[WikiEN-l] Uploading images should be a privilige, not a right

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthony wrote:

>On 7/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 7/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>1) It is ethically questionable. When we distribute someone's
>>>>commercial work tagged as free content, we risk seriously letting the
>>>>genie out of the bottle. It would do us no good to gain a napster-like
>>>>reputation.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>What makes it unethical?  Is it any more ethical to deprive people of
>>>due process if they can make a reasonable legal case.  This is not a
>>>matter of agreeing to every stupid argument that comes along.  This has
>>>nothing to do with genies or Napster.
>>>      
>>>
>>There is nothing unethical about removing content from our site which
>>is in clear violation. Submitters of content are not entitled to due
>>process. Wikipedia is not a courtroom.
>>
>>It is, however, clearly unethical to distribute the copyrighted
>>content of others without their authorization.
>>    
>>
>Even if you're not doing so intentionally?  Even if you're just
>providing a place for people to communicate, and you tell them not to
>upload copyrighted content, and you remove any copyrighted content
>that you find?  In order to be ethical you have to lock down the
>system so that copyright violations are impossible?  I don't think I
>can agree with that.  In fact, I know I can't agree with that.
>
If something is impossible it doesn't matter whether anybody agrees with 
it. ;-)
A lock down that would prevent all copyvios is an impossibility unless 
it locks down all editing; if that happens we don't have much of a 
project.  Copyright rules in an international site are so complex that 
you can't expect mechanization to take over from human decision making.  
The thing that's wrong with Gregory's position is his absolute certainty 
that a particular contribution is an infringement. This leves little 
room for the possibility that his determination may be in error.

>>>>In short, while being a nice legal fall-back, the safe harbor terms
>>>>are not anything we want to rely on in terms of our copyright policy.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>It's not merely a fall back, but a first step in arriving at a formal
>>>decision.  When a properly composed notice is issued we must remove the
>>>offending material.
>>>      
>>>
>>It seems to me that you've forgotten that one of the two primary goals
>>of Wikipedia is to provide Free Content.  We have failed at that goal
>>when our site contains a huge number of copyright violations waiting
>>for their DMCA notice to come in...
>>
>>So while it is necessary that we remove content once properly noticed,
>>it is not sufficient for us to wait for that to happen.
>>    
>>
>It's unclear to me what Ray Saintonge is suggesting, so I won't speak
>for him.  But I would like to clarify that I personally do not believe
>that Wikipedia should only take down content when a DMCA notice comes
>in.  In fact, I think the standards for inclusion should be much
>*more* restrictive than just what is allowed by law.
>
Nowhere have I said that every alleged infringement should be preserved 
until there is a DMCA notice.  I am saying that all such notices should 
be made public, and I am saying that those with a reasonable case for 
inclusion should have the opportunity of receiving one.  In practical 
terms most people who add copyvio material haven't got a clue about 
copyright law, and would quickly fail the minimum standards for making a 
case.  That material would soon be gone anyway.  Assuming good faith may 
let the process take a little longer, but would change very few outcomes.

>My response was to someone who was suggesting that locking down the
>site so that people can't even upload free content without having
>gained the privilege is necessary to "keep WP out of legal peril".  If
>locking down the site helps Wikipedia create the best free
>encyclopedia, then I'm all for it.  I haven't been convinced that it
>would.  And arguments that not locking down the site would put WP into
>legal peril are certainly not going to convince me otherwise.
>
Sometimes it seems that those who would impose such drastic measures for 
the sake of "keeping WP out of legal peril" know as little about 
copyright law as their opposite numbers who are regularly uploading the 
material.  They only differ in being on opposite sides of the issue.

Ec