Chant the 'wrong' way and be hexed - Z's threat for 'misusing' her chant

[Tana]

Z. is claiming that to include a god in her chant, is a misuse and everybody, who will use the chant 'wrong' by altering it, will be hexed.

Somehow I think the part about intellectual property is not really her point in this.

Dearest Friends!
I would like you to help me spread the words that Singing "We all come from the Goddess" should NOT BE rewritten.



http://www.facebook.com/zbudapest/posts/3332681429068

[Darkhawk]

Somehow I think the part about intellectual property is not really her point in this.

And even if it were, that's not how IP law works. I suspect that any additional verses would be considered transformative works and thus protected.

Parody is also protected. In case anyone was interested.

(Comment on this I saw on FB was roughly "Get with your hexing, Z, there are a lot of us out here with mirrors.")

[Melamphoros]

Z. is claiming that to include a god in her chant, is a misuse and everybody, who will use the chant 'wrong' by altering it, will be hexed.

Somehow I think the part about intellectual property is not really her point in this.

Oh Z, you're trying your hardest to remind people you are still around. And yet, all you're doing is reminding us just how out of touch and irrelevant you have become.

I'd feel sad for her if her head wasn't buried deep up her ass.

[yewberry]

"Get with your hexing, Z, there are a lot of us out here with mirrors."

{golf clap}

Carry on...

Brina

[Teigue]

Oh Z, you're trying your hardest to remind people you are still around. And yet, all you're doing is reminding us just how out of touch and irrelevant you have become.

I'd feel sad for her if her head wasn't buried deep up her ass.

Mel, the technical term for it is "Acute anal-cranial inversion"

and I'm afraid that her case is terminal

[Melamphoros]

Mel, the technical term for it is "Acute anal-cranial inversion"

and I'm afraid that her case is terminal

I prefer my phrasing, it sounds a lot nastier

[Tana]

And even if it were, that's not how IP law works. I suspect that any additional verses would be considered transformative works and thus protected.

While she has the right to be given credit and has the right to be paid for it, when the chant is used on CDs and so on, I think it absolutely over the top to 'hex' anyone using the chant with additions, because she does not like them.

Personally I am not scared of this hex, honestly I think Z is delusional.
She is not so allmighty that she can hex each and every person on the world, using the chant in another way and if she really believes she can - she is beyond help.

[cigfran]

She is not so allmighty that she can hex each and every person on the world, using the chant in another way and if she really believes she can - she is beyond help.

Absurd though the whole thing is, taken out of context it's an elegant idea... construct a charm so finely crafted that any effort to modify it triggers hidden traps... sing a song so esoterically composed that any improper performance brings a result opposite to its first intent.

The stuff of fiction - I can't imagine any mages of this caliber in our world today - but interesting in its own way.

[Tana]

Absurd though the whole thing is, taken out of context it's an elegant idea... construct a charm so finely crafted that any effort to modify it triggers hidden traps... sing a song so esoterically composed that any improper performance brings a result opposite to its first intent.

The stuff of fiction - I can't imagine any mages of this caliber in our world today - but interesting in its own way.

Wow, when put this way... that's a hell of a great fiction idea!

[Jenett]

And even if it were, that's not how IP law works. I suspect that any additional verses would be considered transformative works and thus protected.

Parody is also protected. In case anyone was interested.

(Comment on this I saw on FB was roughly "Get with your hexing, Z, there are a lot of us out here with mirrors.")

Parody's a safer bet (in terms of case precedent) than transformational work (which, oy, messy.)

One of the things that would be a consideration in a court case, I'm guessing, is proportion of original work used. When you have a 2 line work, without additional verses, it's a lot harder to make an argument about adding versions not altering the core of the work, than, say, if you had something that already had a dozen verses. (that's because part of the fair use/etc. standards look at how much of the core of the work you're using. Music and lyrics and poetry are notoriously tricky anyway. Really short chant even more so.)

But I'm not sure there actually *is* much precedent-setting law on something like this. (If I were going to go dig, I'd go look at the various suits about Happy Birthday as a song.)