I’ve a confession to make. Every once in a while, I write fanfiction. No, I’m not going to link to it.
For the uninitiated, fanfiction is basically taking an existing universe (a book or TV show, say) and using the setting and characters to write new stories. It’s a great way of engaging with a work you love. It’s a great way of learning to write fiction as it eliminates some of the variables: if you don’t have to worry about world building and (to an extent) characterisation, you can focus, for instance, on plot and pacing. There are many different types of fanfiction. You didn’t like the ending of that book? Write a different one. Really liked that minor character and want to know what happened to them? Make it up! In the interests of full disclosure, I should also admit that a substantial proportion of fanfiction is of an erotic nature, often involving same-sex couples. Generally male same-sex couples. And it’s predominantly written by women. Go figure. (Yes, this is the type I write.)
Anyway, fanfiction is one of the dark secrets of the internet. Fans write it and read it and lovingly curate archives of the stuff. Yet no one talks about it. Each piece is tagged with a huge disclaimer about not owning the universe, or the characters, or making any money from them.
Creators and rights-holders – it is worth remembering that those are different groups – have an ambiguous relationship with the concept. The studio behind the Twilight films clearly doesn’t want anyone engaging with their work ever. Computer game makers Bioware actually run fanfiction competitions. Some writers quietly tolerate what the fans do to their creations, others threaten to sue. If you hang around fandom long enough, you learn who’s who. George R. R. Martin apparently really loathes fanfiction which is why all the places to find stuff based on his works are locked. Marion Zimmer Bradley used to actively encourage it and publish anthologies of fans’ works set in her Darkover universe – until she decided to lock it down completely as a result of a disagreement with a fan over a story idea. Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski, a pioneer of online fan engagement, tolerated fanfiction but steered well clear of it after he had to shelve an episode idea for several years because a fan had had a similar idea. Estates like the Tolkien Estate tend to be particularly precious about their property.
I don’t have the data, but I would be willing to bet good money that fandom is the major source of derivative and remixed creative works. Yet digital rights campaigners tend to steer well clear of the subject – even those of us who have a foot in each camp. We will happily wax lyrical over the right to parody or a general framework for remixing stuff, but we don’t touch fanfiction with a barge pole. This leaves fans in a perpetual state of uncertainty and dread that a creator or rights-holder will come after them one of these days.
Now, I must admit my knowledge of the legal framework that limits fanfiction is shaky. I had always assumed it was copyright – largely because of aforementioned disclaimers – but a discussion at ORGcon quickly clarified that in the vast majority of cases it probably isn’t. Copyright protects “expression”, not ideas, settings or characters. US law has a concept of derivative works which covers things like film adaptations and translations but is at best murky on transformative works. I don’t know if UK law has an equivalent. In most cases it is more likely to be infringement of trademarks rather than copyright that is the sticking point. An informed legal opinion on the matter would be appreciated.
I suspect until digital rights campaigners – or a brave fan – take on the case, we will remain in a legal grey area. This will not stop fanfiction – nothing stops fanfiction. But I suspect it would be nice for fans to know that their labour of love isn’t going to land them in huge trouble one day. Anyone fancy a test case?
[A huge thank-you to @drcabl3 for organising the Unconference session at ORGcon which prompted this post.]

milenapopova.eu will be offline for around 12 hours on January 18th, 2012. I am joining a global protest against the US SOPA and PIPA Acts aimed at limiting Internet freedom and civil liberties in order to protect the vested interests of a small number of corporations in the content industry.
It has been argued that this issue does not concern me – that this is single-issue politics in a foreign country. There are no geographical or political boundaries and nothing “single issue” about the Internet. The Acts target non-US sites specifically – sites like milenapopova.eu. They have global implications for private citizens and businesses alike. They propose to limit freedom of expression which can in turn affect any number of other political issues. Nor is the undue influence of the content industry on governments limited to the United States: this is also the week which saw EMI suing the government of the Republic of Ireland for failure to block pirate sites. The Great Firewall of America must not be allowed to be built. Nor must the content industry be allowed to threaten our rights and civil liberties, to undermine our democracies.
If you are in the US, use the information on this site to contact your representatives and let them know that sacrificing civil liberties on the altar of the content industry’s obsolete business models is not acceptable. If you are elsewhere, I strongly urge you to take an interest in digital rights issues if you don’t already. For the UK, the Open Rights Group is a good place to start. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has and international issues section. In Germany, the Chaos Computer Club is a good starting point, and in France I would point you to La Quadrature du Net.
Digital rights matter – to us all.

Neelie Kroes, the European Union’s Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, yesterday invited former German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg to “promote internet freedom globally”.
Mr zu Guttenberg is an interesting choice for this position. It doesn’t take much digging through his CV, even for non-German-speakers, to find that he has had personal – and recent – experience of the power of the internet. It was barely a year ago that a web-based collaboration of scientists and citizens demonstrated that Mr zu Guttenberg’s doctoral thesis was shamelessly plagiarised from over 130 different sources. There is barely a page in the work that doesn’t contain a plagiarised passage. Nearly two thirds of the text are copy-and-pasted – unattributed – from a variety of other works, including the essay of a first-year student and the writings of some of Mr zu Guttenberg’s party colleagues. Ultimately, this cost Mr zu Guttenberg his job as Defence Minister back in March.
Commissioner Kroes justified her choice of consultant saying she wanted “talent, not saints”. Yet surely the fact that Mr zu Guttenberg’s doctoral thesis is barren of original thought shows that the one thing he lacks is talent. Given the challenges facing online activists in authoritarian regimes, one has to question Ms Kroes’ judgement on this matter. In a world where news is constantly manipulated to somebody’s advantage, trust is the rarest of commodities. Any blogger or activist wishing to be truly effective, to really touch and inspire people, needs to earn their readers’ trust while at the same time walking the fine line of ensuring their own personal safety. Disappearances and crackdowns on Chinese bloggers illustrate the importance of anonymity for personal safety. Conversely, the case of “Amina Arraf” or “Gay Girl in Damascus” – a blog which turned out to be run by a middle-aged American man – shows both the potential of the internet to truly touch people, and the disappointment which results when trust between blogger and reader is breached.
Ultimately, when the commodity you are trading in is trust, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is the last person you want fighting your corner.

Steve Jobs has died.
Many people have claimed that he changed the world, and many people have given accounts of his achievements. Charlie Stross points out that Jobs championed a number of ideas which ultimately made computing accessible to the masses – from graphical user interfaces, to smartphones and multi-touch interfaces. His passion for beautiful, flawless design made computing attractive too. For that, he deserves thanks.
There was, however, also a darker side to Steve Jobs’ impact on the world of computing. His flawless design led to computers becoming shiny black boxes which were not to be opened or played with. His drive for control – over hardware, software and content – led to users losing control of their own devices.
We live in a world where most of us haven’t got the faintest idea how the gadgets we rely on so heavily work, and where said gadgets are explicitly designed to discourage us from finding out. Apple’s approach to design also poses significant sustainability issues: if your gadget breaks, you cannot repair it. Apple may be able to, but often this comes with a price tag so large that you might as well buy the newer, shinier model instead. There is always a newer, shinier model.
When it comes to content, Apple’s control is absolute. There is a reason your iPod won’t talk to your computer without the intermediary of iTunes, and it’s that Apple likes to keep tabs on the content you consume. They also decide who can and can’t sell what through the App Store. What is perhaps worst is that Apple has conditioned an entire generation of users to believe that this is perfectly acceptable, even normal.
In his Commencement address at Stanford University in 2005, Jobs said that death was the “single best invention of life”.

It’s life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now, the new is you. But some day not too long from now you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it’s quite true. Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people’s thinking.

We have an opportunity now. Jobs’ legacy was to make computing attractive and accessible to anyone and everyone, regardless of their level of technical ability; but he also made many of us slaves to our technology, users who are not in control and do not understand what the technology does or how. Our opportunity is to build upon the good bits of Steve Jobs’ legacy – the universality and accessibility of computing – while rejecting the dogma and casting off the mindset of the shiny, closed, black box.
In honour of Steve Jobs, here’s what I think we should do. Go find an old computer – you almost certainly have one lying around, or can get one from a friend. Find that old computer and open it up. Find out what’s inside. Take it apart. Put it back together. Install Ubuntu or Debian, or any other flavour of a free, open operating system you like. Learn to use it. Uninstall iTunes. Install Rockbox on your iPod instead. Go read up about cookies and how they can be used to invade your privacy. Learn how to control what information you pass on to whom. Learn to control your devices.
Goodbye Steve, and thank you. Now it is time for us to move on.