I am updating the ST Encyclopedia

[Christopher]

^No need to get upset. I was simply clarifying that the specific analogy you chose was imperfect for the reasons I specified. I had no further agenda than that. If you had chosen a more viable analogy to make your case, I would've had no objection. But by making your case with a flawed argument, you only weaken your own position. By pointing out the flaw in your analogy, I gave you the opportunity to replace it with a better, more factually accurate argument for your position. If you decline that opportunity and instead react petulantly and sink to namecalling, then the only person undermining you is you.

I have nothing against people doing hard work on something that matters to them. But if it's work that could get them in trouble, it would be more unkind not to appraise them of the risks.

 

[Shatna]

I'm not the least bit upset, or even petulant. I'm making observations and criticisms about your behavior in this thread. Your behavior sucks. And since I didn't call anyone any names, I'm not sure you're in any position to accurately characterize anyone's arguments.

From my view, this is not about proper analogies and arguments. What it's about is a matter of courtesy and respect, of speaking one's piece already and shutting the fuck up, rather than turning the thread into a continuous play-by-play concerning how much trouble the OP might get into. Who asked you to appraise anyone of any risks? Who cares what you guys think? You're not Okuda or Paramount or a lawyer, you are in this case bystanders hijacking a thread so you can yammer on and on about shit you may or may not be right about. Increased yammering does not make you more right. You may have been doing this shit so long you don't even get that, but it's true.

 

[Christopher]

^It kind of undermines a call for courtesy and respect if you hurl profanities in the same sentence.

And pointing out to someone that he may be doing something that could get him in trouble is called helping. If you think it's friendlier to encourage them to risk themselves, then I'm glad you don't consider me a friend.

 

[Shatna]

Christopher, I am not calling for courtesy and respect for myself. I could give a fuck. I'm calling for courtesy and respect for the OP. Speaking of which: he has already addressed his view on the risks involved in what he's doing, so your "helping" ceased to be helping about a page and a half ago and became a nerdy, naggy, self-aggrandizing, know-it-all thread hijacking fest. Maybe you truly believe your assistance to strangers is required well after they have indicated disagreement with and rejection of said assistance, but that only makes your rudeness all the more obnoxious.

 

[Ronald Held]

As long as he does not make any money from it, is it really likely that CBS/Paramount will take any action against him?

 

[DonIago]

I'm not sure anyone here is in a position to assess the likelihood. I imagine matters are helped by the fact that there isn't money involved, but that doesn't mean it isn't still a copyright infringement issue and possibly actionable.

Put another way, I think it's a bad idea, but I don't know whether it's a bad idea that will attract seriously undesirable attention.

I will say that even the thread title is a huge attention getter (I was hoping for something official myself). If the OP was trying to be low-key, using a title like that would seem counterproductive.

 

[JD]

I'm not the least bit upset, or even petulant. I'm making observations and criticisms about your behavior in this thread. Your behavior sucks. And since I didn't call anyone any names, I'm not sure you're in any position to accurately characterize anyone's arguments.

From my view, this is not about proper analogies and arguments. What it's about is a matter of courtesy and respect, of speaking one's piece already and shutting the fuck up, rather than turning the thread into a continuous play-by-play concerning how much trouble the OP might get into. Who asked you to appraise anyone of any risks? Who cares what you guys think? You're not Okuda or Paramount or a lawyer, you are in this case bystanders hijacking a thread so you can yammer on and on about shit you may or may not be right about. Increased yammering does not make you more right. You may have been doing this shit so long you don't even get that, but it's true.

^It kind of undermines a call for courtesy and respect if you hurl profanities in the same sentence.

And pointing out to someone that he may be doing something that could get him in trouble is called helping. If you think it's friendlier to encourage them to risk themselves, then I'm glad you don't consider me a friend.

Christopher, I am not calling for courtesy and respect for myself. I could give a fuck. I'm calling for courtesy and respect for the OP. Speaking of which: he has already addressed his view on the risks involved in what he's doing, so your "helping" ceased to be helping about a page and a half ago and became a nerdy, naggy, self-aggrandizing, know-it-all thread hijacking fest. Maybe you truly believe your assistance to strangers is required well after they have indicated disagreement with and rejection of said assistance, but that only makes your rudeness all the more obnoxious.

Wow Shatna, overreact much?

 

[Thrawn]

From my view, this is not about proper analogies and arguments. What it's about is a matter of courtesy and respect, of speaking one's piece already and shutting the fuck up, rather than turning the thread into a continuous play-by-play concerning how much trouble the OP might get into. Who asked you to appraise anyone of any risks? Who cares what you guys think? You're not Okuda or Paramount or a lawyer, you are in this case bystanders hijacking a thread so you can yammer on and on about shit you may or may not be right about. Increased yammering does not make you more right. You may have been doing this shit so long you don't even get that, but it's true.

From my view, this is not about yelling at generally well-meaning posters. What it's about is a matter of courtesy and respect, of speaking one's piece already and shutting the fuck up, rather than turning the thread into a continuous play-by-play concerning exactly which ways other posters have been offensive by your particular definition. Who asked you to appraise anyone of their faux pas? Who cares what you think? You're not their mother or their friend; you are in this case a bystander hijacking a thread even further so you can yammer on and on about shit you may or may not be right about. Increased yammering does not make you more right. You may have been doing this shit so long you don't even get that, but it's true.

Or more concisely: pot? Meet kettle.

 

[LightningStorm]

I'm not the least bit upset, or even petulant. I'm making observations and criticisms about your behavior in this thread. Your behavior sucks. And since I didn't call anyone any names, I'm not sure you're in any position to accurately characterize anyone's arguments.

From my view, this is not about proper analogies and arguments. What it's about is a matter of courtesy and respect, of speaking one's piece already and shutting the fuck up, rather than turning the thread into a continuous play-by-play concerning how much trouble the OP might get into. Who asked you to appraise anyone of any risks? Who cares what you guys think? You're not Okuda or Paramount or a lawyer, you are in this case bystanders hijacking a thread so you can yammer on and on about shit you may or may not be right about. Increased yammering does not make you more right. You may have been doing this shit so long you don't even get that, but it's true.

Christopher, I am not calling for courtesy and respect for myself. I could give a fuck. I'm calling for courtesy and respect for the OP. Speaking of which: he has already addressed his view on the risks involved in what he's doing, so your "helping" ceased to be helping about a page and a half ago and became a nerdy, naggy, self-aggrandizing, know-it-all thread hijacking fest. Maybe you truly believe your assistance to strangers is required well after they have indicated disagreement with and rejection of said assistance, but that only makes your rudeness all the more obnoxious.

You need to dial it back, a lot. And keep it about the topic and posts at hand and not the posters.

Thanks

 

[Shatna]

Nah, done here.

 

[TheAlmanac]

There's a difference between created prose and fiction surrounding a TV show and the culling of information about said TV show.

No, there isn't--not when it comes to copyright law in the United States, at least.

Fictional "facts" about a TV series have the same copyright status as the fictional TV series itself, according to Castle Rock Entertainment Inc v. Carol Publishing Group (a case involving a trivia book about Seinfeld).

Since the original decision was written by current US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, there's also some reason to think that precedent isn't going to get overturned anytime soon...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Isn't anything Shatna said that I wouldn't agree with. Yes, self-importance does abound here.

 

[Captain Robert April]

There's a difference between created prose and fiction surrounding a TV show and the culling of information about said TV show.

No, there isn't--not when it comes to copyright law in the United States, at least.

Fictional "facts" about a TV series have the same copyright status as the fictional TV series itself, according to Castle Rock Entertainment Inc v. Carol Publishing Group (a case involving a trivia book about Seinfeld).

Since the original decision was written by current US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, there's also some reason to think that precedent isn't going to get overturned anytime soon...

Carol Publishing Group....the same buttheads who screwed up the last edition of the Concordance?

 

[Shaw]

There's a difference between created prose and fiction surrounding a TV show and the culling of information about said TV show.

No, there isn't--not when it comes to copyright law in the United States, at least.

Fictional "facts" about a TV series have the same copyright status as the fictional TV series itself, according to Castle Rock Entertainment Inc v. Carol Publishing Group (a case involving a trivia book about Seinfeld).

Since the original decision was written by current US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, there's also some reason to think that precedent isn't going to get overturned anytime soon...

A more recent case that would stand as a good guide with be the lawsuit over the Harry Potter Lexicon. The decision outlined where the author had over stepped the boundary of fair use.

 

[Captain Robert April]

A key factor in how enthusiastic Paramount might be in putting the kibosh on something like this is the likelihood of their authorizing an update of the previous edition, and how likely it might be (in their estimation) that this unauthorized version might undercut demand for their authorized version. If they see this as a threat to the viability of theirs, the C&D will be very swift indeed.

 

[BolianAuthor]

The topic of this thread is "I am updating the ST Encyclopedia"... I... meaning and individual who is not Mike Okuda, nor is that person the entity of CBS/Paramount. Thus, it is an individual project for fun, not profit. As such, it wouldn't be any different from the collection of facts that comprise Memory Alpha, Memory Beta, or any Star Trek related material on Wikipedia.

 

[Christopher]

As such, it wouldn't be any different from the collection of facts that comprise Memory Alpha, Memory Beta, or any Star Trek related material on Wikipedia.

That's true if you're writing your own original entries to describe those facts. But if you're copying the verbatim text of Star Trek Encyclopedia entries as written by the Okudas, that's not the same thing. Memory Alpha, Beta, and Wikipedia don't copy their entries directly from other copyrighted sources, not without attribution (or at least they shouldn't).

So that's really the question that needs to be answered here. Is this a separate, original Trek encyclopedia, in which case it's fine, or is it an unauthorized revision of the actual text of the Okudas' Star Trek Encyclopedia, in which case there might be some legal questions that need to be explored?

 

[Ronald Held]

How is it dangerous to the project, by asking someone offical?

 

[DonIago]

It could provoke interest that might not otherwise exist.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Perhaps we could keep the inquiry at the lowest possible level before drawing the attention of the suits.

In other words, who wants to ask Mike and Denise?