover Seder!

    8. Re:Cats In Space? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Plus, they just changed their fanbase from SciFi fans to Furrys!

    9. Re:Cats In Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have gone with rebasthgil (lightsaber backwards) and Idej (Jedi backwards), Htis (Sith backwards), and the Ecrof (the Force backwards).

      These are very different from the originals, and clearly not infringing, but also clearly say "fuck you" to Disney assholes.

    10. Re:Cats In Space? by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Why not go all Bible-y? Flame swords, the Angels, the Demons and, just to mess things around, the Ki?

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    11. Re:Cats In Space? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Disney made a movie with almost that title. It's "Cats from Outer Space." At least I think it was Disney.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:Cats In Space? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      A Lythe Shaver perhaps.*

      *Copyright (c) 2016 MrKaos Incorporated.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    13. Re:Cats In Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had better be careful. Disney still owns the rights to "The Cat from Outer Space"

  7. catblades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could use one of these to kill all the stray cats running all over my neighborhood.

  8. Lemme get that. Because I somehow don't. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So there is this huge event made by geeks that costs them not a dime, advertises their franchise with what is pretty much a public stunt show and they SUE against that?

    "But what if they misrepresent it?"

    Please! We're talking hardcore geeks here. Anything that could remotely, possibly be consider by someone not-canon would be axed if not nuked with more zeal and closer attention to detail and accuracy than any of the lawyers who have no idea about the franchise itself, only about its IP laws, could or would do. If anything, these things are going to be closer to canon and whatever the "designers" of the franchise create than any amusement park you sell your IP to ever would (because they don't give a fuck about canon as long as it is gimmicky).

    So please explain that to me. It makes no sense.

    Oh. It's covered by copyright law. Ok, never mind, carry on, that's not supposed to make sense.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Lemme get that. Because I somehow don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real stupid part is that, unlike trademarks, they are under no obligation to enforce copyright. They can only go after serious violations and let the harmless stuff go and it doesn't affect their copyright in any way.

      They are simply assholes.

    2. Re:Lemme get that. Because I somehow don't. by c · · Score: 1

      "But what if they misrepresent it?"

      Please! We're talking hardcore geeks here. Anything that could remotely, possibly be consider by someone not-canon would be axed...

      Sure. Just as long as nobody brings up Greedo shooting first...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:Lemme get that. Because I somehow don't. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Like Disney gives a shit about that, it's a miracle that they didn't retcon the first trilogy altogether so far.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Lemme get that. Because I somehow don't. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's about *control*. Controlling something is a reward of its own. If they don't control it, then they must destroy it. Who cares if it's a bunch of idiots glorifying violence? That's totally irrelevant. They took to heart the lessons of Master Yoda who said, "Control, control, you must learn control!"

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Lemme get that. Because I somehow don't. by c · · Score: 2

      Like Disney gives a shit about that, it's a miracle that they didn't retcon the first trilogy altogether so far.

      That's roughly my point. You're arguing that fans aren't going to misrepresent Star Wars canon, but you're also aknowledging that there's a (growing) disagreement between fans and the property owners about what actually is canon.

      In such a disagreement, the side with the bigger lawyers usually "wins".

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    6. Re:Lemme get that. Because I somehow don't. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You underestimate the power of "official canon". Fanboys may bitch and moan about Greedo shooting first, but it's canon so it's sacrosanct. It's not what they want, it's not what they know and love, but it's CANON. CANON trumps ALL!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Lemme get that. Because I somehow don't. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not even about control, it's just about money and milking the franchise.

      Take a look around the world at the various amusements parks and their "Star Wars Shows". They're popping up left and right now, can't throw a light saber over your shoulder without hitting a crappy stunt show where people run around in bathrobes and swing neon tubes (very carefully, lest they break). They don't give a shit about this nonsense bearing the name "Star Wars", despite disappointed visitors and a tarnished franchise name.

      As long as that amusement park pays to slap "STAR WARS" on their poster, it can as far as they're concerned be the "Guys and Dolls" song by Mark Hamil from that Simpsons episode.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Would you expect anything different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from Disney lawyers?

    When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

  10. Just change the name by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Just change the name - Sword Art Online had the "laser sword".
    It's as valid as renaming Snarf to Jar-Jar and then making the character horribly annoying.

    1. Re:Just change the name by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      +1 for having a post with the word "Snarf" in it.

  11. Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ah, so their business strategy for keeping their business is to gain revenue from fans by alienating fans.
    This is quite a novel approach to business. Ok then. If they can dictate what English words other people should use, then i will dictate how my money that i created will be used.
    I won't buy anything Star Wars ever again, and will only pirate any and all media they get out.
    Two for two.

    1. Re:Fair Use by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All say "boo". Walk away and find another franchise.

      Honestly, never "got" Star Wars anyway, certainly not the modern prequel crap, and can't bear to sit through any of them.

      But the problem is that people think it's "a franchise for the fans" when it's just "a franchise for the finance". They honestly don't care about your fan club, they just want money from you. And fucking idiots keep giving them money.

      Let it die. Go "Oh, yeah, that was a good movie when I was a kid". Then forget about it. Not even out of spite. Just forget it exists and move on. It had its time. Like "The Matrix", it was great, it was milked for all it was worth, let it then die, and at least remember the first as a great movie.

      Incidentally: Star Trek, Dr Who (??? Seriously don't understand this, despite being British), etc. are all the same.

      Let it remain in your childhood as a fond memory, rather than playing a kid for the next 40 years and handing people money for doing nothing and screwing over actors.

      Every movie and TV show I ever watched as a kid? Nowhere near as fun as I remember. Just keep them in your head, they are funnier there, and cost nothing.

    2. Re:Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so their business strategy for keeping their business is to gain revenue from fans by alienating fans.

      That's the thing with Star Wars fans, you can keep kicking them in the shins and they come back and say, "may I have some more shin kicking please, sir." If the prequels didn't alienate fans, I'm not sure what will.

      Let's face it, Star Wars is a franchise that produces feces at one end and money at the other. Guess which end the fans get to eat.

    3. Re:Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you won't believe this, but not everyone is a cranky old man. A lot of people are even still capable of enjoying things!

  12. Lets attack our own fan base. by warewolfsmith · · Score: 1

    Isn't the definition of suicide attacking your own fan base. So what do we call their fantasy castle now, pedophile planet perhaps?

    1. Re:Lets attack our own fan base. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Isn't the definition of suicide attacking your own fan base

      No, it's "the intentional taking of one's own life." Nothing about a fan base in there. Seriously, if somebody told you, "My brother committed suicide last year", would you respond, "What an idiot - what good did he thing would come of attacking his fan base?"

      --
      "Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh) ... "coccoon can do."
    2. Re:Lets attack our own fan base. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go with "cannibalism" if people feel pedantish.

  13. Angel east of Eden by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Has a light sword to guard against reentry into paradise. Seems strange to grant a trademark for that.

  14. Light Saber by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    I would think trade marking Light sword and Light Blade would be hard, even Light saber is difficult.

    It's a light saber, as in, a saber that is physically light. Bam, can't trade mark the word and force english to change to protect your trade mark.

    Light battle, plasma sword, sword of light, all things used all over the place. Being so Iconic 'Light Saber' and the fact that they appear as such is probably the only thing they can really strike down.

    Even still.

    1. Re:Light Saber by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      It is not a saber anyway. A saber is curved and single edged. "Lightsabers" have no edge at all and definitely aren't curved.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Light Saber by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      BTW, you can't use "Light Cycle" either (from TRON). Disney must own the word "light".

    3. Re:Light Saber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, originally they definitely had an edge - even if they still weren't curved. Look at Episode IV, when Luke first turns on, and swings around his father's lightsaber, you can see an edge, that the blade is supposed to be flat like a real saber. Rather than being round all around, as depicted in toys and what not.

    4. Re:Light Saber by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they're going to sue washing machines for having a light cycle?

      I suppose it matters more about how it is used.

    5. Re:Light Saber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you look at Episode IV, when Luke first activates his father's saber, and slowly swings it around, you see it, momentarily, as a flat blade.

  15. Easy solution... copy someone else's parody? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I see your Schwartz is as big as mine.

    1. Re:Easy solution... copy someone else's parody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate it when I get my Schwartz twisted.

  16. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... stopped using the words 'lightsaber,' 'Jedi,' 'Sith' and 'The Force' ...

    Normally Disney is quick to license their product, so this is strange. Then again, a license is a right to consume: Staging Star Wars battles isn't consuming, it's creating; and it seems Disney's stopping that shit for good. I wonder how they're going to handle Star wars - the RPG: Once Disney realizes Game Masters are telling stories about their characters, with their trademarked terms, they're going to ... make everyone play the clunky D6 space instead. George Lucas licensed 3 versions of SW - the RPG (each having multiple editions), and even Disney can't undo that.

  17. Butthole Astronomer by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    When Astronomer Carl Sagan objected to Apple using "sagan" as their internal code name for one of their projects, they changed the code name to Butthole Astronmer. Perhaps they should change the name of the catblades to C&D sabers. I wonder if Apple would lend them the name Sosumi.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Butthole Astronomer by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

      From Wikipedia: In 1994, engineers at Apple Computer code-named the mid-level Power Macintosh 7100 "Carl Sagan" after the popular astronomer in the hope that Apple would make "billions and billions" with the sale of the computer. Apple used the name only internally, but Sagan was concerned that it would become a product endorsement and sent Apple a cease-and-desist letter. Apple complied, but its engineers retaliated by changing the internal codename to "BHA" for "Butt-Head Astronomer". Sagan then sued Apple for libel in federal court. In November 1995, Apple and Sagan reached an out-of-court settlement and Apple's office of trademarks and patents released a conciliatory statement that "Apple has always had great respect for Dr. Sagan. It was never Apple's intention to cause Dr. Sagan or his family any embarrassment or concern". Apple's third and final code name for the project was "LaW", short for "Lawyers are Wimps".

      I think they should call these blades Litigation Exit Sabers or LitESabers for short.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Butthole Astronomer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you made the name INTENTIONALLY funny, (or more accurately "satire") then it would be protected under copyright law.

      Go nerd names!

  18. They were shut down in 2013 by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Prenda Law was shut down in 2013. In that case at least the system works.

    1. Re:They were shut down in 2013 by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      Sort of, but not really.

      Prenda Law shut down, but the people behind it haven't faced any real consequences.

      Paul Hansmeier was one of the people behind Prenda Law, for example. He's moved on to filing ADA violation lawsuits against small businesses using the same business model; demand payments that are a bit less than it would take to defend in court in order to drop the suit. He's filed over a hundred of those lawsuits in less than two years.

      He's also trying to file for bankruptcy to get out of the debts from the Prenda Law fiasco and there are signs that he's been fraudulently transferring assets to his wife in order to avoid losing them in the bankruptcy. Because why not? Our legal system is set up to protect the wealthy owners of corporations while fucking over people who do things like take out a student loan to pay for college, after all.

      It does look like he might finally get disbarred in Minnesota, but he can still continue the same scheme in other states where he's licensed until those states go through the process of disbarring him as well.

  19. It's how trademark law works by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

    They have to protect themselves against trademark dilution, or they could lose the trademark. The more amenable solution would've been to give these guys a license to use those trademarks for their event for a paltry sum like $1. But I guess Disney wants all such events to require you pay the $100+ admission to Disneyland / Disneyworld.

    And at this point, I don't think the franchise cares about any more advertising, free or not. It's pretty much reached the saturation point in mindshare.

  20. You only deserve what you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what you get when we succumb to industrial-manufactured "culture."

  21. When will Warner Bros. unleash the hounds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And kill all the Quidditch games?

    Just askin'

  22. Might I recommend... by Photonmaker · · Score: 1

    ..photonic phallus?

    1. Re:Might I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or 'PP' for short. Could make for an interesting publicity slogan - "Come see 10,000 people playing with their peepees!" :)

  23. Space Cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just asking for trouble. . .hehehe

    Space Cats Cartoon:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvPHsYlj6MI

  24. A better solution.. by lionchild · · Score: 2

    Since Lucasfilm/Disney would be better served by not having lawyers running after a good-will event like this, it seems like everyone might be better served if Lucanfilm/Disney would require them to collect a $1 entry fee, all of which is required to go to a charity. Now, no on looks like the bad guy, everyone has fun, and people get some help.

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
  25. Not really by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lucas used to hand out free IP licenses all the time. He let people make amateur films based on Star Wars. You just sent him a letter asking for permission and you usually got it. As long as you aren't making loads of money off of it he didn't care.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re: Not really by interstellarsurfer · · Score: 1

      That was Lucas. This is Disney, unfortunately. If you plan on doing anything including animated talking animals, princesses, and now, sci-fi. Be. Very. Careful.

  26. Grow a pair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because their lawyers send a letter to look busy doesn't mean they have a case. It's one thing to stop using their actual trademarks, but the response to the second letter should have been, "Fuck off."

    1. Re:Grow a pair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you going to pay their legal fees?

  27. Dear Lucasfilm by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

    Dear Lucasfilm,

    Please FUCK off and let people have a little fun. Not every goddamn mention of your name means you get to ring the cash register.

    Signed,

    The billions of fans who made you who you are

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Dear Lucasfilm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That ain't Lucasfilm anymore, buddy. What you're seeing is Disney moving the limbs of Lucasfilm's corpse like a jaunty litigious marionette.

  28. Celebrate free works instead of proprietary ones by tepples · · Score: 1

    <sarcasm>And enough with books and music and television and movies. Everyone should stay in their basement and never expose themselves to anyone else's creative works, much less celebrate them!</sarcasm>

    I think 110010001000's idea is supposed to be that people are supposed to write their own "books and music and television and movies", put them under a license intended for sharing, and celebrate them instead of celebrating proprietary works. It's like e-sports: people take up a proprietary video game as a sport and then act all surprised when the game's publisher wants to tax or even shut down tournaments under its exclusive right to perform the work publicly. This realization about e-sports is why I quit the Tetris fan community in June 2012 after learning of a successful lawsuit by The Tetris Company.

    Sharing stories and celebrating them is a fundamental part of human interaction.

    Then do so within the boundaries of the law. Instead of misappropriating the industry's productions, make your own with proverbial blackjack and hookers.

  29. The derivative work card by tepples · · Score: 1

    Come up with your own stories.

    That's easier said than done when the incumbent publishers' lawyers can play the "derivative work" card, claiming that your work is too similar to that of their clients.

  30. Re:Celebrate free works instead of proprietary one by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    You seem to have some drastic misunderstandings of the boundaries of the law. Talking about a copyrighted work or trademarked term is not illegal, despite some companies happily pretending that they think it is in order to file lawsuits that stifle free speech by making it too expensive to defend in court.

    Copyright law was never meant to overrule freedom of speech. Copyright law was written into the original constitution and the protections given in the first amendment supercede copyright law. In point of fact, some aspects of copyright law have been ruled as unconstitutional because of this.

    So no. Copyright does not prevent us from talking about stories. We can talk with other people about Star Wars and dissect and argue over every tiny detail to our heart's content and Lucasfilm has no legal right to stop that.

    At least not yet. Give Disney another 20 years of lobbying and they'll probably get enough laws rewritten to allow them to do it.

  31. Where's the "apply for license" button? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Imagine if [copyright and trademark restrictions] had stopped Star Trek conventions through the years.

    Star Trek conventions are licensed.

    Handling Star Wars analogously would be fine if Lucasfilm had posted an offer of terms under which to host a licensed Star Wars convention. Has it?

    1. Re:Where's the "apply for license" button? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes. You need to contact Disney. Hope you have enough money.

    2. Re:Where's the "apply for license" button? by tepples · · Score: 1

      That'd be fine if Disney published a report listing typical royalty rates for common licensing scenarios.

  32. Golan was narrow; WB v. RDR; public performance by tepples · · Score: 1

    In point of fact, some aspects of copyright law have been ruled as unconstitutional because of this

    You refer to Golan v. Holder , which was a narrow ruling that the First Amendment defense against copyright term restoration applies only to "reliance parties", who had been using a work prior to the restoration of copyright in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). The URAA originally limited the duration for which reliance parties could make grandfathered use of a work whose copyright was restored. The Tenth Circuit in Golan held that this limit changed the contour of copyright in a way that violated the First Amendment, allowing them to continue to use the work for the entirety of the restored copyright term. But it did nothing for the general public apart from reliance parties.

    Copyright does not prevent us from talking about stories.

    It depends on how much of the story is talked about, and in how much detail. See Warner Bros. v. RDR Books , in which a U.S. district court judge ruled an unauthorized guide to the Harry Potter books to be transformative in to an extent but "not consistently transformative" and therefore infringing. The risk that a particular work may not qualify under the statutory limitations of copyright discourages some people from talking in great detail about others' stories for fear of having to pay statutory damages, attorney's fees, and court costs should he inadvertently step over the invisible line of what is permitted under fair use.

    And the exclusive right to prepare derivative works or perform a work publicly certainly prevents us from reenacting said stories. This is where e-sports come into play, as video game publishers assert the exclusive right of public performance against tournament organizers. The same is true of extending said stories, as shown in 3D Realms' successful lawsuit over a third-party level pack for Duke Nukem 3D titled Nuke It ( Micro Star v. FormGen ). A public lightsaber battle might be seen as extending and/or reenacting Star Wars.

  33. How about we do the obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about we do the obvious and let disney know they can't get away with stunts like this? Let's boycott disney?

  34. Star Wars is stale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the first three films were okay, some argue only Empire Strikes Back was good. That's the only one I saw in theatres as a kid. Anything beyond that is not really science fiction, it's just stagnation. From Star Wars until now, neither the rebel force nor the Empire hired an engineer or designer to build some new contraption. You would think one side would try to design something to out maneuver the other. Even in the new trailer they still have the same tired old machines. You would think out of all those alien races there would be one who says, 'Well, we're going to design these", some new ship, tank or giant robot....

    The film, the story...all of it is stale.

  35. This could get interesting by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    Considering that "Jedi" is now the name of a legally recognized religion it will be interesting to see what happens when Disney/Lucasfilm tries to get the followers to stop calling themselves "Jedis". Good thing I stocked up on popcorn :)

    1. Re:This could get interesting by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Could turn into something resembling a holy war -- a Jed-ihad?

      I'm sorry, I'll let myself out. No wait, I'll submit it as a screenplay for Episode 8 !

  36. I've been to Newmindspace events before... by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

    ...not this one in particular, but I get emails from them on how this stuff works.

    All I can say is: whoop-dee-shit, Disney. Someone calls a cardboard tube* a lightsaber, and you're getting pissy? Why? Who's making such a great profit off of these very, very flimsy things that anyone anywhere EVER would mistake them for the genuine article, and therefore a substitute to a licensed product that you might sell? Believe me, you are losing virtually NO profit from anyone in any event like this using something that they call a "lightsaber".

    *They'd have to be cardboard tubes. Newmindspace is notorious for arranging pillow fights and bubble battles, and have been largely successful at it. The key is that any kind of event where large numbers of people are aiming and hitting other people with things, there had better be a lot of "give", or else these events would have been stopped a long time ago.

    --
    Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
  37. Billionaires by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    Where are all these Internet billionaires when you need them? Just have on organize one of these things and have Disney take them to court (no settlements). Would you like the light sabre or the heavy sabre? I mean, if we can finally got Happy Birthday To You out of greedy corporate hands, maybe Disney can get a little Force push as well.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  38. But how to build momentum for a boycott? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Let's boycott disney?

    If people want to reenact a story, and Disney is unwilling to offer reasonable terms to license its stories for reenactment, a boycott is the legally and morally correct answer. But if the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 wasn't enough to inspire a boycott that gains enough momentum to have a noticeable effect on Disney's policies, I can't imagine what is.

  39. Scientology by tepples · · Score: 1

    "Scientology" is also both an established religion and a closely guarded trademark-copyright complex.

  40. What they should have said by russotto · · Score: 1

    Dear Lucasfilm Lawyers:

    We have stopped using your trademarked terms Jedi and Sith, your laughably descriptive term "lightsaber" and even the obviously generic "Force". However, we are drawing the line at dropping the word "light", even when in combination with "battle" or "sword". Your resemblance to the Prince of Darkness does not give you a monopoly over light. Please fuck off now.

  41. Fuck Disney by bjwest · · Score: 1

    And the mouse they rode in on.

    The last Star Wars was crap anyway, and not worth the measly $2.00 I paid RedBox to see it.

    #freemickey

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
  42. SW has had its time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Star Wars today is a rotten corpse. If the TFA wasn't enough proof of that the yearly updates will
    be the definitive proof. Star Wars is 80s era nostalgia. It should have died in the late eighties. Bringing it back with the prequel trilogy was a mistake, as is this new yearly franchise started with TFA.

  43. And you thought Episode 1 was boring by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    "We immediately stopped using the words 'lightsaber,' 'Jedi,' 'Sith' and 'The Force,' " the group's co-founder told the technology blog of the San Jose Mercury News, saying they've still been "aggressively pursued" for the last three months.

    Episode 1: story opens with a trade dispute

    Episode 8: story:

    • opens with a cease and desist letter,
    • continues through multiple "aggressive pursuit" scenes and near escapes,
    • builds up to an exciting climax involving ... hmm, how about a fight between lightsaber-wielding cosplayers and many cloned attorneys?

    Eh, I'll still go.

  44. Nah it died in '99. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What made Star Wars great wasn't really the films (unless you EXCLUSIVELY watched the films and ignored the entire extended universe.)

    What had REALLY made it awesome was the Han Solo/Lando Calrissian books from the late 70s/early 80s, West End Game's RPG, and most importantly its Adventure Journal, and the plethora of fiction covering every facet of the universe incrementally extended by each author, contributor, artist, etc. If it hadn't been for Luca's attempts to 'whitewash' the original movies, and his questionable decisions in the prequels (notably disregarding a sizable amount of EU fiction documenting various facets he buchered despite EU having avoided direct references to events of the clone wars, mustafar, when exactly the republic became the empire, etc in order to allow him the creative latitude around central points if prequels were ever made.) Instead he shat over all of it. He threw out the EU that WEG and legends like Michael Stackpole, Timothy Zahn and Kevin J Anderson (You can hate on him, but he formed an important part of post ROTJ jedi EU canon), gave the RPG licensing rights to WotC/Hasbro who basically ran them into the ground, and proceeded to destroy what had once been a respected gaming company/publisher who had pushed forward gaming on the PC thanks to a combination of Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and unique first party IP (Loom, Grim Fandango, Full Throttle, X-Wing/Tie series, etc.) That said, in my experience over the 15 years I was involved (early 90s to mid '00s) the 'serious' Star Wars fan population was a bunch of weirdos lorded over by a bunch of assholes (MUDs, MMO Emu projects, Forum RPGs, etc.), which looking back on it reflects quite favorably on the Lucas they were trying to emulate. Most were also really adamant about people respecting their 'IP' while they were using large swaths of Lucas' without license (Note for instance that WEG's SW books were almost uniformly copyright to Lucas, IE Good ole George retained IP rights even to the stuff he shat on.)

    That said: I was really glad when the cheap hasbro clones of the Park/Ultra sabers came out. It was one of the few toys I'd always wished they had found a way to make as a child. Sadly they made them long after the passion for the universe they represented had already waned.

    As a final example of how awesome the ambiance of extended Star Wars universe was, check out Star Wars Galaxies via emulator or leak. There are at least a hundred animals in it, many of them described in various RPG, novel or other media projects. All wandering in a giant world to be hunted, tamed or used to grief another player. It is too bad it got taken over by SOE and run into the ground (In large part thanks to LucasProperties greed with the licensing and demand for m04r players in the wake of WoW's astronomical rise as the first of the super-MMOs.)

  45. Corporate greed at its finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys have been raising money for make-a-wish for years! Why does Lucasfilm even care? I wish they were a little more loose with their copyrights. If not for the fans, then for the kids that benefit from these charity light saber battles *cough cough* sorry, I mean cat saber battles.

  46. that's Disney in a nutshell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    take a dump on your biggest fans - that's Disney in a nutshell. Despicable company in so many ways. It's only a matter of time until star wars is ruined by Disney, or they just turn all their fans into haters with their unmitigated corporate greed.

  47. Wrong. by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    "defending your brand" does not typically mean preventing any of your copyrighted words and names from being uttered in public.

    Wrong. And betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of IP.

    It's not about copyright. It's about trademarks.

    Defending your trademarks certainly does mean limiting their use in public. If you don't, your billion-dollar brand can turn into a word that takes on a generic meaning, like band-aid or xerox. Google runs this risk, for example.

    If Lucasfilm wants to maintain a trademark in the Light Saber, for example, a trademark they sell many millions of dollars of toys based on, then they need to be sending out these cease-and-desist letters. They're not saying the people can't have their festival--they just can't use the term light saber in their official communications.

  48. This is progresiveliy looking like .. by MxMatrix · · Score: 1

    ... disney is becoming scientology in their ways of pursuing 'trademark' infringement.

    What can we the people do to re-obtain the rights to do fan art, fan meetings and fan based activities in general?

    --
    Bach says it all.
  49. Bunch of pu**ies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They changed the name once, that would legally have been good enough. The fact that they went even further than that is just plain stupid. The more they bow to the copyright holders, the more they will get pushed around.

  50. Good thing they didn't switch to pigs... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

    I guess nobody has claimed cats in space yet. But if they had switched to pigs, Disney would still be after them for infringement on The Muppets.

  51. Prior art. by Reziac · · Score: 1

    E.E. "Doc" Smith; the light sword in the Lensman series (1948-1954)

    Edmond Hamilton; Kaldar, Planet of Antares (1933)

    Various other energy-based swords and knives throughout pre-SW SF/F.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  52. alternate plan... by cstacy · · Score: 1

    They should switch to foam-tipped arrows instead of lightsabres.

  53. What a hypocrite and karma farmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You throw a shitfit at apk cutting off your google ads with his hosts program and say that? It was hilarious when apk caught you float google ads on those sites of yours and he quoted you saying "I don't mind when people run adblock"! Of course you don't! It's money in your pocket since it doesn't block google ads since adblock sold out to google. You are SO stupid and easy to catch in your bullshit and SUCH A HYPOCRITE it's amazing. Are you from Texas? Only a "sethern boy" could be THAT fucking stupid like you! It's the "sethern way" to be that stupid! Look at ole' bushby junior! Hohohohoho. "ah rest muh cayse". Crooks like you will say ANYTHING, and lie like hell!

  54. "The Force" not copyrightable by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1
    From an old version of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_(Star_Wars) (probably since removed by Lucasfilm):

    Lucas has attributed the origins of "The Force" to a 1963 abstract film by Arthur Lipsett, which sampled from many sources. One of the audio sources Lipsett sampled for 21-87 was a conversation between artificial intelligence pioneer Warren S. McCulloch and Roman Kroitor, a cinematographer who went on to develop IMAX. In the face of McCulloch's arguments that living beings are nothing but highly complex machines, Kroitor insists that there is something more: "Many people feel that in the contemplation of nature and in communication with other living things, they become aware of some kind of force, or something, behind this apparent mask which we see in front of us, and they call it God."

    When asked if this was the source of "the Force," Lucas confirms that his use of the term in Star Wars was "an echo of that phrase in 21-87." The idea behind it, however, was universal: "Similar phrases have been used extensively by many different people for the last 13,000 years to describe the 'life force,'" he says.

  55. Descriptive Term by Kirth · · Score: 1

    I've got one of these, and it's very officially a light sabre, named so in 1796. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    I can't see how anyone could trademark that..

    --
    "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
  56. well its Disney.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    look up some history on Walt and you will see that protecting copyright has been at the core of the Walt Disney company for a very long time.
    I mean hell Disney sent a take down notice to a guy who posted a photo of a Force Awakens toy on his facebook.
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/disney-initially-drops-then-doubles-down-on-dmca-claim-over-star-wars-figure-pic/

    This is only going to get worse for StarWars fans; The Walt Disney Company is one of the main reasons copyright law is so ridiculous today and why so little has been added to the public domain during my lifetime