I had long considered collages to be a legit art form, but more that didn't fall under Fair Use. My video clearly falls under fair use the same way that book and movie reviews fall under that when they quote or show clips with the aim toward public discussion thereof, and any adverse decision by the court in my direction would put the BBC above the law covering all public discussion or criticism altogether...which put the odds of the BBC winning an actual lawsuit against me somewhere between slim to none. As of the Prince decision, the BBC's odds don't even reach slim anymore.
May UPDATE: Second round of appeals initiated and it looks like we might actually be going to court. Anybody who is weary of copyright troll bullying may feel free to donate to the defense fund because a win for me in this case will change the copyright troll world forever as a precedent. Donate HERE <<< I removed the link because GoFundMe took it down, no doubt because of inactivity for so long. The update on this end is that Auntie Beeb hasn't sued me yet, and no news is good news. SO FAR. With the Prince decision, the old girl is more certain now that she's going to lose than she was before, so I'll bet she doesn't think that a law suit would be a smart thing to spend tax money on doing, especially in the face of a budget cutting Parliament. Just speculation on my part, anything can happen without a doubt, but Auntie Beeb's odds of prevailing went down further than the bottom it had already hit under ordinary Fair Use rulings.
Me & Auntie Beeb's World Service go 'way 'way back, and it's how I was first introduced to Douglas Adams, and via Douglas Adams, became acquainted with Doctor Who in its heyday in the form of one Tom Baker. Then the BBC yanked the plug on the World Service to North America and kept sliding downhill from there.
So Auntie Beeb revived the Doctor, and yeah, I watch on a regular basis, sort of, but that's after figuring out the time travel thing myself, being the Impossible Person I always was. Well, it's come to pass that this blog has been getting a lot of hits from the UK, and judging from the stats, it looks like the minders I have aren't all Chinese. I'm thinking that perhaps Autnie Beeb is getting cross over all the similarities between myself and Clara Oswald--none of my doing, of course; it's how Auntie Beeb designed Oswald and via whom. Isn't that right, Tom Baker?
Well, we can start this dance by my showing how TARDIS, short for Time And Relative Dimensions In Space, can't be either copyrighted or trademarked because it's generic science. I might play with crayons and get artsy-fartsy on occasion, but I'm a woman of science first, and I can make the case.
I'm about to upload the video to YouTube first, though, so since this post automatically circulates on the Google Plus community (where there are several Doctor Who groups), and since an upload to YouTube *also* automatically gets posted to G+ as well as to Twitter, just consider this a preliminary heads up on what's coming, though not too much later. When that's done, I will then imbed the video in this post. Later.
Ah! Here we go!
Oh-ho, a quick question right outta da gate: where's the sound track from? This should interest my Chinese minders considerably, as they should find that sound track quite familiar--they use it to jam radio stations they don't like, on shortwave. Here in the States and elsewhere, we call it a "firedrake".
Auntie Beeb very quickly filed a dispute with YouTube about this video, quite predictably claiming copyright infringement, and I very quickly filed a dispute with the Beeb's claims. Check.
|Proudly AMERICAN, not British. Get it? Got it? GOOD.|
Contained within the video is the nature of the challenge to any claim the BBC might have on "transdimensional engineering" because dating all the way back to Gutenberg, it has been PUBLIC DOMAIN PHYSICS. Science isn't copyrightable--it falls under patents, ON THE CONDITION that it is NOT already in the public domain, as this science is.
The video itself makes the case that the Beeb can NOT copyright generic science, and I'm sure the Beeb prefers to quash the argument's persuasion more than it wants to quash any (bogus) copyright infringement claim. En garde, Beeb.
Mini-UPDATE 2: Just as soon as I put this post out on Twitter, I got Followed by
Hey--y'all KNOW I'm right--books have always been bigger on the inside than on the outside, and the Beeb doesn't own any exclusive patents on the design of the book. Dear Auntie Beeb--copyrights don't protect science. You need patents. Show us your patents or STFU
Mini-UPDATE 3: Answering a challenge--I never said that I never used books for time travel. I just don't rely on them exclusively; I use them primarily for navigation, and the book I used in the video does indeed come from my core's navigation system. Am I an historian? Not only no, but hell no. Am I an amateur historian? Chautauqua scholars know in their bones I'm beyond amateur, and they know for a fact that I'm no "scholar" either. Am I a history buff? That would be true if we left out the future part of things; I'll take it, but it's a vast understatement. What's left? Time traveler.
Mini-UPDATE 4: Surprised at the claim of navigating the future? Most of us are doing that already, only we don't recognize that as such. Chess masters do it all the time, and people who think navigating the future is a matter of following a time line (when time isn't linear) to stuff that hasn't happened yet but it's carved in stone that it will happen. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the future isn't pre-destined and there's no such thing as predestination. If there were, we could all sit back and just let time happen without trying. You people know better than that.
Seriously--the next generation, now being trained from kindergarten about coding, will acquire an intuitive feel for time travel both ways, for they will have intuitively mastered the IF THEN ELSE branching, map it out, and be able to see that the path from START to any single possible END out of a flow chart full of ENDs, will understand how the illusion of time being linear came about, as well as the illusion of time flowing came about. That's why it's called a FLOW CHART. And the elite few who programmed Big Blue to play tournament quality chess know this for a fact already. Figuring out how many bazillion possible moves exist from START obscures the FACT that not all of the possible moves are possible given certain conditions, which is how a chess master knows at his first move, how many moves he'll arrive at a check mate in. IF the opponent moves to permit that ELSE Plan B which results in a check mate in a few more moves. And so on. Certain moves will result in certain END OF GAME in short order IF those conditions exist.
That's how it's done, people. And, seriously, Auntie Beeb--you need to step aside and stop your impediment of real science with your imaginary bullpucky. You're holding humanity back, and here's a reminder of why you and your government were apt models for Douglas Adams' Vogons. Auntie Beeb, if anybody can serve well as a model Vogon, it would be YOU.