On 5/3/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: Fred, why do you presume it could? In theory, maybe, but we're certainly not the richest target (Youtube/Google, anyone?), we're far from doing the least to stop it being posted gratuitously (Youtube again, not to mention Slashdot and hundreds of thousands of others -deliberately- publishing it), we're not revealing anything (it's already out there, it can no longer, in any reasonable way, be considered a trade secret), we're publishing it for educational purposes (rather than just for grins or in an undisguised flip-em-the-finger attempt), and we're a PR nightmare (You think suing dead grandmas and soldiers about to leave for Iraq for having some mp3's got some bad press? You ain't seen nothing yet...). Overall, even if they decided to go after -someone- (which would be petty and vindictive at this point anyway, and hopefully one could expect a judge to recognize that), we're pretty far down the list of "tempting targets". (We'd also make a pretty sympathetic defendant, and they don't like sympathetic defendants, especially when the case in question is something of a "test case"). Now, is that to say it -couldn't- happen? Of course not. But there might be a time to say "Well, look, this particular numeral does have an educational and cultural value. We have an interest in publishing it, because we intend to create an educational resource. If someone wants to fight over this, that just might be a fight worth having." It's not -impossible- that the AP would come after us for use of a fair-use photo either, but in that case, we've made a conscious decision that if a truly iconic photo or image cannot have an article on it without the image itself, we'll use it, and see if anyone challenges it. So why not do the same with the number? Put it into the relevant articles (only the -very- relevant ones, of course, not anywhere some spammer might conceivably be able to wedge it), if we get a C&D, take it down temporarily and talk to the EFF/ACLU. There's something wrong, Fred, when an educational resource is scared to publish (or even mention in discussion besides oblique references to "that key" or "the number") a -numeral-. (And despite the fancy hex coding, I could easily convert that into decimal, and it would just look like any other number in the world. It really is just a number.) Now, you'll tell me that's not necessarily Wikipedia's battle, and I'll tell you you're right. But must we be pushed around so easily (and without anyone even having to do any pushing, just the hint they might!), when there is a good case for use of this numeral in some articles? We already have a DeCSS image on that article, no one's come after us yet. -- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.