[WikiEN-l] HD DVD key mess - OFFICE/Foundation?

[Todd Allen]

You can't honestly be serious, Doc. We don't write an article about
"that company that starts with an M and made the popular operating
system that starts with a W", we write about Microsoft and Windows.
When we write about The Pirate Bay, we don't say "Well, there's this
one website out there that distributes pirated software", we identify
and name them, despite the highly-questionable legality of what
they're doing. When we write about things, we identify and mention
them. Now, of course, as always, we must require reliable sourcing. If
no reliable sources publish the actual string, we can't verify it, so
we can't publish it. But if they do, we mirror that, by identifying
and naming it. Even -if- some people are acting badly in trying to
force the issue, that's the way we do it with anything, and that's the
way we should do it here.

On 5/2/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Todd Allen wrote:
> > Well, my personal feelings on copyright, especially as involves
> > personal not-for-profit copying, involve something to the effect of
> > "Long live DVD Jon, Linus Torvalds, and Richard Stallman, and limit
> > the damn term to 5 years, no one else profits from their work for life
> > plus 70!" Just to make sure that's out in the open.
> >
> > That being said. Wikipedia has a nice DMCA compliance notice on the
> > page. -If-, and only if, Wikipedia gets a DMCA notice regarding that
> > string, we could temporarily take it down (in a legitimate OFFICE
> > action), while the community is notified what's going on and asked
> > what to do. If so, they post it on Chilling Effects, like everyone
> > else does, and we talk about the issue. And we watch whoever sent it
> > get crucified all over the place. And indeed, once that article hits
> > Slashdot and Digg and X million blogs, one might just find that a lot
> > of "anonymous people" are willing to throw in a few bucks for legal
> > expenses, on fighting that one.
> >
> > But in the meantime, if we can reliably source it (and if we can't
> > today, we can tomorrow!), publish the damn string. It's a -number-.
> > Yes, we should generally go along with the legal system. But not those
> > who are hyperventilating that there is any -realistic- possibility
> > that a number, a string of digits, can be forbidden by law.
> >
> > Seraphimblade
> >
>
> Sorry, I thought we were an encyclopedia, not a free-speech campaign group?
>
> Exactly how does publishing the string, as opposed to writing an article
> about it, further our declared aims?
>
> Doc
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


-- 
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.