Ganymede & Titan

Identity Within

NOTE: Script removed at the request of Grant Naylor Productions.

Set your faces to stunned. Courtesy of Peter Tyler, who has just been awarded to title of Best Person Ever To Exist, we've recieved a script for Identity Within; the Series VII episode in which Cat had to have sex or die, which was eventually replaced by Duct Soup. The episode was written by John McKay, who also wrote My Dead Dad. And Rimmer's in it!

So, set an hour or so aside to read the script, and then, if you get that far, there's a few paragraphs of analysis at the bottom. Enjoy!

Comments

You fucking beauties.

Posted by clem at March 15, 2004 09:54 PM

Fucking shitting cunting crikey.

Posted by Darrell Jones at March 15, 2004 09:56 PM

I've had dealings with Mr. Tyler recently - he's a diamond bloke...

Posted by Blake at March 15, 2004 10:59 PM

Consider it Enjoyed, Thanks....

Posted by Cpt-D at March 15, 2004 11:30 PM

Superb stuff. Not too sure about the episode itself, at least in its rough draft form. I certainly would have preferred a re-write of this to Duct Soup, though.

Posted by Austin Ross at March 15, 2004 11:41 PM

Fuck my hat. How did a couple of cunts like you get hold of something like this?! *EXCELLENT*

Posted by Max Beaverdong at March 16, 2004 12:54 AM

You....bastards.

Posted by Cappsy at March 16, 2004 07:52 AM

They know people, thats why :)

As for the episode, good idea, but shite script

Posted by Drzymala at March 16, 2004 07:54 AM

Really enjoyed reading that, lads. Thanks again.

Posted by Blake at March 16, 2004 08:58 AM

Personally I could have done without the motion blur on starbug.

Posted by jesley carrion at March 16, 2004 09:39 AM

Er, actually, I managed to get hold of this script just the other day off ebay - along with rough drafts of all seven of the other series 7 scripts. Including 'Natural born Rimmers' by Paul Alexander, 'Heartache' by Kim Fuller, 'Beyond A Joke' by ROBERT LLEWELLYN', 'Epideme' by Paul also, and finally 'Nanarchy' by James Hendrie. Extremely interesting as a few of them differ entirely from the broadcast shows - obviously those not by Doug. I 'Identity within' and think it would have been a terrific 'Cat episode' - broadening the relationship with Lister. Would this have gone out before 'Stoke Me A Clipper'? possibly. Incidently the 'Beyond A Joke' draft by Robert has next to it in brackets 'Nega Drive' - another working/alternative title?. Not a bad script, and so different to the finished show. The Nanarchy draft is also very different and quite poingiant. One of the scripts has the name 'Gill' written on it. I loked through the makers of series 7, and came to the conclusion that this must have been the sript of Gill Shaw, who worked as costume understudy to Howard Burden this series. I love this personal touch. These scripts, being the first not written soley by the comedy police, are pure gold and I am so pleased to have them.

Posted by Thomas at March 16, 2004 10:16 AM

Well, spin my nipplenuts...(etc, zzzz)

Reads like a piece of fan-fiction, but not un-enjoyable. Needed a lot of work, but wasn't a complete diasaster.

Posted by Pete Martin at March 16, 2004 10:35 AM

It's nice on the whole, but the "doc martin" line is forced. And to be honest, Cat's retaliation against Lister feels like it was written by a 15 year old. Nice that they're recognising the Cat's character change from series 1 onwards (the loss of cat-ness otherwise left unexplored and generally appearing to be a fault of writing/characterisation), but it's so badly dealt with. "And I'd hate to guilt-trip you or anything..." - yuck. It's daft because the crew didn't ever treat Cat like a domestic cat (like he says), they treated him as a human - which is why he ended up becoming more human! Up until then it's mostly fine though, and could have had the atmosphere of a series 5 episode if done right. And give me this one over the water-treading Duct Soup any day. "Hey, we should do an episode in series 7 that has as its title a pun formed from that of a Marx Brothers' film!" Nobody asked why that would be clever or good. So they started with "Animal Trackers" where they would hunt for the potential remaining survivors of the Cat people, and when they realised they would go over budget by shooting it they did Duct Soup instead. Lame.

Posted by jesley carrion at March 16, 2004 11:44 AM

Mmm...Quite like 'Duct Soup' actually. Nice character moments. Intended to tone down sci-fi elements. There's too few of those shows after series three, and in my opinion it was welcome. 'Identity Within' though, is promising and enjoyable. As you say the frying pan joke is sheer joy. You have to ask, would it have been better to shelve 'Beyond A Joke', with it's biggish budget and focus on Kryten? We've had quite a few Kryten shows haven't we? I'm not saying 'Beyond A Joke' isn't alright, it's just it would have been nice to have had a cat episode at last. This script, as you say, with a few tweaks and poor jokes cut out would have definitely sufficed in my opinion. I wonder what Danny thought of his 'own' episode being abandoned?

Posted by Thomas at March 16, 2004 02:16 PM

I'm sure Robert would have been more peeved if Beyond A Joke had been dropped. The only bits of Beyond A Joke that I like are the Pride and Prejudice stuff, which is the expensive stuff that Robert wrote. I do like the premise of Kryten having a "brother", though.

Duct Soup is quite weak, in my eyes. It's not the lack of sci-fi stuff (Marooned is one of my favourite episodes), it's that most of the jokes were shit. Oh, and Chloe was rubbish.

Posted by Ian Symes at March 16, 2004 06:34 PM

Duct Soup has two of my favourite bits of VII in: the rusty gate story, and especially Cat's reaction to Lister's claustrophobia ("Boy, is it cramped! Whoo-hoo!") But overall - weak.

The thing with VII is that there *seems* to have been a conscious attempt to do "character development" - which often comes across as forced and unamusing. Wheras before, the SF and comedy did the character development *for* us, as it were.

If that makes sense. Ahem.

Posted by John Hoare at March 16, 2004 06:41 PM

http://tinyurl.com/2bz74

Good Old Annette.

Posted by John Hoare at March 16, 2004 07:10 PM

Yes, Duct Soup is obviously a character development episode, the kind that pretty much went AWOL from Series IV onwards. For me, they didn't work on Kochanski's character well enough. Duct Soup should have been the episode where they dealt with her and Lister's relationship more.

It's also one of the episodes that misses the classic Rimmer/Lister interaction. Being stuck in the tunnels would have been a great opportunity for Rimmer to get on Lister's tits.

Posted by overmydeadbody at March 16, 2004 07:20 PM

The thing about the Cat not being like a Cat and losing his senses is a bit rich when he's a pilot because of his superior senses.

Posted by Joey at March 16, 2004 07:43 PM

I've always liked Duct Soup. In fact, I'd say it was my favourite of series VII.
I say all this because I've already given my views on Identity Within on BTLi.

So there.

Posted by si at March 16, 2004 11:54 PM

Excelent!

Only...

If this is the 4th episode, (I.e. Where "Duct Soup" is now)

Where Kristine

How'd Rimmer get back?

Posted by MJN SEIFER at March 17, 2004 02:18 PM

It is conceivable that it may have been intended to go out before Rimmer's farewell episode 'Stoke Me..'. Episodes are always pushed around. I have come to the conclusion that 'Identity Within' would definitely have made for a better episode than 'Beyond A Joke'. Having the second draft of 'Nega Drive' by Robert, I am able to say that, well it is not the best - but has it's moments. I have to say that Doug's contributions seem to have elevated it a great deal (the double chalker line etc). The finished episode is one that I like, but from the very beginning it was a weakish idea and script in my opinion. I'd leave Duct soup where it is, as I think Chloe needed that episode for establishing herself. However, you can make your own mind up, when I send you the photo copies of the rest of the series seven scripts. They are really quite interesting.

Posted by Thomas at March 17, 2004 02:52 PM

> However, you can make your own mind up, when I send you the photo copies of the rest of the series seven scripts. They are really quite interesting.

You are a hero. Shame not everybody's as generous.

If everybody pooled photocopies of their shooting scripts together for this site, magic would happen.

Posted by Darrell Jones at March 17, 2004 03:21 PM

An interesting read. It would have been interesting to see this one onscreen, I really hate how to cats character has been totally neglected over the last couple of seasons in favour of Kryten.

Posted by Adam Bailey at March 17, 2004 11:30 PM

As you can see - script now removed at the request of Grant Naylor Productions (and I've removed the 'High and Low' and 'The Inquisitor' script dissections as well).

No argument about this please - I completely understand their reasoning. And please - no hosting anywhere else. They'll just ask you to remove it from there, so there is little point in any case.

Posted by John Hoare at March 18, 2004 04:39 PM

A great shame, that. I can understand their argument, but they damn well better have some of that stuff on the upcoming DVDs...

Posted by Austin Ross at March 18, 2004 04:49 PM

Or perhaps a book. I don't know. I hope it does get made publically avaliable at some point. Whatever - it wasn't our material, and they're completely within their rights to stop us hosting it.

We'll probably look into writing some stuff about the scripts that breach copyright slightly less flagrantly. More analysis, less CHUNKS OF SCRIPT or ENTIRE SCRIPTS. Unfortunate, but there it is.

Incidentally, the e-mail we recieved asked for all scripts we hosted to be removed; our 'High and Low' and 'The Inquisitor' script dissections aren't entire scripts - but I've removed them as a precaution, as it's a bit of a grey area. We can't afford even the chance of legal action. I HAVE NO MONEY.

Posted by John Hoare at March 18, 2004 04:57 PM

The absolute fuckers.

Especially as about four billion fansites host complete transcripts of the episodes.

Who was it that demanded its removal?

Name them specifically, you have every right to.

Posted by Darrell Jones at March 18, 2004 05:50 PM

The email wasn't signed personally - it was a legal notice from GNP.

Posted by John Hoare at March 18, 2004 05:53 PM

Will these ever be published professionally? Will they be utilised on the DVDs? WILL THEY FUCK.

It's just fans who are losing out because some tedious fuckwit wants to counteract how pointless he is by exerting some of the the feeble power he's been awarded so he can gain some pathetic sense of control

Absolute scum.

John/Ian - I know you were threatened with legal action, but you've taken the scripts down now, and please don't hold take the 'mustn't complain' stance. I bet you're piss-angry and you're fully in your right to bemoan the pointless actions of some useless sod ruining everybody's pleasure. I'll lose all respect for you if you just happily accept it. It's doing nobody any favours.

What about the deleted scene / out-take transcripts? Did they not mean those too? I don't want you to get sued or owt.

Posted by Darrell Jones at March 18, 2004 05:59 PM

I can only speak for myself - but I'm not angry. Honest. We don't have a right to this stuff, any more than we have a right to rushes, or anything else. If that means you lose respect for me, so be it.

(Last word on the matter from me, incidentally; I can't be arsed with a big discussion. Sorry.)

Posted by John Hoare at March 18, 2004 06:02 PM

Odd. They havn't come to tell me to remove my downloads...

Posted by Cappsy at March 18, 2004 06:04 PM

They would probably tell you to take them down if you started ripping DVD extras and entire episodes, I bet.

Posted by John Hoare at March 18, 2004 06:12 PM

Anyway, most of your downloads were publically avaliable at some point. 'Identity Within' wasn't. The exception to this is the US pilots - but, then, they don't belong to GNP, so I suspect they're not within their rights to tell you to take them down. I can see why they distinguish between them - stuff we weren't meant to see they might possibly want to use at some point - or it might reveal things that certain people didn't want revealed.

Even if people don't buy that - it's their copyright. They're allowed to apply it inconsistantly if they want to...

Posted by John Hoare at March 18, 2004 06:14 PM

Fair enough. I think you should at least ask them for their reasons, though. (They don't have to answer, obviously, but it's worth a shot)

Posted by Simon at March 18, 2004 06:17 PM

We will, yes.

Posted by John Hoare at March 18, 2004 06:26 PM

They wouldn't want this script so readily available maybe because parts of it could be used in the future. If they ever do Series IX it would be a great idea to try and include this Cat-oriented episode. Of course, it needs a complete rewrite by Doug, then it would be great. He would cut all of the crappy stuff that explicitly goes on about how the cat is upset about being seen as a 'pet' because......it's crap.

Fair enough, he became more human after Series II, but it would have become unworkable if he stayed the same. It would be good for the Cat to finally get some quality screen time.

Posted by overmydeadbody at March 18, 2004 06:58 PM

Well, I'm a tad pissed off. Not least because I spent seven hours typing the bastard thing up.

As far as I can tell, Identity Within is worthless to GNP. It's not commercially available, and it's not likely to be. Unless they release it in a book or on a DVD (which I hope they do), they have gained absolutely nothing from making us take it down.

Just as we gained absolutely nothing from hosting it. We've never made a penny from G&T - no adverts, no subscriptions. In fact, with the money spent on hosting and the domain name, plus all the shite we've bought purely to make site content, John and I are well out of pocket. We're just two chaps trying to provide a service, and GNP know this. Despite this, they've still bossed us around, for no reason other than pedantry.

Given that the fucking term "Red Dwarf" is a trademark of Grant Naylor Productions, perhaps we should be more careful about using it. Perhaps we should take down those pesky DVD reviews, that urge everyone to buy GNP's products. Perhaps we should take down that article about why we still have faith in the Movie. Perhaps we should just get rid of everything that helps to maintain Red Dwarf's diminishing fan base. I'm not trying to sound pompous, but programmes that finished five years ago, and were at their best ten years ago, need decent fan sites to keep the interest going.

So, thanks a bunch, GNP. Thanks a smegging buncharoonie. We're trying to give Red Dwarf fans something they're very interested in, and you order us to take it down. Like I say, if you're going to make these publically available, fair play to you. If not, all you've done is made a lot of people quite pissed off. I know I certainly won't see GNP in the same light again.

It's probably for the best if this is my final word on the matter. Will that do, Darrell?

Posted by Ian Symes at March 18, 2004 08:56 PM

Ah, that's the spirit.

Posted by Darrell Jones at March 18, 2004 09:33 PM

I think the important thing here is that you've made a very rare item readily available. Pretty much all of the regular visitors to this site will have the page cached (as I did, thank god, as i'd not got round to reading it yet) so all that typing has most certainly not gone to waste. Thanks for that guys, cos it was a bloody brilliant coup.

I'll just sit back and wait for my email threatening to sue me, now.

Posted by Cappsy at March 18, 2004 09:44 PM

Dammit, why did I have to go and erase all the cache! This will teach me to link to interesting things rather than saving them locally.

The speed of the response from them was quite impressive in a way though.

Posted by Adam Bailey at March 18, 2004 11:26 PM

Ian, that script wasn't yours to type up. It hasn't been used, so how do you know how useful it is to GNP? It's not your call, neither is it your copyright. Grow up.

Posted by Tanya Jones at March 19, 2004 09:23 AM

There's no concievable use to GNP as far as I can see. Boy did I pick a bad few days to stop using the internet!

Posted by Chris the Dolochimp at March 19, 2004 01:04 PM

Just ask someone who has it saved on their puter for a copy

Posted by Drzymala at March 19, 2004 01:07 PM

Just ask someone who has it saved on their puter for a copy

Posted by Drzymala at March 19, 2004 01:07 PM

I didn't intend for that to appear twice, thus I am a pleb

Posted by Drzymala at March 19, 2004 01:07 PM

Good idea though. Cheers.

Posted by Chris the Dolochimp at March 19, 2004 02:28 PM

I can't condone Matt's suggestion. If any of you lot distribute it, it's nothing to do with me.

Tanya's right - I've been a complete polaroid head. I was angry yesterday, and posted that rant without thinking. I knew I was in the wrong legally, and, as John says, it's not our divine right to have access to this stuff. It's very nice to access them, obviously, and we were only trying to do good. But GNP were within their rights to make us take it down, and they don't have to give a reason if they don't want to.

At least they gave us the option to take it down ourselves *before* they got the lawyers involved; I've heard some horror stories about other companies.

Posted by Ian Symes at March 19, 2004 02:41 PM

CUNT

Posted by John Hoare at March 19, 2004 04:53 PM

You're cunting COMPLIMENTING them now.

Do you like Red Dwarf? Do you not even want to question the reasons behind copyright laws (to prevent royalties being lost or plagiarism) and the attitude of GNP for demanding you remove these whilst knowing full well that you were not doing what copyright laws are there to prevent? Do you not want to question the faceless, bullying anonymity of it all? The fact that more people are losing out now they're down than when they were up? Acknowledge that it was clearly somebody enjoying a weak power-trip and throwing their weight around? No?

Are you just going to sit there then as ever, gushing like sodomy and cocksucking 'Grant Naylor Productions' to climax? Oh well, "at least they didn't send us turds through the post and murder our mates. We as Red Dwarf fans should be grateful, we don't have a right to anything and everybody at GNP is a living god, it's us that were in the wrong for trying to cheer people up a bit with some exciting coverage of a show we love."

For fuck's sake.

Posted by Darrell Jones at March 19, 2004 04:56 PM

I agree with yoru sentiments, Darrell, but for fucks sake leave off the venom will you! If you're pissed off then aim it at GNP in the form of an email or a letter, rather than laying into Ian. Jeeze.

Posted by Cappsy at March 19, 2004 05:10 PM

If it was "someone" having a power trip, they wouldn't have been entitled to sign an e-mail on behalf of the whole company. Think about it, man. This came from the top. I am disappointed, but without knowing GNP's reasons it's pointless to bandy abuse around.

I was guilty of this last night, but all I want to do now is forget about the ruddy thing.

Posted by Ian Symes at March 19, 2004 06:06 PM

Darrell, try and bring some sanity into your world view. Slagging John and Ian off for obeying the law, and showing the company that brought us RD in the first place some respect, is childish in the extreme. John and Ian deserve your praise for not entering into a pointless standoff over something no-one outside the company was ever meant to see anyway. Would YOU like your rejected work splurged over the internet?

Posted by Tanya Jones at March 19, 2004 06:43 PM

> Slagging John and Ian off for obeying the law

No, I'm slagging them off for their spirit-destroying, unquestioning acceptance of the situation, not for taking the script down, which is something that had to be done.

> showing the company that brought us RD in the first place some respect

Are you joking, or are you always this tedious? They acted unfairly, there is no excusing that no matter how many classic sitcoms they made. And anyway, 'Grant Naylor Productions' didn't exist when Red Dwarf was first produced.

> John and Ian deserve your praise for not entering into a pointless standoff

Why would it be pointless to actually dare to debate about the motives/actual benefits etc of GNP demanding the script removed? Blind acceptance of the so-called superiority of 'THEM' is a BAD THING.

> over something no-one outside the company was ever meant to see anyway.

This isn't true. It's not as though it's some sort of personal letter. It's a script that would have been made if it were not for budgetary restrictions. It's nigh-impossible that it'll ever be made commercially available.

> Would YOU like your rejected work splurged over the internet?

If I was John MacKay, I'd be really happy that my long-buried work was finally getting a bit of exposure, discussion and appreciation. But I don't suspect MacKay has had any word in the matter anyway.

It seems as I'm in a one-man minority in thinking that GNP's cease-and-desist letter was NOT A GOOD THING, so I'll leave you in peace to sycophantically gush over the Lord Gods the Almighty Perfect Grant Naylor Productions.

Posted by Darrell Jones at March 19, 2004 07:14 PM

> Why would it be pointless to actually dare to debate about the motives/actual benefits etc of GNP demanding the script removed?

They may want to release it commercially, or use the plot elsewhere. Or they might want to print off their own copies and run around naked reading them out loud. We don't know, so we can't say for definite that they're being unreasonable.

> It's not as though it's some sort of personal letter. It's a script that would have been made if it were not for budgetary restrictions.

Not in first draft form.

> If I was John MacKay, I'd be really happy that my long-buried work was finally getting a bit of exposure, discussion and appreciation.

That's you, though. McKay might not be proud of the script (in its current form), and he wouldn't have been pleased about people slagging off jokes he wrote eight years ago. As you say, it's doubtful McKay even knows about this, but nevertheless.

Posted by Ian Symes at March 19, 2004 07:22 PM

Besides, any complaints are irrelevant. If you own the copyright on a piece of work, it's up to *you* to decide what happens to it. You can give up your rights completely; you can allow free distribution as long as certain conditions are met (like this site) - or you can lock it up and never let anyone see it. That is freedom - freedom to decide what you want to happen to a piece of work you own. It's a fundamental right.

We chose the breach the copyright for various reasons - but once the owner complained, it's completely right to take it down. It would be morally wrong otherwise. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by John Hoare at March 19, 2004 08:38 PM

I don't necessarily have a problem with them wanting it to be taken down, just so long as they try to release it themselves. Book, DVD, it doesn't really matter. I'd love to see the script get released eventually.

Posted by Austin Ross at March 19, 2004 08:46 PM

>> Slagging John and Ian off for obeying the law

>No, I'm slagging them off for their spirit-destroying, unquestioning acceptance of the situation, not for taking the script down, which is something that had to be done.

What? Simply accepting that their actions have offended the copyright owner, and complying with their request? I would argue that it showed maturity. Stamping your feet and shouting "IT'S NOT FAIR!" is silly. They have said that they're disappointed; is this not enough for you?

>> showing the company that brought us RD in the first place some respect

>Are you joking, or are you always this tedious?

Maturity, there.

>They acted unfairly, there is no excusing that no matter how many classic sitcoms they made. And anyway, 'Grant Naylor Productions' didn't exist when Red Dwarf was first produced.

It's not unfair to assert your intellectual property rights over a script that was never intended for public consumption. And, yes, Grant Naylor didn't exist when RD was first produced, but they're responsible for arguably the best DVD releases of a comedy show so far. They've also been respectful enough to the fans to respond to requests for the DVDs, as much as is practicable. No other production company is doing this, and I think that at least deserves some respect.

>> John and Ian deserve your praise for not entering into a pointless standoff

>Why would it be pointless to actually dare to debate about the motives/actual benefits etc of GNP demanding the script removed? Blind acceptance of the so-called superiority of 'THEM' is a BAD THING.

Now you really are sounding like a sixth-former. Morally and legally, Ian and John haven't got a leg to stand on. We'd all like to see the script; GNP would rather we didn't. We need to respect that, otherwise we start to undermine our status as fans. The motives and benefits to GNP are pretty obvious, and all legitimate. They're a business, not a library.

>> over something no-one outside the company was ever meant to see anyway.

>This isn't true. It's not as though it's some sort of personal letter. It's a script that would have been made if it were not for budgetary restrictions. It's nigh-impossible that it'll ever be made commercially available.

As Ian has said, we simply don't know this, and it's not our decision.

>> Would YOU like your rejected work splurged over the internet?

>If I was John MacKay, I'd be really happy that my long-buried work was finally getting a bit of exposure, discussion and appreciation. But I don't suspect MacKay has had any word in the matter anyway.

I have no idea if he is involved or not. Neither do you. And when you start writing for a career, I'll believe your assertion above.

>It seems as I'm in a one-man minority in thinking that GNP's cease-and-desist letter was NOT A GOOD THING, so I'll leave you in peace to sycophantically gush over the Lord Gods the Almighty Perfect Grant Naylor Productions.

See? You're just acting like a spoilt toddler. Do you really have any appreciation of the wider picture here? I also never said that GNP's letter was a good thing, and neither did anyone else. Your hyperbole suggests that you're well aware that your argument is fairly flimsy, so perhaps it's best that you leave us in peace. Your evident lack of respect for John and Ian is nothing short of disgraceful, and it's not the first time you've shown it.

Posted by Tanya Jones at March 19, 2004 10:00 PM

Er, is it me or has the atmosphere got somewhat tense again?
Well, I've got to say that my opinion of (previously good ol') GNP has changed somewhat. Never imagined them as Killjoys (and no, I don't mean the silver haired ex-daytime TV chap).

"...Or they might want to print off their own copies and run around naked reading them out loud" Ah, that's better. Somehow that vision is oddly reassuring.

Are we still able to quote *at all* from it, or...?

Posted by McGruder at March 19, 2004 10:30 PM

>>I can't condone Matt's suggestion. If any of you lot distribute it, it's nothing to do with me.

Hey, doesn't mean people have to do that, surely GNP realises people can make their own minds up. I never saved it cos it was this: SHIT.

Posted by Drzymala at March 20, 2004 10:59 AM

Having thought about this, I can think of several reasons GNP would want to have this removed, not least being to protect the writer(S) themeselves..I see above other scripts were available by Paul Alexander and Robert Llewellyn for instance, If ones allowed to get through the chances are the others would follow. This of course begs the question, how did they become available in the first place and who actually owns the copyright(s).I have to say I really enjoyed reading it, as it seems did everyone else who had the chance. GNP were clearly within their rights to have it removed for whatever reasons and there could be legal implications for them also and the very fact the script(s) were not deemed good enough is reason enough, I think. I would also say John and Ian published it for all the right reasons and have accepted the fact they had to remove it, having a pop at them for not fighting the decision or questioning the reasons publically is not on....

Posted by Cpt-D at March 20, 2004 12:45 PM

As far as I'm concerned, if we lived in a world where people didn't have legal rights to control what happens to what they produce, it would be a sad situation indeed. Far sadder than a script being removed from the internet.

Frankly, the reason we put it up is because "it would be interesting". I'm still pleased we tried, to be honest - this kind of thing is on the net in other places, and certain companies don't seem to mind about it, or turn a blind eye. (Mind you, even then, a lot of that is either broadcast material, or the company isn't aware of it, or it's not hosted on a website so it's rather more difficult to get it taken down.) But if the company complains, "we're keeping it up because it's interesting" doesn't have a leg to stand on, either legally or morally.

If GNP had said "right, you'll be hearing from our solicitors" - that would have been heavy-handed, and people would have been right to complain (morally, at any rate - I'm sure legally they could have done that). But giving us a chance to remove material that belongs to them - I fail to see anything dodgy about that at all.

Besides, GNP *is* a small company, unlike some others - it probably feels it has to take its intellectual property rights seriously, and can't afford not to. A great shame - but very understandable.

Posted by John Hoare at March 20, 2004 12:50 PM

I'm kinda skimming the whole argument but, in general, this is the first time I've seen GNP do this on a single piece of the RD fandom.

In the past (and we're talking way back; 1995 time) they shut down a RD website for hosting the RD logo ["In Space No One Can Hear You Smeg" -the smell remains here http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6122/] and after a little bit of 'banter' between Smegweb & Ellard of 'Red Dwarf Online' (some website that can be found at www.reddwarf.co.uk or something, I don't keep track) indirect threats were passed about SW/me being sued for libel/defamation of character/slander whatever the term would've been.

GNP have been known to be OTT in the past and this could be another case of them doing so. Of course they are well within their rights but unless they are so fed up with the RD7/8 backlash which is so cleverly suppresed in any official form they can, that they need to resort to this? Well... let us all wait for the movie, eh?

Posted by Tafka (of Smegweb/Red Dwarf World) at March 21, 2004 11:34 PM

Let's not blow this out of proportion guys. It's only a script.

Posted by Chris the Dolochimp at March 22, 2004 10:32 AM

I heard that Andrew got people to remove their CRAP HQ DJ badges cos they used a copyrighted Starbug image on them. Now, THAT is pointless.

Posted by Cappsy at March 22, 2004 11:45 AM

Yeah, he said "wax crayon versions that look nothing like starbug only, please", and waltzed off. I remember that.

Posted by jesley carrion at March 22, 2004 12:13 PM

That is shocking.

Posted by Joey at March 23, 2004 12:26 PM

Electrifying!

Posted by Cappsy at March 23, 2004 08:06 PM

That was a bad joke, Cappsy. You better shape up.

Posted by Ian Symes at March 23, 2004 08:36 PM

Never fear - i've been hanging my head in shame ever since I pressed Post.

Posted by Cappsy at March 23, 2004 09:10 PM

The badges were not removed, because i made them, i did ask first though, as have things i have put on my site, which i had approved by GNP before they were put up on display, maybe this is the best action for the future?...

Posted by Drumjay at March 23, 2004 10:10 PM

I asked permission to use images from the site and Andrew refused it. In the end I decided to use the images anyway.

Posted by Cappsy at March 23, 2004 10:12 PM

Probably not the best idea to advertise that on a thread about GNP's copyright enforcement.

Posted by Ian Symes at March 23, 2004 10:17 PM

Well considering Andrew's already been on the site, he will already know what is and what is not on there.

Posted by Cappsy at March 24, 2004 10:08 AM

Not off by heart though, Caption.

Posted by Higgery von Schtep at March 24, 2004 04:41 PM

Hey Darrell, why are you so pissed off? I didn't even get to read the damn thing!

Posted by Nick at March 31, 2004 03:18 AM

It was a funny episode though ("Find Pussy"? Which one...)

Does that mean yo'll have to delete the "Only the Good" origonal ending from http://www.ganymede-titan.info/articles/hanging.php ?

Posted by MJN SEIFER at April 1, 2004 08:41 PM

Shush!

Posted by Ian Symes at April 1, 2004 08:46 PM

"origonal ending"

Don't you mean 'diagonal' ending?

Posted by jesley carrion at April 7, 2004 03:03 PM

I assume this is as good a thread as any to say this:

http://www.whitehole-reddwarf.co.uk

WAH!

Posted by Cappsy at May 6, 2004 09:29 PM

Post a comment


(Required)


(Required, but will not be made public)


(Optional)

Remember personal info?




<trackback>

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://admin.ofla.info/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/277

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Identity Within' from Ganymede and Titan.

Catch-me-up
Excerpt: I'm a bit behind on this blog malarkey, thanks to my ICT coursework, Decadent Darklings and SUPER G&T EXCLUSIVE 57. So, here is the news. On Monday morning, my IT teacher greeted me by screaming as I entered the room,...
Weblog: It's Ian 'Ian' Symes!
Tracked: March 16, 2004 08:20 PM

Navigation

Quick Links

Latest Comments

Search

Google

G&T Web

News Archive

Syndication