Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:49:45 -0500, Rich Holton
<richholton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm not interested in discussing the merits
of this case. As I said
before, I am not a copyright lawyer. Nor do I consider myself to have
anything beyond a basic acquaintance with copyright law.
Ah, right, so you just want to have a go at me for taking an action ha
conflicts with your view that we should include copied conflict unless
someone actually sends us a takedown notice or sues us. I can see why
this is an unproductive discussion.
"Having a go"? Or offering critique. I suppose it's based on your point
of view.
But it's not so much the action that I object to. It's the presumptions
that you're basing the action on.
I believe you wanted to get rid of this content, because you saw it as
"cruft", did not value it, and were looking for any excuse.
I believe your stated presumption of our guilt at any claim of copyright
violation is not good for Wikipedia. It hurts the project. For obvious
(or apparently obvious) copyright violations, of course we act. For
those that are much less obvious, it's much better for the project to
push back. Which is what I'm doing. You apparently don't like that.
But, if you want to drop this topic, I'll drop it. I believe I've made
my point. I'll even let you get the last word in, if you want.
-Rich