Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area

darth_buttocks (darth_buttocks) wrote in fandom_wank,
@ 2009-02-28 15:23:00

Entry tags:

baleetion, comics, community: scans_daily, internet lawyers, sep declares vendetta on this poster, writers are often pompous douches

Peter David: killer of babies and scans_daily.
Seems that the scans_daily LJ comm just got nuked. Moderator Scmevil has the details User Crantz is squarely blaming writer Peter David for getting the comm shut down.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	amokk 2009-03-01 01:29 am UTC (link)
	But it's totally within Fair Use to post the entire thing with commentary being "isn't this cool?" or "this suxxxxx", it's the law! I'd always wondered how that community stayed up for as long as it did. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	faeryfroggy 2009-03-01 01:33 am UTC (link)
	Probably because before no one went running to the comic's writers because they weren't happy and had the whole thing end up back on the comm. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	seiberwing 2009-03-01 01:47 am UTC (link)
	The mods put a limit on pages, IIRC. Couldn't be more than half the issue, with the possible exception of old ones like Golden Age and Tales from the Crypt. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	khym_chanur 2009-03-01 01:58 am UTC (link)
	I Am Not A Lawyer, but 50% counts as fair use? I find that kind of hard to believe. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	seiberwing 2009-03-01 02:00 am UTC (link)
	I'm not sure of the technicalities of the situation, the only time I posted there it was comics that were decades old. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	littlecloud 2009-03-01 02:22 am UTC (link)
	I know in Australia you're allowed to reproduce up to 10% of a copyrighted work for discussion/analysis/etc purposes, but I don't know whether that's an international standard. Or whether S_d counts. (I was just telling someone yesterday about the hilarious Batman maths books I saw on scans_daily, and now I can't show him. Damn that timing.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lady_ganesh 2009-03-02 07:42 pm UTC (link)
	As far as I can tell, it doesn't. But no one told them otherwise and no one had complained, so.... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	amokk 2009-03-01 02:22 am UTC (link)
	Oh well, only half! That's totes legal, rite? And copyright totally ends just because it's like, old... it's not like a specific time frame has been written out for copyright... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

mechanicaljewel
2009-03-01 02:35 am UTC (link)

Well, I'd argue that "fair use" becomes a lot more malleable when were talking about something that is technically under copyright, but out of print. Frex: For my money, one of the best runs of Captain America was J.M. DeMatteis's from 1981-1984. It has never been reprinted. Marvel does not give me the opportunity to pay for it, therefore I see no reason why I shouldn't avail myself of "unofficial" methods.

Then of course, there's Miracleman, which is under copyright, but nobody knows who the hell actually owns it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pipssister 2009-03-01 03:32 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, I hate those "dog in the manger" situations. (Reply to this)(Parent)

amokk, 2009-03-01 03:40 am UTC

seiberwing, 2009-03-01 04:17 am UTC

mechanicaljewel, 2009-03-01 04:42 am UTC

(no subject) - tree, 2009-03-02 12:20 pm UTC

sisterelwood, 2009-03-01 06:17 am UTC

amokk, 2009-03-01 06:49 pm UTC

sisterelwood, 2009-03-01 07:15 pm UTC

cyndra_falin, 2009-03-02 02:30 am UTC

amokk, 2009-03-02 03:07 am UTC

evilsqueakers, 2009-03-02 08:33 am UTC

amokk, 2009-03-02 03:35 pm UTC

	seiberwing 2009-03-01 02:45 am UTC (link)
	Hey, I'm just saying that's what they do. Did. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

amokk, 2009-03-01 03:41 am UTC

seiberwing, 2009-03-01 03:57 am UTC

sepiamagpie, 2009-03-01 04:05 am UTC

seiberwing, 2009-03-01 04:16 am UTC

puipui, 2009-03-01 06:05 am UTC

sisterelwood, 2009-03-01 06:18 am UTC

m_butterfly, 2009-03-01 06:39 am UTC

sisterelwood, 2009-03-01 06:44 am UTC

nehelenia, 2009-03-01 06:09 pm UTC

slwatson, 2009-03-01 07:12 am UTC

sisterelwood, 2009-03-01 07:20 am UTC

	ereshkigal 2009-03-01 03:07 am UTC (link)
	And copyright totally ends just because it's like, old... it's not like a specific time frame has been written out for copyright... Actually, they do. And there are specific time frames. However, barring renewal and such, they still have a remarkable shelf life. There's also the issue of trademarks, which are a whole other can of worms. =) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

amokk, 2009-03-01 03:39 am UTC

cyndra_falin, 2009-03-01 06:42 am UTC

ecchaniz0r, 2009-03-01 06:03 pm UTC

sisterelwood, 2009-03-01 09:10 pm UTC

cyndra_falin, 2009-03-01 10:57 pm UTC

sisterelwood, 2009-03-02 03:20 am UTC

sisterelwood, 2009-03-02 04:09 am UTC

vasaris, 2009-03-07 09:20 pm UTC

	ladylance 2009-03-01 02:42 am UTC (link)
	I agree. It's a bit of shame that this happened, but honestly, yeah, surprised it wasn't sunk sooner. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sarracenia 2009-03-01 04:23 am UTC (link)
	Probably because most publishers and writers who came across it were smart enough to realize that it basically served as free word of mouth advertising if their comics showed up on it, and weren't dumb enough to turn that down. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mechanicaljewel 2009-03-01 04:44 am UTC (link)
	Exactly. Warren Ellis, Gail Simone, and Dan Slott all appeared in the comments from time to time, and Kurt Busiek admits to lurking to see which pages of his work got posted. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sisterelwood 2009-03-01 06:45 am UTC (link)
	I wanna live in your world where everything in the law is so black and white. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	amokk 2009-03-01 06:56 pm UTC (link)
	I'd love to live there, too. But saying, "we can post whatever we want and it's totally legal because of Fair Use!" is making poor excuses. Fair Use is a doctrine for court use, so if they really think their usage falls within the bounds of Fair Use, take it to court. I don't even care that they did it, honestly; just be honest about what you're doing. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sisterelwood 2009-03-01 07:12 pm UTC (link)
	I am aware of what fair use is. Did you know it only applies as you state in the US? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	cyndra_falin 2009-03-01 10:59 pm UTC (link)
	Interesting. Please tell us more. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	evilsqueakers 2009-03-01 09:33 am UTC (link)
	Curious, is that you in the icon? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	amokk 2009-03-01 06:56 pm UTC (link)
	I wish. ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	evilsqueakers 2009-03-02 08:30 am UTC (link)
	Then I'm curious....you're breaking copyright law by using someone else's work without credit, correct? If so, kettle meet pot. Me, I admit to being a copyright violator. It is what it is. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

cyndra_falin, 2009-03-02 10:34 am UTC

evilsqueakers, 2009-03-02 10:38 am UTC

cyndra_falin, 2009-03-02 07:23 pm UTC

amokk, 2009-03-02 03:36 pm UTC

yukina_raven, 2009-03-03 10:29 pm UTC

	dragonfangirl 2009-03-01 08:13 pm UTC (link)
	Ooo, let's start a whole new Fair Use/advertising wank right on the wank community, it'll be fun! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	dragonsong12 2009-03-02 03:13 pm UTC (link)
	wankitywank, here we come! \o/ (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ymfaery 2009-03-03 03:26 am UTC (link)
	It's been so barren of late too. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -

Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map