On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:21:17 -0500, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Having followed this thread, I have to voice some frustration with your tactics, Guy. At one point you argue strongly that it's a copyvio. At the next moment that it's OR. And you seem to slip back and forth as is convenient for your argument. When someone makes a point in support of it not being a copyvio, you bring out the OR defense. And when someone makes a point about it not being OR, you bring out the copyvio defense.
As I say, this leaves me frustrated. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree with any particular position, but because the conversation does not seem to be headed toward any conclusion.
So let me be clear: I think it's a copyvio, and should be excluded on that basis. That is my reason for removing it from the article. Reproducing the list in its entirety is very very likely to violate the BBC's copyright, which is asserted in the show.
I *also* think it's original research, in that we are to my knowledge the only place where this list is reproduced outside of the BBC, but that is a separate issue.
I am not the only one who thinks that "if not one then the other" applies here, and we should not include the list in its entirety. But my fundamental reason for removing it is copyright, and if the BBC says it is not copyright then I will add it back. I have asked them.
Guy (JzG)