On 9/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We have taken it upon ourselves to produce content
that is /as free as/
/possible/ - which means that for the moment, we are bound to abide by
the most restrictive law that could apply.
Yes, it is silly. But only by respecting copyright law does copyleft
work, so we are as much in favour of copyright protection as the free
licensing of works.
Yes and no. I don't think we have to pick the most restrictive. I
think that we could probably agree on a relative level of
international freedom that would be acceptable to most -- i.e., free
under any country which is a party to the Berne convention, for
example, would not be an unreasonable determination, just to throw one
out there. That would include most of the major content producers and
consumers of the world, and is less arbitrary than saying "USA,
Germany, France, UK."
On the other hand, even within that determination there are some
questionable things, such as the really ridiculous notion in some
countries that any photograph which contains a picture of a
copyrighted building in it is copyrighted by the architect. This
strikes me as being copyright-out-of-control, where the rights of one
party are drastically respected while the rights over another are trod
upon. Since copyright terms have been expanded to ridiculous lengths
all around, it becomes a really depictable monopoly on culture. I
think if there are ways to resist some of these sorts of things
without being legally risky, we should consider them. In the US, for
example, photography of publicly accessible buildings is explicitly
allowed in US copyright law without being infringement. Wikimedia
servers could host such photos without fear of real legal reprisals,
even if a re-user in a country with a more ridiculous law would have
difficulties. We could make this very clear in the tagging so that
nobody would be accidentally put into a negative legal situation. Just
a thought and an example.
Copyleft uses the copyright system but it is always quite conscious of
the limits of the copyright system (the CC licenses make it very plain
that they don't intend at all to infringe upon fair use rights). The
copyright system is currently a travesty -- limited monopolies have
become virtually perpetual and the right of the producer has been held
as almost entirely dominant over the rights of the consumer (or
culture writ broadly). Copyleft is a way to strengthen these other
rights; it respects copyright law but does not enshrine it, and
especially not its excesses.
FF