On 4/12/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:44:16 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
That's an uncivil and overly categorical way of saying your opinion differs.
You say. Me, I feel that this has been a complete waste of everybody's time.
I hope that it's been at least somewhat educational. What happens with this list itself is rather irrelevant, but if at least some people have grown in their understanding of copyright and fair use then the discussion hasn't been a waste of time.
The ironic thing is that if the show considered it significant and put it on their website, the copyright violation would e unambiguous, so the only reason the argument exists at all is because the show considers it too trivial to post on their site.
I don't see how that's ironic, I don't agree with you that the copyright violation would then become unambiguous, and I don't think it's necessarily true that the reason the list isn't on their site is because they consider it trivial.
And even if the list *was* on the site, which it apparently isn't, that wouldn't change the argument at all, because the list on Wikipedia was not copied from the (nonexistant) list on the site.
But the fact of the matter is *there is no list* being published by the TV show producers, so to say that the list has been copied in its entirety is entirely unfounded. In order for something to be copied in its entirety it has to exist in the first place. Wikipedians did not copy a list. They copied elements from an entire series of shows and described a work which appeared on that show (the cool wall).
Wikipedia has an article on [[The Cool Wall]]. You may consider this work too trivial to have an encyclopedia article about, but the fact is Wikipedians have decided to have it. Claiming that a description of the wall is a copyright violation seems to me to be a bad way of appealing that decision.
Anthony