"Charles Riggs" <chriggs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ragspv820ctiao7fg2abrnuuhk2uf5uviu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 27 Oct 2003 18:30:30 -0800, twinkles_thedwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Twinkles
> the alt.genius dwarf) wrote:
>
>
> >I am authentic when I post from here.
>
> Even though Rey says it is bad form to announce a Plonk,
JUST WHO ARE YOU PLONKING?
Please keep in mind you are responding
to someone who is abusing one of my famous (and
copyrighted) literary creations. You are replying to
a post that I did not write, and as long as you know that,
fine, then you are not being played for a shallow dupe.
SERIOUS RIGHTS VIOLATION
By the way, before anyone "informs" me that you can't
copyright a name, let me add this. No, you can't copyright
a name in and of itself, but when the name is borrowed from
copyrighted writing in a way as to falsely suggest that the
owner of the copyright is writing something that he is not,
you are infringing on the author's derivative rights.
In other words, while you might be able to publish a literary novel
with a "Luke Skywalker"--perhaps a hard-bitten dirt farmer--as a
character, if you on the other hand published a science fiction story
featuring a "Luke Skywalker" as its hero, you would likely be sued
for violation of George Lucas' derivative rights. You could
reasonably be said to create confusion in the mind of the readers
as to whether or not they were buying a book featuring the real
Luke Skywalker. That is called violating an author's derivative
rights to his character. By the way, that has nothing to do
with trademarking. You don't even need to get into that,
because it is a derivative rights violation is a matter of
copyright law.
Essentially, that is what the party in question is doing.
He is infringing on my derivative rights to my
character by creating confusion (just as we can
discern in the post I reply to here) in the minds of the
readers as to whether or not they are reading a post
with an authentic Bill Palmer entertainment persona
in it. No, I don't intend to sue the rights' violater,
because we are talking about a venue where selections
of writing are offered freely to the readers, and the copyright
courts are notoriously hesitant to get into matters where
dollar sums cannot readily be set. Even so, the
moral and ethical issues are exactly the same as they
would be with a violation of the copyrights of George
Lucas or anyone else, and I ask all readers
readers to remember that.
BURNED IN EFFIGY
Here is one thing we do know, then: Whoever is doing this is
presenting a horrible Twinkles-changling, is cruelly and
through bad prose burning a Twinkles-effigy, as it were,
while trying to deceive readers into thinking it is the authentic
Twinkles.
PLONK NOW OLD FA****ONED
By the way, as to the plonk, it is not "bad form." It is
simply corny and old-fa****oned. In general, people in the
newsgroups read those whose offerings they deem coherent
and informative, or at least entertaining. That is not likely to
change, so "plonk" is actually devoid of meaningful content.
If anything, it says, "*I* don't like this message." Yet, isn't it
rather arrogant to imply that whether or not YOU like a message
should be an issue for someone else, most espicially when you
do not deign to elaborate as to why something rubbed you the
wrong way?
What would have showed a far greater allotment of both intelligence
and fairness on your part would have been words to the effect, "I
don't like this message because it is clumsly attempt to post
boring drivel and blame it on a famous Usenet performance
artist, who is in no way guilty of the vicious offense."
If you might pardon my giving you a friendly hint for future posting
effectiveness, I will suggest you donate your "plonk" to the
"Usenet Culture Museum" where it belongs.
accept no cheap imitations:
the alt.genius.bill-palmer
--firing posts at random from a window in the office
upstairs from rec.arts.prose
Anyw
if anyone
> ever deserved it this piece of horse**** does.
>
> Plonk!
> --
>
> Charles Riggs
|
