A couple of other points that I wanted to make that have been circulating my mind for a while:
1. I realized that my hard core reaction to Avengers feminist marketing (the origin of the feminist/sexism discussion) was the fact that Black Widow was often showed in a sexualized manner, either prominently displaying butt or breasts while the men get action hero shots. Several members commented that how is Avengers (and by extension comics) any worse than other cultural displays of sexism? I realized that my frustration and concern was due to the fact of the target audience.
Avengers, and comics in general, specifically target a male audience, including young kids. So, while the sexism may no worse that what is shown in media in general, the audience targeted is younger and more impressionable, leaving sexist attitudes more dangerous to expose them too.

2. I was thinking about Verhoven's "Starship Troopers" and wanted to offer as a possible comparision the new mini series "Forward Unto Dawn" a prequel for Halo 4 but designed as more of a stand alone story too. The reason I draw upon it as a comparison work is because they are both science fiction military stories with female roles in it. Below is the link to the first episode (its 5 episodes long) and wonder how others regard its treatment of females in a military setting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJVgXBfSH8

I thought of another unpopular opinion I have and now have a chance to write it:

I hate dystopias-I get the idea that the future looks grim and that people imagine negative futures ect. but the whole "Hunger Games" "V for Vendetta" and all gets old, tiresome and frustrating. I don't need utopia or dystopia-just give me something realistic.

Good on you for pushing forward

What's context have to do with it?
No, I followed you just fine
I won't drag politics in to this

Part of the trailer made me realize how much more of fan films are actually out there. I mean, I knew about SW from theforce.net boards long before I made to DiF -back when all you needed was "Duel of the Fates" and a forest

But, the whole Star Trek fan film community is exciting to me and I like the fact that this documentary shines a light on something that not everyone can be familiar with.

Its not that I can't get my head around it-I just don't agree with it, nor do I have to.
And, I am curious as to why the Constitution limits, even for a time, the Right to their respective writings and discoveries if the only purpose to promote science and knowledge? I mean, if we are just trying to promote the arts and sciences, then there should be no right at all to the knowledge of the creators. Just a thought.

In addition, I was not aware that we were suddenly splitting hairs about copyright law. I thought we were discussing the creator's relationship to their creation, and whether or not they own it. But, I guess that falls in to the scope of the law so I guess this is now the topic of the debate.

The fact that the digital age is forcing this debate illustrates this point, but I am not the only one who thinks this is a new battlefield:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/techn … wanted=all

Of other note, copyright law is not the only law applicable. Patent law does allow the protection of scientific discoveries and ideas, so patent law must also be considered.

It is interesting to me that the idea of ideas is simply regarded as a public good when they are distributed. The value of those ideas are never discussed, and copyright law only allows those ideas to be protected to encourage publishers to publish for the sake of public work. Well, the fact that the law agrees with you, does not mean that the law is correct.

Wow...just...wow. I leave for a day and this thread goes nuts. I'd tell everyone to calm down but I'd have to charge for it in order to get it in to this thread

I think it comes down to the definition of value in a terms of creative ventures. While not technically theft, it is plagiarism and fraud, which will at least get you kicked out of most major educational institutions as well as breaks several laws. The whole idea is that a creator's time is valuable, and that they are able to define what their time is worth, and others determine if they are willing to pay the price. Its the free market in a simplified form-are you willing to purchase the item at the price I offer it.

Here is a quote from "Starship Troopers" (the book) regarding value that I think is relevant:

I'll quibble over National Treasure though its not exactly a bastion of feminist ideals, Dr. Chase is no damsel in distress the whole movie. She, at times, plays the equal to Ben Gate's historical knowledge, though perhaps loses in the crazy department Hey, if you're a conspiracy theorist aficionado, you have to leave some things behind. But, like I said, its a quibble and your point is still well made.
(I'll now post in the unpopular opinions thread that I think "National Treasure" is a perfect movie)

Which, is that a commentary on the authors or the audience?
Which, is not to say that I do not understand it, but the simple comment that a mostly male audience would not find compelling women interesting is a bit of a generalization. I mean, I don't know about movies, but many novels continued forward with compelling women, specifically Robert Heinlein, just as an example that springs readily to mind, but I may be thinking of the wrong era too.
Of particular note, though i don't know the popularity of the works, but several feminist works came out of the 70's, specifically in speculative fiction.