There is some ethical validity to respecting Iranian copyright law
whether or not an obligation exists. Iran's failure to participate in
international treaties on the matter should not be a primary concern.
Infringement of Iranian copyrights are still infringements even if US
courts would not consider those laws. Copyright terms in Iran (life +
30) are still shorter than in most countries, so there would be no need
to extend them beyond that time. I'm not aware of any Iranian copyright
provision regarding the depiction of women, and you admit that you don't
know about that either. That aspect seems like a red herring.
Ec
Fastfission wrote:
>Well the English servers are in the USA, which means they are subject
>to US law, not Iranian law. If we *were* subject to Iranian law, I'm
>betting there are a number of other Iranian laws we are already
>breaking! I don't know the Iranian laws about depictions of women but
>I'm willing to bet they've got a few that we're well afoul of.
>
>FF
>
>On 8/8/05, Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 8/6/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why not make a special tag template for this? Something along the lines of:
>>>
>>>"This image, produced by the current government of Iran, are believed
>>>to not fall under U.S. copyright laws as Iran is not a member of WIPO.
>>>Should this change, though, the usage of this image is still believed
>>>to fall under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law. Use in
>>>mediums other than on the servers of the English-language Wikipedia,
>>>hosted in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
>>>may not be exempt from either of these requirements."
>>>
>>>
>>There are problems with that:
>>1) I believe the Wikimedia Foundation would be breaking Iranian law by
>>distributing those material to Iran, that is, serving its pages to
>>Iranian readers. If it wishes to use the material, it should block
>>Iran from its readership.
>>2) It's not only the government, and other Iranians may wish to sue
>>the Wikimedia Foundation.
>>
>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Smith" <donald_smith123(a)yahoo.ca>
To: uncle_ed_poor(a)yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:46:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Ordering Wikipedia
> Sir,
>
> I honestly love working with Wikipedia. At such a
point that I wish to
> order one sample for our family's need.
>
> How do we proceed to acquire one?
>
> Also, what are the modalities to pay the required
fees and charges, besides
> sending a Credit Card Number on the Internet, if any
other mode of
> payment is available of course !
>
> Thank you for your time, and may your team keep on
the excellent work done
> so far. Thousands of users appreciated.
>
> Donald
> Canada
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
> Direct intervention to remove words is not "an eye for
> an eye" at all. It's the same as directly taking back
> stolen property when its ownership is traceable.
No, it's blatant vandalism. (You are referring, of course, to your
activities as 195.188.254.82, which, I hasten to add, were done AFTER
your block in blatant violation of at least two other Wikipedia
policies.) Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the words you "took
back" were not your own, which, by your own arguments, places you in a
much more precarious position than it does anyone at Wikipedia.
You have nothing vaguely resembling a legal case, nor a case under
Wikipedia's rules. You agreed to the license independantly of any of the
other BS you keep spewing; even if you were right about everything else,
something you have yet to convince anyone of, it wouldn't change that
fact. I suggest you stop making things up off the top of your head about
what the law and/or Wikipedia policies say, and actually READ them.
You have had your defense in front of the community that you keep
demanding. Not a single person thinks you have a case, and some go so
far as to question your sanity. Why you think getting more people
involved is likely to change that is beyond me.
No contract exists between Wikipedia and any user
towards whom it has taken admin decisions without the
user having any defence process before the whole
community, and without dispute resolution being tried.
In trying to prove me wrong you've shown why I'm
right: any rules of license or contract that were
published to users were alongside rules on how users
and the community relate to each other. The admin
decisions without a defence process have been defended
on grounds that "You are not entitled to anything" and
that there aren't any rules any more consistently than
when it suits the community to apply them. All
statements of that nature have broken the terms on
which you received any contributed words, and hence
any license or contract.
In answer to Geni: back a week ago when she wrote "Am
I coreect in thinking you are User:Tern" I answered
her with an email asking to be informed of how to
access dispute resolution and VfC while under a block.
She ignored it. So by her own hand she is in no
position to claim I have no case.
Direct intervention to remove words is not "an eye for
an eye" at all. It's the same as directly taking back
stolen property when its ownership is traceable.
In answer to Sean: it's awareness of an illegality,
rather than necessarily a crime, because I wouldn't be
clear whether it's criminal or civil. For the FBI to
have a claim to prosecute internet users in other
countries would be an interesting one, at least giving
it clearer responsibilities in return over activities
in your country that affect folk elsewhere.
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Ah, but there is one circumstance in which such
accessing of Wikipedia is not an illegal act. That is
when its purpose is to stop Wikipedia committing an
illegal act upon you. Wikipedia is committing an
illegal act upon me by trying to ignore my citation,
made by email to Jimmy Wales as well as on this list,
for it to the remove every word I have ever
contributed to Wikipedia, on grounds of copyright
violation and ides theft, and ensure they stay removed
despite the public editability of pages. Unless you
can demonstrate that the second requirement is
technically possible, then the continued existence of
Wikipedia has been proved entirely illegal.
Anything Skyring is doing that his block blocks him
from doing, to raise awareness of the way he has been
treated and seek due process concerning it, is
automatically legal. Anything I do to raise awareness
in the other editors of every page I've contributed
to, of the violatuion they are dealing with, is
automatically legal.
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 03:07:42 +0100
From: "James D. Forrester" <james(a)jdforrester.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Looking at the real world
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <4319056E.20100(a)jdforrester.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
> On 9/2/05, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the past day, [[user:jtdirl]] has published my
name and address,
and
> > [[user:mackensen]] has accused me of criminal
acts.
>
> People who play with fire get burned.
And further, accessing a computer system without
authorisation is
illegal in the US, the UK, and Australia, to name but
a few countries;
given that you are banned from Wikipedia, any edits
that you were to
make would constitute such an illegal act. Several
sysops, and not just
Mackensen, have suggested that you may well be doing
this, violating
your ban order. Perhaps you might want to think about
finding another
place to play, Skyring?
Yours sincerely,
- --
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org
IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDGQVukn3kUxZyJx0RAhnxAJ9HKCGQo3m4zYWaqs62xk8crumxNQCfXQP3
Lc8AToWGDemLTturQBh0KBg=
=RYpI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
In light of the Katrina disaster and the competing appeals for aid for the
victims there, should we consider suspending the Wikimedia Foundation
funding drive for a time?
Or do we consider the two causes different enough that it should continue as
scheduled?
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused
The IP address above that you have blocked is that of a public school
board consisting of 91 schools.
Could an administrator please contact me with respect to the numerous
reported deletions.
I would like to follow up on the content that was posted by one or more
of our students.
Dave Smith
Technical Application Support Specialist - Classroom Support
742 9773 ext 2372
Well how about that.
Come into wikipedia IRC chat, get ambushed by NicholasT who's on his usual
rampage, get sworn at and called names and challenged to "prove" this, then
kickbanned before I can respond by jerks who scream "troll"?
Aren't you people real nice pieces of work, huh?
A. Nony Mouse
who's in the right even if the overinflated egos won't admit it.
On 8/10/05, A. Nony Mouse <mousyme(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I'll admit now. I'll own up. I violated [[WP:POINT]] in an amazing
> way.
>
> Amazing for one reason, that is.
>
> You see, my little social experiment, which was originally created
> just to see how Wikipedia's elites actually behaved, bore more fruit
> than I can count.
>
> A few months back, I created two accounts. One was named KaintheScion,
> a reference to a video game. Remember it?
>
> The other was named ElKabong. Named after the alternate identity of
> "Quick-Draw" McGraw, and a pun on how hot-tempered the Wikipedia high
> cabal muckymucks are.
>
> The experiment worked brilliantly. Unfortunately, it also created a
> bit of a monster named David Gerard and a whole lot of sub-Monsters
> who saw an opportunity.
>
> You see, ElKabong and KaintheScion were designed to break rules.
> Quickly. Painfully. They got everyone's attention. So much so that the
> actual procedures for dispute resolution were ignored. Nobody
> attempted to contact them. They went straight from a backwards, tilted
> RFC into a quick RFAR.
>
> And then of course there were no less than SIX innocent users who got
> drawn in. Yep, that's right. I didn't even DO anything with the
> situation, save for calling for leniency when it was obvious another
> user was caught up in it.
>
> Count 'em out.
> 1. Enviroknot
> 2. Kurita77
> 3. Existentializer
> 4. Ni-ju-Ichi
> 5. Devilbat
> 6. Pukachu
>
> SIX users caught up in the David Gerard witch hunt. And that doesn't
> even count his decision to Mod-by-default this user list while
> screaming "Enviroknot" as his excuse.
>
> And you all just went along with it. Now the name "Enviroknot" is like
> screaming "witch" in Salem while standing next to the Cotton Mather.
> And what's REALLY funny is that Enviroknot wasn't even one I created,
> he or she was just an innocent user that certain individuals decided
> to throw into the RFAR on a lark in order to get rid of an opponent on
> Islam-based pages.
>
> So yeah. I violated WP:POINT because this point needed making. And as
> luck would have it, Gerard was nice enough to abuse the hell out of
> his authority and make my point FOR me.
>
> Congratulations.
>
> P.S. I know damn well this message won't get through to the en-l list,
> because Gerard would never admit to being played like a sucker. So
> I've BCC'ed it to plenty of individuals as well. No point in it going
> to waste.
>
What is the prevailing etiquette on what to do with positive responses
to requests for confirmation of licensing permission?
I just received a confirmation of permission requests for [[Brown
Berets]], which had previously been listed as a possible copyvio.
Presumably we need to keep a copy of this authorisation, but I'm
reluctant to post it to the article's talk page because of privacy
issues and general netiquette.
Any ideas? I've given myself the job of working through the [[WP:CP]]
backlog, so I have a feeling I'm going to be doing a fair few permission
requests over the next few days.
Best,
N.
--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3420
University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/
I was looking for precedents for sanctioning creative disruption (as
described in [[WP:TROLL]]).
But didn't find any at: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents]].
What if an editor does the following for a couple of months:
* removing all mesages from their talk page (and all the talk pages of
his user pages)
* creating user subpages about alleged misbehavior of his "enemies",
giving them "hypcorisy awards", accusing them of being members of a
cabal, etc.
* [[WP:POINT]], marking pages, categories for deletion in retaliation
* [[WP:TROLL]] (marking articles of his arch-enemy as stubs en masse,
starting stupid votes on policy changes, being a pain in the neck at
the village pump (but carefully))
* Adding provocative (but not necessarily very rude) comments in
article discussions and edit summaries
* Retaliative voting against anything the people on his hit list support
* Rallying troops on internet forums for a "freedom fight" in
Wikipedia to push a particular POV
So if a user learns to do all this without violating the "hard"
policies like [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:3RR]] too much, can he go on
forever?
Can anyone point me to the closest precedent to this behavior and what
happened to such creative trolls?
Thanks, nyenyec