Battlestar Wiki talk:Podcast Transcripts: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:02, 15 December 2005

I get back from university next week, and I plan on taping the marathon on December 20th and listening to ALL of the commentaries as I watch again (except, of course, "Fragged", frak it, as well as the first two episodes which I'll catch during the other rerun before the premiere). I assure you I'm quite obsessive and I'm going to get the entire thing (like many of you, I've already listened to them once to glean information, i.e. how I found out what some of the deleteed scenes for "Pegasus" were, but I'll go through them again; well, I'll watch the shows normally, THEN watch a second time for the podcast; this is what I do in my free time if I'm on vacation; just watch this show all the time. Anyway, I'll get in everything we need to know. Plus I'm iffy on whether this is fair use or not (on the one hand it's free on the site, on the other hand, TANSTAAFL, advertisers on Scifi.com pay to make ads we have to see to look at it, but then again maybe they don't care at Scifi because it makes word of mouth about the show. Hey, if they wanted us to stop they could just tell us not to. Regardless, I'll get it all in next week. May I once again bring to attention that I strongly object to the phrase "Citation Jihad", and would prefer the less objectionable term, "Citation Crusade". --Ricimer 20:36, 14 December 2005 (EST)

This sort of thing actually has very little to do with legality.

Do I personally believe that typing up transcripts of freely available podcasts to aid in searching for citations constitues a copyright violation? No.

Would my beliefs hold sway in a court of law if Universal wished to vigorously prosecute me? Probably not.

Do I even have the ability to defend myself in such a case? No.

So in the end, if Universal essentially gets to decide whether it's a copyright violation or not. That decision has very little to do with the letter of the law, and a lot to do with the comparative depth of our pockets. Essentially, if the copyright holders decide they don't like this, then there's nothing we can do to stop them from asking us to take it down, which we will do so graciously. Until then, it seems fairly harmless to continue. --Peter Farago 21:01, 14 December 2005 (EST)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 :This sort of thing actually has very little to do with legality.
 :Do I personally believe that typing up transcripts of freely available podcasts to aid in searching for citations constitues a copyright violation? No.
-:Would my beliefs hold sway in a court of law if Universal wished to vigorously prosecute me? No.
+:Would my beliefs hold sway in a court of law if Universal wished to vigorously prosecute me? Probably not.
 :Do I even have the ability to defend myself in such a case? No.
 :So in the end, if Universal essentially gets to decide whether it's a copyright violation or not. That decision has very little to do with the letter of the law, and a lot to do with the comparative depth of our pockets. Essentially, if the copyright holders decide they don't like this, then there's nothing we can do to stop them from asking us to take it down, which we will do so graciously. Until then, it seems fairly harmless to continue. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:01, 14 December 2005 (EST)