Entertainment desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 24

Play two stones in the game of go = automatically lose

I don't know much about the game of go, but I think I found something odd in a scene of Hikaru no Go.

In the first match between Tsutsui and Mitani, (Volume 30, Chapter 20) Tsutsui automatically loses because he played two stones in his turn. If this way of losing is legitimate in real life, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere at Rules of Go? (sorry if it's already mentioned, I may have missed it) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need a specific rule - the basic principle in any game is that if you cheat, you are disqualified. Wymspen (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But not usually if you just make a mistake; then typically you either just make it right (if it can be done without detracting from the game) or else pay a specified penalty. For example, see Laws of Duplicate Bridge#Play out of turn. I am unfamiliar with both Go and Hikari no Go, so I don't know how Tsustui came to do what he did. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tsutsui did not want to cheat. He was manipulated by Mitani to place two stones in one turn by mistake. The scene played out like this:

Tsutsui plays the first stone. He believes he knows exactly where Mitani will play and how to respond.
Mitani moves his hand like he is placing a stone in the predictable place, but he isn't. He just taps the side of the go board with the stone to make the normal clicking sound associated with playing the stone.
Tsutsui plays the second stone.
Mitani says: You lost. You played two stones in your turn. I just tapped the side of the board with the stone, I didn't play my stone.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the Japanese Rules of Go as given here, rule 14 does say that a rule violation loses the game, and there are no rules about behavior (whereas in bridge there are). However, the preamble says that "These rules must be applied in a spirit of good sense and mutual trust between the players." From where I sit it looks as though Mitani cheated by tricking Tsutsui, so he violated the spirit of the game and could be adjudged to have lost before Tsutsui played the extra stone. But as I said, I am unfamiliar with the game, and I can't say how a real-life Go arbiter would actually decide it. (I do note that if Tsustui was paying more attention to the game he would have noticed that no stone had been played.) --76.71.5.114 (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper music

The woefully inadequate Bumper music article doesn't answer the following question. Is the use of bumper music considered "fair use" or is it necessary to pay royalties? This is in reference to (for example) a few seconds of copyrighted music used at the end of a news segment leading into a commercial break, typically relating to the topic. —Thx in advance, 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the "Fair Use" but with a slight restriction policy. Music can be used on radio for a certain amount of time referenced within stories or even as "bumper music" / tag lead ins or outs. They have a strict limitation for play time that excuses them from copyright. The same goes for television (i.e. The Today Show playing a track from a certain artist / band, etc); but I do believe it is something like 23 seconds before they have to pay a royalty for use of the song. The radio may be the same, but time is so short anyway, I would imagine they never reach that restriction anyway. Hope this helps. Maineartists (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed! What you just said is very contrary to the normal definition of fair use.

I don't see that there's any fair-use justification for a bumper. ApLundell (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with ApLundell here. See also [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] which all mention bumper music licencing#Definitions, as incidentally does our article which I just linked to. Admitedly it's not always clear what they mean by bumper music, some sources like [7] make a distinction between a stinger and a bumper, with the later normally being over 30 seconds also e.g. [8] but others use different definitions [9]. Finally if you do a search you'll find lots of sources offering royalty free bumper or stinger music. (Note that this doesn't mean that what percentage of the work you're used never comes into play, as our article mentions it can but only when considering other factors, there's no hard limit where something is always fair use. For very very short like 1 second uses you may also get into complications like whether what you're using is actually copyrightable but again it's not a simple thing. There's a reason why copyright attorneys can earn lots of money. Note also I used percentage of the work, our article uses amount. Regardless both of the illustrate another reason why a hard time limit is questionable, they imply you can't copyright something under 23 seconds and if you use nearly all over something 25 seconds you're always going to be treated the same as if you use a tiny proportion of a 12 hour continuous recording.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]