|
No, it wouldn't. A straw man (aka "Fallacy Of Extension") is when you attack an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position. As it was, I gave counterpoint examples which dealt with similar situations - I did not claim you made those examples yourself.
Exactly. And that is reasonable enough - but it also goes to show that even you believe, under some situations, that it is reasonable to assume you can use it. The difference here is where the line is drawn. The above is still a copyright infringement, but it's one which few people claim is unacceptable.
The point I've been trying to make is that there is no "black and white", only shades of gray, and that many people would also consider the usage in Traithe's example to be reasonable. Like copying postings, it is still copyright infringement - but it is nowhere near in the same league as Vryce, which was what the original poster seemed to be claiming. Remember, the original claim of this thread was the it was inconsistent to ignore muds like Traithe's while banning Medievia - and that is the claim I have been disputing.
It's a combination of many things, but my arguments have always revolved around the wishes of the copyright holder. That is why I took the side I did during the IMC2 debates. In this case it is clear that the Tolkien copyright holders know that their work is being used for muds, but have obviously chosen to turn a blind eye to it. Since fan fiction has both positive and negative aspects for copyright holders, some authors actively encourage it while others strongly discourage it. A few, like Tolkien, appear to tolerate it, but I don't think it's up to us to try and second-guess what it is they really want until such time as they make their wishes clear - because by banning muds, you may well be going against their wishes.
|