Talk:Rules of Acquisition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Rules of Acquisition[edit]

I have transcribed the official rules from memory-alpha.

71.184.128.18 (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rule 107[edit]

Win or lose, there's always Huyperian beetle snuff.

I've heard that said and seen it on various editions on here but in checking the sources deemed as "official", below, on this Talk page, I did not find it. It's such a nice rule though. I quote it often at work. In fact, I know many workplaces that appear to be run in strict compliance with the F.R.O.A.

I had a print-out up where I work and removal can be deemed a religious offence!Achim 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Armada: Possible Rule Resource[edit]

Hi, I deleted ST Armada 2 from my computer a while ago, but in game, the Ferengi state some of the rules of acquisition when stealing your ships. Its possible some of them were not mentioned in DS9. Has anyone checked that resource?

Stuff mentioned in the games probably shouldn't be listed as its not considered canon? Rmkf1982 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rule #67[edit]

Anyone know if #67 was a direct homage to Joseph Heller? Cburnett 00:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Episode linking/numbering[edit]

I think it would be nice if all the rules mentioned were linked from this page. So rule #X would have a link to each episode it appears in. Cburnett 18:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

For example:

95. Expand or die. (False Profits (VOY))

with the episode name followed by the three-letter abbreviation found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek. Cburnett 18:06, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've added in episode citations for any rules i could find. The rest seem to have been made up. Rmkf1982 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Canonicity[edit]

Why are all of these made-up rules here? I can see Ira Behr's book as a legitimate reference, but stuff from a site that has no affiliation w/ Paramount doesn't belong here.--StAkAr Karnak 17:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which rules are made-up? --Viriditas | Talk 11:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Compare the Rules from totse.com with the authentic ones listed (with sources cited) at Memory Alpha.
Totse says at the bottom of their page: "The author wishes to thank the folks who have posted rules on CompuServe and Genie and those who sent them in to us (including ... and others) for reporting and/or creating these words of Ferengi wisdom. Material copyrighted to the original authors, and its inclusion here is not meant to be a violation of any copyright laws. Additional rules will be added to the list from time to time. Suggestions for additional rules would be welcomed. Corrections and revisions would be welcome as well."--StAkAr Karnak 19:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I don't know who added those, here. My suggestion is to remove the rules that don't belong here, per your observations. --Viriditas | Talk 01:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yep - i've taken out all of the made up ones, or at least I'm about to - see discussion at the end. Anything without a source will be disappearing soon unless anyone objects. Rmkf1982 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we include the ones from Ira Behr in in a different section... and can someone verify if these are in fact correct from that book? http://www.hoogeveen.tv/quark/rules.htm Angelo 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I'm an idiot. I was under the mistaken impression that Ira Behr had made a complete set. Angelo 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
At least someone's looking at the article besides me anyway.... Rmkf1982 | Talk 01:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Messed up list?[edit]

# 16[edit]

"A deal is a deal" was mentioned as #16 not #15 on DS9 Melora #426 (Around 35min in). ---- unsigned comment

this has been fixed Rmkf1982 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

# 1[edit]

And the so-called #0 on this list is actually #1... This list is apparently messed up. Cburnett 23:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

not sure what this meant but its also fixed. don't know why i'm replying to 18 month old comments but there you go Rmkf1982 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Though #76 is correct. So much be up through that break there. Cburnett June 28, 2005 04:43 (UTC)
22 is correct as well. Must be somewhere between there and 1. Cburnett June 28, 2005 17:33 (UTC)

Canon[edit]

Almost halve of these rules are non-canon, and should not be here.

As much as I disagree with this anon user's "no non-canon material anywhere!" policy, I have to admit that in this case the rules in question were made up and not even officially licensed with Paramount. I have deleted them again. JIP | Talk 19:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
gone Rmkf1982 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum by Francis Cavanagh[edit]

I have tried to keep a list at home, at it's by no means complete or canon. So tell me if you want me to edit, what can be added, what not. I don't want to mess up the page too much...

  • "3a", "8b", etc.: Another version I have seen or heard.

I have not kept sources, sorry... I will come back and add the vidiot.com sources.

A lot of it is from or also found at the Michael J. Baker book and website.

Honestly, since this is a pretty well a closed list. No more Star Trek episodes will be made for a long time, especially not with Ferengi. We should just consider everything on the list, make a note of the so-called non-canon ones, and just enjoy the list.

A compromise suggestion would be to put these in a separate department, called "Non-Canon Rules". At least they should be posted somewhere, and enjoyed, because some are very cool!!!

cool as they may be they've no place in an article about material created within the fictional star trek universe, which is what the star trek project in wikipedia is about (correct me if i'm wrong), so I don't think anything other than canon i.e. onscreen or semi-canon (ira behr's books as he created the rules) should be there. Rmkf1982 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all good!

2 Once you have their money, never give it back.
3a* You can always buy back a lost reputation.
4 Sex and profits are the two things that never last long enough.
5 If you can't break a contract, bend it.
8b* Keep count of your change
10a* A dead customer can't buy as much as a live one.
11 Latinum isn't the only thing that shines.
12 Anything worth selling is worth selling twice.
13 Anything worth doing is worth doing for money (cf vidiot.com)
14 Anything tolen is pure profit
15 Acting stupid is often smart

- 16 was also given as 18.

17a* A bargain usually isn't
18a* Beware of relatives bearing gifts
19 Don't lie too soon after a promotion
19a Satisafaction is not guaranteed
20 When the customer is sweating, turn up the heat
23 Nothing is more important than your health. Except for money. (cf vidiot.com)
23a Money can always replace dignity
25 Fear makes a good business partner
27 There's nothing more dangerous than an honest businessman. (cf vidiot.com)
30 Talk is cheap, synthehol costs money
32 Be careful what you sell. It may do exactly what the customer expects.
40 She can touch your lobes but never your latinum.
41 Profit is its own reward.
41a Money talks, but having lots of it gets more attention.
43 Caressing an ear is often more forceful than pointing a weapon
44 Never confuse wisdom with luck.

- 47: "never trust"... is more correct

52 Never ask when you can take.
58 There is no substitute for success.
58a* Friendship is seldom cheap
60 Let's you and him fight.
60a Keep your lies consistent.
60b Never use credit when your word will do.
61 Never buy what can be stolen.
65 Win or lose, there's always Huyperian beetle snuff.
69 Ferengi are not responsible for the stupidity of other races. (I LOVE that one!)
70 Get the money first, then let the buyer worry about getting the merchandise.
77 Every once in a while help your ennemies. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (goes with 76)
79 Beware of the Vulcan greed for knowledge.
82 The flimsier the product, the higher the price.
85 Never let the competition know what you're thinking.
89 Ask not what your profits can do for you, ask what you can do for your profits.
97 Enough...is never enough.
99 Trust is the biggest liability of all.
101 Never do something you can make someone do for you.

- 102 was also given as 22.

103a* Sleep can interfere with negociations
104 Faith moves mountains...of inventory.
106 There is no honor in poverty.
109a* Buy, sell, or get out of the way
113 Always have sex with the boss.
121 Everything is for sale, including friendship.
123 Even a blind man can recognize the glow of latinum.
123a A friend is a friend until you sell him something. Then he is a customer.
141 Only fools pay retail.
144 There's nothing wrong with charity...as long as it winds up in your pocket.
147 Know your customer before he walks in
153 Sell the sizzle, not the steak. (LUV this one, a rule all politicians follow)
172 If you can't sell it, don't hesistate to steal it.
177 Know your enemies...but do business with them always.
181 Not even dishonesty can tarnish the shine of profit.
184 (or 191) A Ferengi waits to bid until his opponents have exhausted themselves.
192 Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure you can get away with it.
202 The justification of profit is profit.
208 Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer.
211a* You can't take a fish out of water
216 Never gamble with an empath.
217 You can't free a fish from water
218 Sometimes what you get free costs entirely too much.
218a* Sometimes what you get free costs entirely too much.
219 Possession is eleven-tenths of the law.
223 Beware the man who doesn't make time for oo-mox.
229 Latinum lasts longer than lust.
236 You can't buy fate.
242 More is good...all is better. (Luv that one!)
255 A wife is a luxury...a smart accountant a necessity.
261 A wealthy man can afford anything except a conscience.
284 Deep down, everyone's a Ferengi. (LUV that one too!)

Francis Cavanagh 06:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

#117 and #217 the same[edit]

I assume this is an error? They're both "You can't free a fish from water."

#18 and #74 the same too[edit]

I assume this is an error as wellDisparager 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright?[edit]

Canon or not, isn't this massive list a copyright violation?--Drat (Talk) 06:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The book is certainly copyrighted, but you can find the rules listed on so many websites by now that it would be quite a task for Paramount to go after anybody. Perhaps they would see it as more free advertising for themselves? I wish they could have a whole series just about the Ferengi world. They could have contests and prizes. Winners get a free case of Sluggo-Cola, the slimiest cola in the universe, with at least 40% algae - in every bottle! Achim 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Having a list of the rules taken from the book verbatim is a massive and blatant copyvio, sorry. A list of the rules actually said on screen would not be a copyvio, but since there was no indication which rules were which, I have been forced to remove the list in its entirety. Sorry about this. I have managed to find an acceptable list in the history. Morwen - Talk 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
i've added onscreen sources so copyright shouldn't be a problem now - see below Rmkf1982 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently around 1997 (maybe earlier), Viacom cracked down on copyright infringement on the Web and made people take down their lists of the rules. It's mentioned here: http://www.nitcentral.com/askchief/ac971121.htm ... If more info about this crackdown can be found, please add it to the article! —mjb 08:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been added[edit]

I have added episode sources for all rules that were stated and numbered on screen. I've also added book references for those rules mentioned in the "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" and "Legends of the Ferengi" books written by the creator of the rules, Ira Steven Behr.

This, incidentally, should alleviate copyright concerns as they are cited quotations from televised episodes.

The remaining rules as far as I can make out are all made up and totally unrelated to official or even semi-official (like the books) canon. Unless there are any objections, I intend to remove "rules" 5 8b 8c 10b 14 15 20 24 25 26 28 29 30 32 36 37 39 42 43 46 49 50 51 53 61 65 68 69 70 71 72 73 77 78 84 87 88 91 92 93 96 100 101 103b 105 107 115 116 119 126 127 135 142 143 146 152 153 161 169 171 172 188 191 200 204 212 216 218b 218c 219 231 253 256 260 262 265 267 270 273 277.

I also intend on removing most of the unofficial rules - the ones that are indented are ones i was able to track down, but the ones shown with numbers are as far as i can see, also made up.

We also need sources for the 5 stages - these I know (or at least I'm fairly certain) are legit but we need episode citations please.

I've also removed two links to sites where people had made up their own rules - these have no place in an article that is supposed to be documenting the fictional Star Trek universe in its entirety as they have no standing whatsoever.

If we can get this article right, i.e. no silly made up rules from people with home lists or their own websites etc., it would be a nice, simple little article and one that could be a lot of fun for people to read. Some of the rules (the real ones) are quite funny. Rmkf1982 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Are the rules numbered in the Star Trek universe? The Transhumanist (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY! Cburnett (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
But here's the thing... It's been awhile since I read the Ferengi "Rules of Acquisition" book by, "Quark, as told to Ira Steven Behr." But if I remember it right it's primarily just a listing of the then extant rules, with a few additional rules thrown in by Behr and a little commentary, right? So, if you're quoting the majority of that book in order to complete the list, there you have copyright violation, big time. (And, responding to the earlier discussion on that subject, whether Paramount is cracking down on copyvios or not is irrelevant to whether or not copyright violations should exist.)
I'm not saying that this *is* a copyvio, mind you, but *if* it is, then it is not appropriate. And if it is approrpriate, then the list is missing many of the other book-laid rules. Other Rules of Acquisition were added in books by Keith R.A. DeCandido, I think Christopher Bennett, and others. LaughingVulcan 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kilngons in the Rules of Acquisition?[edit]

Why would the Klingons be mentioned in the Rules of Acquisition? In the history section of the article it states "In about the 9th Millennium B.C. Gint started writing the Rules of Acquisition laying the basis for Ferengi society." How would the Ferengi know about the Klingons to write rules about them so long ago if neither of them had warp drive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specie8470 (talkcontribs) 06:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The first rule was made then, but presumably the rules have been added to over time by later Ferengi leaders. 94.72.203.50 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Huge copyright violation[edit]

The list of Rules is a massive copyright violation. Both in degrees from individual DS9 episodes, but especially Behr's book. This fails any reasonable interpretation of fair use. This article is effectively a replacement for Behr's book, and therefore, the list needs to go. A few rules for flavor is fine, but the list is just too much. --Phirazo (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Each episode is individually copyrighted which means your argument is entirely moot. Cburnett (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and this was pointed out in the AfD when you brought it up there as well. Banjeboi 07:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You freely admit the episodes are copyrighted. How is this not a copyright violation? Even if the book didn't exist, this is like a gallery of fair use images, in the aggregate it violates copyright. Besides, a book has been published that has these rules, many are quoted directly from the book. The list has to go. --Phirazo (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You obviously have no intention on holding a reasonable discussion because You Are Right (TM) so I won't waste anymore time on you. Excellent work. Cburnett (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ad hominem attacks already? That was fast. --Phirazo (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Phirazo please desist as you should be aware by now that mass deleting of "everything" is indeed disputed and will only inflame discussion. I personally haven't memorized all the rules so could say which ones are only in the book but even so those could be included if we source those to the book. During the AfD I found one website that actually had audio clips of the rules (on their list) from the original episodes so obviously the entire list wasn't created solely by the author of the book. If there are ones that are disputed then simply tag those as needing sourcing. If the book has completely made up ones that are now considered a part of the rules of engagement we can simply state that. If the book has the most comprehensive list but has added some with no basis in the series that we can state that or possibly omit them. In either case we work with other people and you're deleting content that is sourced and no one disputes is from the original series. As such those are certainly not copyvio issues. Banjeboi 05:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
1.) Behr wrote a great many of the Rules of Acquisition during his time as a producer for Deep Space Nine. Many of the rules quoted are indeed exculsive to the book. 2.) The choice of quotes is itself copyrightable, and this article violates that too. 3.) It doesn't take much to violate copyright. For example, 41 quotes in a Seinfeld trivia book were found to not be fair use. (See here, and the wiki article here) 3.) This article undoubtedly has an adverse effect on the marketability of Behr’s book. It has to go. --Phirazo (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite interesting but there is a difference between fair use and copyright infringement we are welcome to use the same numbers and quotes and thereby build our own list independent of Behr. If we must we could in some way designate which ones he added but that only accounts for those - not the entire list. And no, the community has said the article does not have to go. Banjeboi 13:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The topic of the article is notable, but the close said nothing about the list itself. What about the marketability of Behr's book, or Paramont's right to create derivative works of Deep Space 9? Why buy Behr's book if the Wikipedia article copies it word for word? --Phirazo (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a difference. Copyright violation occurs when published material is copied without due license. Fair use is a defense, after a violation has occurred, that the violation is not actionable for various specified reasons. My point, which NOBODY addressed in either the AfD or above, is that publishing all of the rules as was in Ira Steven Behr's book, "The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition," as was asserted in the article itself, passes well beyond fair use defense to infringement.
Have you READ that book? I have, long ago. Maybe, if you have, you can estimate how much of that book ARE those rules which were all quoted directly here according to the article? And just how would you defend that quoting ALL of them, in context of the whole work, is anything but a MASSIVE quotation of the whole of that book? How would you defend that, if the text of all of them are printed here does anything but cause the inability of sales of Mr. Behr's legally published book? And then, how would you possibly assert fair use in defense of the article? And these are genuine questions, not attempts to only be hyperbolic or bombastic.
Sorry to dogpile on the discussion, but IMVHO, Phirazo is more than right to be bold and delete all the individual rules on copyvio grounds. Maybe the next step, should you continue to disagree with Phirazo is continue on the path of dispute resolution? Just a thought, as I've had my say and solicited the opinions of some of the authors of the Rules themselves (though not directly Mr. Behr, and of these are just my own personal opinions.) LaughingVulcan 00:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You can see parts of it on Amazon, including the copyright page. [1]. --Phirazo (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Ive reinstated the canon rules which are all attributable to the opriginal episodes. Quoting a line spoken during an episode would hopefully be agreed be all as hardly impacting sales of Behr's book, which seems to be a concern. Once we have better information on copyright issues the other material can be addressed more thoughtfully. Also ISBN numbers belong in footnotes or an infobox if an article is about a specific publication. Banjeboi 02:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to reach an agreement here. I'll file an RFC in the next day or so. --Phirazo (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You might not need to, I've asked for clarification from those who specialize in these issues and I'm more than happy to defer to their take on it. Once we have clarification on whether the canon list itself is acceptable under current policies we should post something at the top of this page as well as this is likely to be a recurring issue. Banjeboi 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
FTR, I'd agree that removing the Behr-specific rules (the ones published in his book and not the episodes,) does allieviate the copyvio concerns somewhat. However, I'd ask you to consider the following: Behr added x number of rules. There are y number of rules from canon that were also published in that book. Behr's book, essentially, is a published compilation of x+y Rules of Acquisition. So now, even if the individual cites are all from the canon episodes, you are still publishing y/(x+y) percent of Behr's legally licensed book. (Even if you have cited them directly, from the canon TV episodes.) Therefore I still think there may be an issue of how much of a significant percentage of Behr's book is represented by quoting those rules verbatim - even if they came from different individual sources. It may be a degree of significance to how much of Behr's book is infringed. But I'll also readily agree that I could be wrong about that. I would like to see the link or sourcing on any discussion or decision made on this, though. And thank you for your continuing to work with these concerns. LaughingVulcan 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
My understanding on this is that we put it into context of mitigating sales of the book by a number of standards. By including only the canon that was broadcast I do think we've addressed that. However we should also consider that the full list has been reproduced hundreds of times on other websites but wikipedia has tighter standards than simply the legal fair use ones. As I've stated, I'm willing to wait for a follow-up opinion from those more experienced in this area to see if the present list is fine or if not what may work. Banjeboi 00:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Behr's book is copyrighted by Paramount (the copyright page is on Amazon). It doesn't really matter where the rules come from, since it is all copyrighted by Paramount. It seems you are trying to get around WP:NFCC#2 on a technicality. As for the "I found it on other websites" argument, well, I could find plenty of copyright infringement on the Internet. That doesn't make infringement OK. You can try and use Memory Alpha's inclusion of the list, but that site has much laxer standards on non-free material (i.e. none). Besides, I have yet to see an explanation of why a complete list "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (WP:NFCC#8). I think our readers would understand the rules just as well with a description, not a complete listing, per WP:NFCC#1. Why can't the article contain a description of the rules, so we know we are erring to the side of caution? --Phirazo (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

As I suggested in the AfD, I believe the title is too ambiguous by itself and should be clarified per WP:NAME#Be precise when necessary. The following are a few possible titles I came up with that might be more appropriate than the current one:

Needless to say, other suggestions and discussion are welcome (although the way I see the article now, a merge with Ferengi still seems to be a good idea). -- Comandante {Talk} 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Rules of Acquisition is fine as there are no other articles except the episode one which is already subtitled. If it just has to move then maybe Ferengi Rules of Acquisition is the least problematic. And AfD was to keep so the article is here for now. Banjeboi 05:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that "Rules of Acquisition" is already a one-of-a-kind thing (otherwise it would have been renamed long before), but I'm arguing on behalf of the average person, or Star-Trek-layman if you will. Hypothetically, if someone came upon this article but was unfamiliar with the topic, what would they first think that it is? I know that I believed the article to be about a business practice of some sort, a real-world topic. I watch Star Trek from time to time, but I couldn't pretend to know all the alien races, ships, or stars in the shows. What I'm saying is, "Rules of Acquisition" by itself is recongnizable if you're a fan of the series or someone who may have watched a few episodes, but to someone from the outside, the phrase could be anything. Clarifying the title, even if it may seem redundant or unnecessary, would do no harm and actually benefit the laymen. If someone sees "Rules of Acquisition," they could assume from the title that the article is about rules of acquiring something, but the context can't be placed; "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" can help the reader realize that they may not know the topic after all. The reader might then consider looking up Ferengi in order to better comprehend what the rules are and how they are referenced by the Ferengi, and maybe that reader will eventually make his way to other concepts of the Star Trek universe. While the same could happen of the reader just reads the article, you wind up with Expectation vs. Reality, and rather than someone realizing right away that they don't know the material, you introduce confusion which is contrary to the encyclopedic ideal. In short, the title should be as specific as possible for easy reference for everyone.
Anyway, I think that covers it, hopefully I was clear enough (I tend to ramble a bit). -- Comandante {Talk} 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems unneeded, that clarity is cleared up, or at least should be cleared up in the first sentence. Banjeboi 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I just over-complicate my over-simplifications. Well, if you're against the change, at least I can say I followed through with my idea. -- Comandante {Talk} 20:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments:Copyrights[edit]

The issue here is a list of the "Rules of Acquisition" which are often quoted by Ferengi characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation, and especially Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, where several of the regular characters are Ferengi. These rules are an invention of the writers of Star Trek, and are original to it. The rules are usually only one or two rules given in a particular episode, and this list collects them all into one place. The list is given in this article as essentially a list of verbatim quotes from the TV show. Paramount, the owner of Star Trek's intellectual property, has licensed it's rights to create derivative works, and Ira Stephen Behr, the executive producer for Deep Space Nine, has produced a book that mostly consists of the Rules, one to a page. I contend that a list of Rules of Acquisition violates fair use, even if completely cited from the episodes themselves, and especially if the list includes rules original to licensed books. I think the list fails most of the tests of fair use: the use isn't transformative, the work copied from is fictional, the amount taken is substantial, and this hurts the market for licensed derivative works (see [2]). This article needs to be trimmed to the lead with a passage describing the rules. Specific to Wikipedia policy, the list violates Non-free content criteria 2, Respect for commercial opportunities. This article hurts the market for Behr’s book. Why buy the book when you can read the same content on Wikipedia for free? It also violates criteria 8, Significance. A full list of the rules is unnecessary for a reader to understand what the Rules mean to Star Trek and the real world. A passage describing the Rules is sufficient to explain them. --Phirazo (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no legal expert, especially not in American copyright law, but I believe that the rules are in the public domain. I've seen them on T-shirts, I've seen them on posters, fan sites, fan books, and so on. If there are rules that are only mentioned in Behr's book and not on the within the series I can see an argument for removing them, but even then if we are crediting them to him, I can't see the problem under fair use. Regarding the significance, I agree that from a Star Trek perspective, these are probably fan-cruft. However, I would say that they are notable in their own right as a concept which could be seen as an extreme extention of capatalism --WORM | MЯOW 08:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It is HIGHLY unlikely that they are in the public domain (for a company to release their creations into the public domain is extremely rare. They are trying to make money). The rules' appearance on T-shirts and other paraphenelia isn't even remotely evidence. Those vendors could have violated copyright, or may have paid licensing fees.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 13:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone from WP Legal should contact Paramount and ask for their position. j.engelh (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response: As the article is now, I have no problem. Only a few of the rules are mentioned here for commentary and example purposes, which certainly falls under fair use. But more than about five is unnecessary. If all the known rules were listed, this would not only be a violation of fair-use, but a violation of Wikipedia consensus. Lists that assembled outside of Wikipedia (People magazine's Top 50 Bachelor's of 2008, or Rolling Stone's list of the 500 greatest guitarists) are routinely deleted in AfD because they violate copyright. Someone else made that list, Wikipedia can't just rip it and publish it unless the party that holds the copyright of the list has released it into the GFDL or some other license (eg. public domain). Lists in Wikipedia (like all other topics) have to be ORIGINAL. Otherwise, at most, a small portion may be used under fair use.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 13:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response: I agree with the above. Ty 03:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stages of Acquisition[edit]

The comment about grief should be removed: "The five Stages of Acquisition may be based on the five stages of grief."; should be removed. There is no reference, no evidence, and it is not pertinent to the Stages of Acquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.156.144 (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Bold I have gone ahead and done so. While it seems reasonable it is also potentially specious. 76.89.93.214 (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues[edit]

I would say that copyright claims would need to name a work being infringed. These are tiny snippets of larger artistic works that well fall into fair use so I restored the list after the improper (IMO) copyright deletion. Assembled together as a list, I don't think that there's a valid copyright that would properly cover the page as it is currently written. I hope that we don't get into some sort of revert war on this one and we can work out any copyright issues in talk. TMLutas (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The question of what falls into fair use is a delicate one - see, for instance, [3] - and it is a line that Wikipedia deliberately does not test (see WP:NFC). This article makes substantial use of copyrighted content without adding much transformative value. This issue has been discussed above several times, and I note that in 2008 the few editors who participated agreed that listing more than about 5 of the rules was problematic. Several have expressed concerns about the use of copyrighted content in this article in the AFD as well.
The section has been templated and blanked per policy pending resolution of the copyright issue. It is now listed at the copyright problems board. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)