CW
It's happened many times. The entire 1996 series of 'Big Break' was copyrighted MCMLXCVI - which I think actually adds up to 2046 (not to sure - it's not a standard date to use).
Also, a few years back when C5 'shortened' (as they so understatedly put it) the credits to 'Sunset Beach', the copyright date on the same set of 1998 credits they used over and over again (they were on 1999 episodes by this time) was (very obviously) patched over to make it say 1999. Unfortunately, there was a screw up and it actually read MMCMXCIX - 2999! It was never corrected.
Wasn't there also a bit of a kerfuffle in 1990 when most BBC programmes came with the generally accepted MCMXC date for 1990, but a handful came with MCMLXXXX, and there was a debate on Points of View as to whether either was acceptable or not. I remember it being featured on the lookback at the Anne Robinson era when she left.
cwathen
Founding member
Quote:
Last night's "The Kumars At Number 42" carried a date of MIII, which is 1000 years ago! So I guess it must be out of copyright by now...
It's happened many times. The entire 1996 series of 'Big Break' was copyrighted MCMLXCVI - which I think actually adds up to 2046 (not to sure - it's not a standard date to use).
Also, a few years back when C5 'shortened' (as they so understatedly put it) the credits to 'Sunset Beach', the copyright date on the same set of 1998 credits they used over and over again (they were on 1999 episodes by this time) was (very obviously) patched over to make it say 1999. Unfortunately, there was a screw up and it actually read MMCMXCIX - 2999! It was never corrected.
Wasn't there also a bit of a kerfuffle in 1990 when most BBC programmes came with the generally accepted MCMXC date for 1990, but a handful came with MCMLXXXX, and there was a debate on Points of View as to whether either was acceptable or not. I remember it being featured on the lookback at the Anne Robinson era when she left.
GS
I'm sure that copyright referred only to the jokes they were pitching.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Jenny posted:
Last night's "The Kumars At Number 42" carried a date of MIII, which is 1000 years ago! So I guess it must be out of copyright by now...
I'm sure that copyright referred only to the jokes they were pitching.
:-(
I'm banned from having signature images (or using images at all) because my signature was 4 pixels too high.
So remove your sig! 
I agree with Ben - impossible!
A former member
cwathen posted:
Quote:
cwathen - you've got a problem with your sig! I see [img]address[/img]
I'm banned from having signature images (or using images at all) because my signature was 4 pixels too high.
I agree with Ben - impossible!
:-(
MCMXC was correct as roman numerals always take the shortest form, however I never understood why it wasn't MXM (or XMM), i.e. 10 less than a century
The only time 4 of anything is used in a row, I think, is IIII for 4 on clocks but that is for asthetic reasons
There was much discussion about 1999 as well, logic says it should be MIM (or IMM), but it wasn't
A former member
cwathen posted:
Wasn't there also a bit of a kerfuffle in 1990 when most BBC programmes came with the generally accepted MCMXC date for 1990, but a handful came with MCMLXXXX, and there was a debate on Points of View as to whether either was acceptable or not. I remember it being featured on the lookback at the Anne Robinson era when she left.
MCMXC was correct as roman numerals always take the shortest form, however I never understood why it wasn't MXM (or XMM), i.e. 10 less than a century
The only time 4 of anything is used in a row, I think, is IIII for 4 on clocks but that is for asthetic reasons
There was much discussion about 1999 as well, logic says it should be MIM (or IMM), but it wasn't
CW
I do remember one programme (can't for the life of me think what) that used MIM for 1999.
Incidentally, can someone explain to me quite how roman numerals work? In that sometimes a number is added on to the preceeding number and sometimes it's subtracted to the next number. I know that, for instance, CM means 100 from 1000 so 900, and that LX means 50 plus 10 so 60, but I only know that because I know it, what rules actually cause that to happen?
It does become (Invalid Signature Image) but when you then change it back you'll find that IMG tags are no longer recognised - note how it's not even trying to link to that URL. What you aren't told however is that this seems to be a global setting - you can't use images *at all* after your signature is banned.
Supposedly if your sig image is too big you are contacted and given a certain amount of time to do something about it, and then if you go over the size limits again you are permanently banned from signature images. Once in a while an automatic script is banned that changes all signature images that are too big to (Invalid Signature Image).
What actually happened is that it was removed once through that automatic script. I contacted Asa and suggested that maybe it could be coded in a way which allowed for some discretion (although I realise that an automatic script is just going to work on the lines of cold hard logic). I then put my sig back up intending to resize it but never did, the script was run again and I'm now banned.
If I ask very nicely I may well be allowed to have the images back again, but I haven't yet.
cwathen
Founding member
Quote:
There was much discussion about 1999 as well, logic says it should be MIM, but apparently there's some obsure rule that says it isn't.
I do remember one programme (can't for the life of me think what) that used MIM for 1999.
Incidentally, can someone explain to me quite how roman numerals work? In that sometimes a number is added on to the preceeding number and sometimes it's subtracted to the next number. I know that, for instance, CM means 100 from 1000 so 900, and that LX means 50 plus 10 so 60, but I only know that because I know it, what rules actually cause that to happen?
Quote:
I didn't think you could be banned from having one, but invalid sigs become (Invalid Signature Image) - if you add http:// to your location it should display, should it not? (as long as it is the right size).
It does become (Invalid Signature Image) but when you then change it back you'll find that IMG tags are no longer recognised - note how it's not even trying to link to that URL. What you aren't told however is that this seems to be a global setting - you can't use images *at all* after your signature is banned.
Supposedly if your sig image is too big you are contacted and given a certain amount of time to do something about it, and then if you go over the size limits again you are permanently banned from signature images. Once in a while an automatic script is banned that changes all signature images that are too big to (Invalid Signature Image).
What actually happened is that it was removed once through that automatic script. I contacted Asa and suggested that maybe it could be coded in a way which allowed for some discretion (although I realise that an automatic script is just going to work on the lines of cold hard logic). I then put my sig back up intending to resize it but never did, the script was run again and I'm now banned.
If I ask very nicely I may well be allowed to have the images back again, but I haven't yet.