Jayne ,'War Stories'
Discussion of the Mutant Enemy series, Firefly, the ensuing movie Serenity, and other projects in that universe. Like the other show threads, anything broadcast in the US is fine; spoilers are verboten and will be deleted if found.
From reading that, I have learned that there are issues to be raised and points to be made. Maybe they should consider articulating what those issues and points are.
Strega, I'm afraid your comment leaves me unsure as to whether or not you have read only the snippet I C&Ped to respond to P-C, or if you are saying this after reading the whole page from whence I cut it.
ETA: Have fun, Laga!
Oh, I read it. They allude to issues and points, but don't actually identify them.
It provides a very simple 'WTF' hook for a wider issue.Not if they don't state clearly what the wider issue is.
Strega, did you notice it has links all over the shop?
I have to admit, I haven't objectively read it from the point of view of somebody outside of the fandom.
I can't read anything in a justified layout. Is that just me? It freaks my eyes out.
Strega, did you notice it has links all over the shop?I don't know what shop you're talking about. I saw the links at the invoice site. The problem is not that I don't understand the background. The problem is that when I read this:
we thought that asking fans to tally those hours and publishing the totals for all to see would be a gentler way to make both the specific point about Browncoat marketing for Serenity and the more general point about the relationship between producers of entertainment and their increasing (and knowing) reliance in the 21st century on fanbases to help promote that entertainment.
And
We simply believe that issues are raised in this area when a company knowingly has accepted the promotional work of fans.
I think, "And what are they?" I can make some guesses, but when someone's trying to frame an argument, it's a good idea to actually, y'know, state what it is, instead of just alluding to it.
Using "chilling effect" to describe the situation strikes me as a tad over the top as well.
I think, "And what are they?" I can make some guesses, but when someone's trying to frame an argument, it's a good idea to actually, y'know, state what it is, instead of just alluding to it.
Well, the issues could be more well defined, but I think the "points" you cite are...pretty much pointed. Browncoats marketed for Serenity, and there exists a relationship between producers of entertainment and their increasing and knowing reliance on fanbases to help promote that entertainment. I suppose it's not entire clear what that "relationship" is, but the point that said producers relied on fanbase promotion is there.
Browncoats marketed for Serenity, and there exists a relationship between producers of entertainment and their increasing and knowing reliance on fanbases to help promote that entertainment.
Right. ...And? I mean, the implication I get is "And therefore, this isn't fair." I guess? I don't know, because there's a lot of supporting statements, and then no actual thesis. They tell me that they're not arguing against copyrights or trademarks. Swell. What are they arguing for?
Free pizza?
There is a fair bit of self righteous indignation going on cause as always it has to be the "fans good, everyone else bad" mindsight. But peeling aside and ignoring the "oh no, I didn't realise I was only being used" fan spasms, Universal lawyers used bully boy tactics against a fan who did her best to promote something she loved. And that it is unfair in my view and not on.
I think Strega is right. I think if there is any point (and I'm not sure there is, honestly), it is: Universal is now billing fans for work Universal asked the fans to do.
That's the fans' only leg on which to stand, But you need to say it clearly like that, and cite chapter and verse of Universal's requests, with screen shots of the requests, not archives of dead links that once linked to the requests.
I'm also wondering what 'links all over the shop' means.