[WikiEN-l] Our content gets *everywhere*

[Anthony]

On 8/20/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> >>> I have always maintained that Wikipedia editors should be implicitly
> >>> appointing WMF as their non-exclusive agent whenever they edit.
> >>>
> > On 8/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That's as may be, but the fact of the matter is that the WMF is *not*
> >> a non-exclusive agent. In fact, the WMF didn't even exist when many of
> >> the edits were made. It is far too late to change the way copyright of
> >> Wikipedia content works. It is released under the GDFL and only the
> >> GDFL and will only ever be released under the GDFL. Accept it.
> >>
> > This was brought up a few years ago and I was in the group who opposed
> > giving the WMF enforcement power over violations of our copyright(s).
> > While I may technically release my writing under the GFDL I am
> > actually *much* more lenient on what rights I care to enforce.
> >
> > Even if it weren't too late, it'd still be a bad idea.
> Why do you think it's such a bad idea?

Because while I may technically release my writing under the GFDL I am
actually *much* more lenient on what rights I care to enforce.

For instance, I don't care all that much if I'm attributed.  And I
certainly don't care at all if Wikipedia is attributed.  I'm not going
to sue over merely an issue of attribution (though I might decide to
bring up attribution issues in the case of someone I'm going to sue
anyway).

Mostly though, I don't have any plans or desire to sue anyone.  Those
who want to give the foundation the right to sue apparently do.

> I don't expect that the WMF
> would go mad starting lawsuits all over the place.  Most likely it could
> happen when there has been a serious corruption of the underlying
> copyleft principles by some person in the distant future.

If it happens in the distant future I care even less.

> It's a matter
> of looking ahead.  Individuals just do not have the clout to deal with
> serious breaches of copyright, and when their efforts are masked by a
> long series of subsequent edits the abusers can get around that by
> challenging the individual's right to litigate.  An infringement suit
> still needs to be preceded by a registration of one's claims.  How do
> you propose that such a registration be formulated?  Can one individual
> act on behalf of all the other individuals in making such a
> registration.

That's a huge legal question which is pretty much anyone's guess until
it gets litigated.  Personally I feel the strongest argument would be
that Wikipedia articles are joint works of authorship, in which case
any individual can register the entire work.  But that certainly isn't
an open and shut issue.

Anthony