everything but the girl

LJ has been purchased by SUP, who are the same entity that's been operating a Russian version of LJ. The NY Times reports on the purchase, and at this point, I'm just most interested in the "community" members who will become a part of LJ's "Advisory Board" "via an open online election process."

The Times an article on fanclubs where they noted:

By definition, members of fan clubs are passionate, but these days they also seem cranky and some are even at war with the performers they supposedly slavishly admire. Fan clubs today are online communities that vent on Internet message boards and gripe directly to performers about everything, including song lists, merchandise and the prices and availability of tickets. And when sounding off is met by dead air, fans sue, complain to consumer protection agencies and even plot concerted action on a global scale.

Well, we've all seen blogposts and coverage by F_W raging in support of, and against, things like complaints to consumer protection agencies when fans see fan-servicing entities that don't stick to their promises or even their written agreements - remember the griping and the praising last summer when people complained to California's consumer protection entities (now run by former CA Gov Jerry Brown) - and it's interesting to see a "third party" take on coverage of these issues.

They cover "Fan Asylum", who manage fan clubs for Maroon 5 and Whitney Houston. Their founder got his start running Journey's fan club (which I was a member of back in 1984? 1985?) and he says,

when the mission shifts from an emphasis on service to one of revenue, “You’re just asking for trouble from the fan base.”

Well, yeah.

That's one thing that's been discussed over and over - and should continue to be discussed throughout all types of fandoms, IMHO - what sort of service do fans want, and when does the company's interest in in creaing revenue for the sake of the company's owners overwhelm the service they're supposed to be performing for the fan club members? And how much of this crosses paths with the interest by the performers/creators in making money off of their creativity?

I'm especially fascinated by the discussion of Prince.org by the site's founder:

But now the site functions more as an international social network where people discuss politics and other topics, he said.

“People stay for the community that’s evolved, the personalities and environment,” he said. “It’s a virtual hang-out.”

Isn't this what we've seen happening on LJ as people join for or because of fandom participation, and after a while they may migrate to other fandoms, "consume" content created in other fandoms, and just start hanging out with the community, the personalities and the environment?

When I saw the headline yesterday, on the front page of the Times' Sunday Style section, my first thought was that Fandom Wank would have a field day complaining about Fannish Entitlement by the Mylie Cyrus and Prince fans, although they probably won't bother because they haven't yet and these are things that have been in the public eye for a while. If they were going to be turned into wank-subjects, they probably would have already. It's like that with F_W and other wank-ish sites - they cover what's on their radar screen and they don't cover stuff where the majority of participants are under 18, which is probably the situation with the Hannah Montana stuff - and that makes sense.

But if there is a "fannish entitlement" "problem", then it's not limited to, or wholly encompassed on, or manifested solely within the modes that have been the subject of much debate. Some of the Rolling Stones' fan communities gripe about this and that, but when something happens, like Keith Richards' fall out of a palm tree, there's a tonne of concern and sympathy and banding together, and that's what a community does.

It's like the discussion of what makes someone a "bad fan", if they don't like the way the creator has done something - which, interestingly enough, is a discussion that never happened in the Heroes fandom this fall, although it could have gone that way - and it was probably pre-empted by that Tim Kring interview with EW where he detailed all the things that had been Less Than Perfect in the first seven or so episodes of this season - most of which had been mentioned by at least some fans. And that leads me to a weird pondering - if the creators of a show did something - a plotline, a casting choice, whatever - that you liked but it turned out they didn't actually feel proud of (at the time, in retrospect, whatever), does that make you a bad fan because you're disagreeing with the creators? I can think of examples from at least three fandoms, and I'm just not sure what the answer actually is.

Of course, that's assuming there is such a thing as a "bad fan" in the first place - I mean, other than the fans who get stalkery or jump onto the Creators and/or Talent in a physical way. If all you're doing is discussing, or even ranting, can any of that make you into a "bad fan"? Can you be a fan of something if an aspect of the creative work, or the beaviour of those involved in creating it, makes you irked, frustrated, unhappy or disapointed?

And, to hell with it, I'll throw the question out there. What's wrong with being a "bad fan" anyway?

Discussion, contrary opinions, debate and ranting are all welcome here!

ETA: Dinosaur Mummy Discovered! Cool!

Elvis Costello's albums are now finally on iTunes! You can get them via this link - and I'm listening to Every Day I Write The Book for the first time in how many years?

: happy sigh

I wanted to show off my two new FLAIL icons - the Heroes one is by lay_of_luthien and the Supernatural one is by nyaubaby and I am so so squeeful over both of them! ( They're behind the cut because the Heroes one is spoilery for the most recent ep... )
And in honor of the cancellation of Gilmore Girls, which I never watched in the first place but which I have managed to acquire what I think of as "pre-series Peter Petrelli/Sam Winchester, thank you very much" icons, I've added this one too:


Yes, two Milo Fighting People icons in one week. It's a coincidence, isn't it?

I've also been talking with robertstandring about the SpellCast Live Podcast that we're having two weeks from tomorrow night at Phoenix Rising - you can still send in an audition and get cast in advance - but we're also going to be doing some casting at PR itself - Robert is going to announce a time & place (or two) early next week.

Also, the FA meet-up may be moving from the Acme Oyster Bar to the Sheraton, so FA people can be on-site to deal with some SpellCast and Artists & Authors Night things - more info when we know for certain.

In non-fandom things, I was very amused to see the NY Times use the word frenemy to describe the relationship between Peter Parker and Harry Osborne in Spiderman 3. No, the word isn't in the Merriam Webster dictionary yet, so I guess that the Times now considers the presence of a term in Wikipedia to be sufficient grounds for them to use it? Go, Times! You're ever so very cute!

And in a non-fandom-with-implications-for-fandom thing, I wanted to write about the situation at Digg.com a bit.

Some of you may've heard what Digg and a few other news aggregation-cum-social networking sites did this past week. They decided to allow postings of the code that can be used to crack the encryption on HD DVDs (and I think Blu-Ray too, but I'm not sure). You can read the BBC's article sumamrizing the situation here, or read it on ZDNet or see the Digg link-posting that has pushing 6000 "diggs" at this point on this page - it links to a youtube posting that has the key in video and text form.

I'm not gutsy enough to risk my LJ account by reposing the code - I'm still a little paranoid. But I really admire what Digg and other sites have done, and I find some parallels - and also some nonparallels - between the situation at Digg and the way a lot of fandomers look to The Powers That Be, which are some of the same people/entities - the major media producers and distributors. ( Babbling about law and social networking and the internet behind the cut... )

This LJ is five years old today.
The Zone turned twelve last week.
And I got "married" last night. Our synogogue had a Vegas-style party with gambling tables and our rabbi dressed as Elvis performed dozens of weddings under a chuppah in our synogogue, and it was terrific fun.
Of course, between the champagne and the tequilla and the appletinis and Cate sleeping poorly last night, I woke up a little tipsy this morning, still. Whee.

I want to do something to commemorate this five-years-on-lj thing, but I'm a little too fuzzy-headed to write anything overcomplicated and I've just had only popcorn and diet coke for breakfast.

So I'm going to do two things:
1. Ask a question - and I'll answer.
2. I'm about to post a list of twelve characters, numbered, as a reply to one of my first dozen posts (but don't go looking for it - it's more fun that way) - I have a dozen questions from an older list, but I'd love some new ones to do too! So ask a question, in the style of "1 and 7 and 10 have to get a birthday present for 3. What is it and what giftwrap do they use?"

Also, did anyone listen to John Barrowman doing Elaine Paige's radio show this morning? Is it worth a listen?

Of interest to gamers and possibly metafandom-types:

Wired looks into the issue of whether taxation of income and holdings (real and personal property) in virtual worlds like WoW and SecondLife can, should and/or will be taxed by the IRS in the US, or, I guess, similar taxation entities in other countries.

Some questions arise, to my mind, about things like virtually-existing charities - can a rreligious entity, like a church, exist wholely in SecondLife? Helping those who are homeless in WoW itself probably wouldn't pass 501(c)(3) muster, and running for an office in an online government wouldn't need the same FEC reporting rules as public office candidates but it likely would if the site was hosted by a local, state or federal government. But a scholarship fund to benefit players in funding educational courses at an online school like Phoenix University might merit 501(c)(3) status.

Since there's been some questions on this issue on various LJs that I read overnight:

A few years ago, the US Supreme Court stated that under the first amendment, there is no bar to the creation of virtual porn, or its dissemination among adults.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 6-3 majority, said the 1996 federal law "turns the First Amendment upside down" by outlawing protected speech as a way of banning unprotected child pornography. The law, said Kennedy, "prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production."

Federal law has long forbidden child pornography that uses real children, but Congress in 1996 expanded the statute to include computer-generated images that "appear to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

Congress and the Justice Department argued that virtual child pornography jeopardizes real children by stimulating the market for illegal materials and makes it difficult for police to distinguish between what is legal and what is illegal.

But the decision yesterday in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, No. 00-795, flatly rejected that rationale with wording that is sure to be used in other litigation against government restrictions on speech. "The government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse," Kennedy wrote.

"The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it," Kennedy also said. In cases about zoning, some "secondary effects" cited by government have convinced the high court to allow restrictions on adult businesses and other forms of expression. But the opinion yesterday appeared to foreclose the possibility that this "secondary effects doctrine" would expand beyond zoning cases.



"It was a Brennan-like statement of the importance of maintaining First Amendment protections," said Michael Bamberger, a New York partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal who co-wrote a brief in the case on behalf of book, magazine and video publishers. "They are reminding us that just because the goals of Congress were legitimate, that does not validate the law."

Ann Beeson, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union said, "We were all worried that the court would change its mind about Miller v. California and Ferber v. New York, which are getting to be old precedents.

"The court said today it is not going to redraw its line on obscenity. And the fact that it wasn't a splintered decision was a welcome surprise."

The opinion said the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act banned substantially more speech than obscenity as defined by the 1973 Miller case. Kennedy said the law also ran afoul of Ferber, the 1982 decision holding that child pornography could be banned because of the damage done to the actual children involved in producing it.

Kennedy wrote that the law "proscribes the visual depiction of an idea - that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity - that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages."

A well-known Shakespeare buff, Kennedy noted that the character Juliet had not reached the age of 14. "Romeo and Juliet" has inspired 40 motion pictures, Kennedy noted, adding that "Shakespeare may not have written sexually explicit scenes for the Elizabethan audience, but were modern directors to adopt a less conventional approach, that fact alone would not compel the conclusion that the work was obscene."

Kennedy also cited two acclaimed recent movies, "Traffic" and "American Beauty," that include scenes that could fit the law's definition of virtual pornography - whether or not real child actors actually engaged in sexual acts. "Our society, like other cultures, has empathy and enduring fascination with the lives and destinies of the young," wrote Kennedy.

"Congress passed an indefensible law that, on its face, would criminalize various scenes in movies like Traffic and America Beauty and make production and possession punishable by up to 15 years of prison," said Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship.

"As the Supreme Court recognized, numerous other laws suffice to protect children from sexual exploitation and predation."

Martha Coolidge, president of the Directors Guild of America, said, "We can all thank the Supreme Court for once again defending the First Amendment freedoms central to our free society, and preserving the creative freedoms that all Americans treasure. Every American would suffer the loss of freedom if this overzealous governmental intrusion into our rights of expression had been allowed to stand."

Find a contemporaneous article here.

So basically, unless there's a significant change in the makeup of the supreme court *and* new legislation passed on a state or federal level, nothing can happen in the US in terms of creating or distributing "virtual" porn. Keep it fictional, and there's no issue.

This, btw, is not legal advice and has *nothing* to do with the current state of the law of any country other than the US's.

Yay! Michela (aka Laura Hale, aka CerealFan, aka PurplePopple on SugarQuill) finally admitted publicly that she emailed my law firm back in the aftermath of CassieGate! See, here!

---

Oh, and the newest regular poster on her board? SINEAD!

Nope, no words. Am too busy laughing.

note: someone submitted quotes from this to FA's Quote Randomizer today. Hee!

I'm having a discussion in private email with someone who's been in sf/fantasy fandoms for about 8 years, and who thinks that as I've only been in the HP fandom for just over 2 years, and wasn't involved with any online - or offline! - sf/fantasy fandoms before that, that I just don't understand how certain sf/fantasy fandom things work.

Point taken, and this isn't really about that, and yes, I know that some of you will frown on me for summarizing a private email conversation here on my LJ without the prior consent of the person I'm corresponding with - but I didn't do it for any reason, other than to provide a backstory for why this is on my mind (and how is it any different from summarizing a real life conversation, anyway?).

This post is about community - specifically, online communities.

In about 6 weeks, I'll be hitting my 10th anniversary of being online. Admittedly, my first three months were entirely AOL - then I discovered CompuServe and about a year later, Prodigy. And here's a brief list of the online communities I've been involved with since I started (am attempting to stay in order):

The Legal Forums on AOL and the CNI listserv
Court TV
Tongue in the Mail/Frenz (Crowded House)
Killermont Street (Aztec Camera)
the tv show Friends (1994-1995)
The Friends Zone (an off topic offshoot of the show, started in early 1995 and still going on)
The rec.arts.disney RPG and rec.arts.disney.parks in general
alt.wedding and soc.couples.weddings
TheKnot.com
BabyCenter's July 1999 Moms board and list
and of course... Harry Potter

More than some, less than others, clearly. But it's about 10 years of online communities - some fascinating - and others, that I looked at and had a harder time getting into, like SportsNight and the SW:TPM ones, aren't even mentioned above because I never really felt like I was *in* those communities, just sort of looking at them from the outside.

This discussion I've been having has made me wonder, though - are we a fandom or are we a community? Or are we a fandom that contains a number of communities?

And do we, in fact, have anyone who could be considered "fandom management" with "official titles"? Yes, I know many of you will shout, "Heidi! You are fandom management! You have an official title at both FA and HPfGU!"

But the fandom isn't just FA & HPfGU. And I really have no stake in the "management" of the fandom as a whole - just a small role on one listserv and a slightly larger one on one site - but less control than many of you probably think! If you see HP as a fandom and not just a series of unrelated communities, is there anyone who has a management role, overall?

And do I really, really, need a vacation?

I just got this from the DMFCA people (they're the ones doing an award show this weekend for the HP fandom)
Real-To: "A Fric" <the_wizhp@hotmail.com>

Dear concerned DMFCA nominee:

Since Tuesday February 19th, 2002 (when the polls were
officially closed)
you may or may not have received an email from
agathon@darkmark.com or
noel@darkmark.com. It may have looked something like
this:

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 11:28 AM
Subject: DMFCA, announcement


>Hello DMFCA nominee,
>
>We are very sorry to say the DMFCA poll shows that
you have not won any of
>the
>awards you were entered for. Please feel free to
still tune into the
>Special
>Radio show that we will be holding on Saturday where
the winners will be
>announced live.
>
>If you have any questions on the voting system please
feel free to contact
>me.
>
>Regards-
>
>Agathon, Noel
>------------------------------
>DMFCA council
>www.darkmark.com

It has come to the council's attention that someone
has been illegally
sending ghost mail (E-mail which is made to look as
though it is sent from a
specific mailing address when infact it is sent from
an entirely different
hidden address) from Noel's or my own address at
darkmark. Please be
strictly advised that we are currently investigating
the situation and the
culprit will be found. Also: Please note that this
email was sent out
strictly to make our awards look rigged, unfair, or
inaccurate. The fact
that your site has not won any of the awards it was
nominated in has NOT yet
been released. Anyone that tells you otherwise, is
most likely lying and
should be reported straight to either myself or Noel
Rock. Collegues,
webmasters, friends, we notify you of this issue
because we have all been
the victim's of a horrific and unlawful act. We
apoligize for this
misleading event and hope that you will all still
attend the Saturday
February 23rd, 2002 DMFCA special DarkMark Radio
broadcast and "Reaction
Room" chat. If you have any further information that
may help us catch the
person who has sent out the unofficial email or if you
have any more
questions or comments, please don't hesitate to email
myself or Noel back at
your convenience.

Thanks again for your continuous support and
co-operation.

Sincerely,
Agathon, Noel, Matt, Jenna, and Kath
I don't actually know if we got that hacked email in the first place, but if this is true, then it just is more evidence that SOME PEOPLE don't realize, or don't care, that breaking into someone's email account, or faking someone else's email address, are illegal in the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and a bunch of other countries.

It's a criminal act. You can go to prison for it, at least in the US. It's stupid and you will get caught if someone wants to chase you long enough.

Gah. WHY? What is the point? What are you trying to prove? That you can do it? Sure, and I bet you can steal a candy bar from your local convenience store too. Does that mean you should?

::hides head in hands::