STATISTIC'S PROFILE

comment=42955
The point is, they didn't have to be so uselessly vague. What was the point of it? "We're going to show you this scene you won't understand!" I will always stand by the notion that being cryptic to the point of absurdity isn't particularly good writing. "haha, I am going to foreshadow this event without actually saying anything specific!" They could be talking about anything there, and whatever happens later in the plot, you could probably technically apply it in a roundabout fashion to what they were talking about.

There's "cryptic" and there's just nonsense.

The Gazel Ministry are basically shooting for the Book of Revelations. It's been a decade since I played it so the details are fuzzy - but I think they were the original creators, and were killed (by Grahf irrc) and they want to make a Jesus return (new bodies) and subsequently take the humans back for Deus. Krelian (Science) winds up betraying/deletes them (Creation) before that happens though. The last part of the conversation you posted is foreshadowing that. They're talking about Krelian's nano-machines, and basically underestimating him. That's the Readers Digest version anyway.

All of that said, I think you successfully made your point anyway. It's a well done article.

comment=39240
Except that makes no sense. Yay. Clearly; posting a few sarcastic remarks outside of the current subject is "being involved". The resolution to this conversation was reached pages ago; why is this even still here?

You posted multiple times in a discussion you claimed you are glad you stayed out of. People who actually stayed out of the discussion aren't receiving notification updates every time someone posts a new comment in it.

comment=38651
On country differences I'd also like to point out that there's no Public Domain in the EU.

That's true. But I think most countries have similar rules, even if the names might be different.

Fair Use law just simply means in limited quantities you can use copyrighted material without permission. It most often comes up regarding news publications. Journalists don't have to get permission to reprint quotes from an interview with a competing newspaper for example. BBC may not fall under Fair Use, but they must have some other protection as they do similar things. The reason it's debated is because how much of an article exactly can they reprint before they're violating copyright?

Public Domain means there isn't a copyright holder - either the creator registered it that way or it's copyright has expired. So anyone can take it and use it however they wish. Creative Commons is similar, but is usually stating if it's reused commercially royalty fees apply. Hmmm not sure what a foreign equivalent would be... Alice in Wonderland is Public Domain and Lewis Carroll was British. I'm not sure who his publisher was though.

Actually, speaking of Alice in Wonderland that's where copyright gets confusing to me. When corporations like Disney take Public Domain works and redo them building a new IP around them. Normally having too much "likeness" to an IP violates it with an exception for parody. How similar can I reproduce the animated version of Alice in Wonderland without stepping on Disney's' IP? Or, how different does it have to be exactly? Characters Places and Things are obviouisly going to be similar and even the character designs are going to be pretty close. The caterpillar smokes a hookah - not very many ways around it.