>>In a message dated 1/16/2009 4:27:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
The usual solution to that is to point to the museum/library/archive
image as a way to verify the self-created image (similar to how people
point to Google Books now to verify books they are using as
references). But what if there is no museum/library/archive image?>>
"Point to" versus "take". Two separate things.
I'm not disputing the right to link to an image on bible.org. I'm disputing
the right to take that image and post it to flicker.com
And "what if there is no museum image" only means that we are in the same
position as "what if we have no free image of Britney Spears eating a hot dog
for our hot dog page??". I.E. we're not worse off than we've been for five
thousand years.
The mere fact that an image now exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do
whatever we want with it.
And the mere fact that no image exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do
whatever it takes to get one.
We still are ethically bound to follow standard protocol, and not rock the
image boat.
If we adhere to the idea that any scan of a PD item is a voluntary act to
freely distribute such scan to the world for any purpose than the end result is
that the massive scanners will simply stop scanning and we won't have
anything free, limited, for pay, or what.
Shooting yourself in the foot to prove that you can isn't a useful tactic.
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
>> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
>> reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are
>> "acceptable" in the mainstream,
This already exists with GA/FA ratings. Creating a new public/internal
division just adds a new front for controversy.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Noah Salzman <noah(a)salzman.net> wrote:
> ... what does the step-by-step process look like for making
> this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots
> consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
The Powers That Be would be needed to change what search engines are
told to ignore. (Presumably in robots.txt.)
The grass roots would be needed to ramp up GA/FA effort considerably.
EN currently has about 5800 Good Articles (as rated), and 2400
Featured. Current article count is over 2.5 million.
sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GA_numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FA_numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
Es.
2009/1/16 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/1/16 Alvaro García <alvareo(a)gmail.com>:
>> > There is no widespread support. There are some people to which you can
>> > say something they don't agree with and back the argument up by saying
>> > it's on Wikipedia, and they will say "Anyone can edit Wikipedia".
>>
>> Have you looked at the donation statistics?
>
> $6 million for a top 5 website is a pittance.
$6 million in DONATIONS. Other top 5 sites have large business
incomes, there are no comparable sites in the top 5 so it is
meaningless to try and compare.
2009/1/16 Philip Sandifer :
> Your choice of CC-BY-SA, which, at least for now, closes off use of
> Wikipedia content (and visa versa). It seems silly to start a free
> content encyclopedia and then render yourself unable to share content
> with a rather large project already underway in that area.
>
> -Phil
Hi Philip,
I agree that it would be highly advantageous for Epistemia if we could share content freely with Wikipedia. However, short-term compatibility isn't our only consideration in choosing a licence.
One problem is that the Wikimedia Foundation is currently considering changing the licence system used on its sites. If we use the GFDL, as we initially decided to do, we could certainly copy a large number of articles from Wikipedia. However, in the longer term the GFDL could be more of a handicap, as it might prevent compatibility with other online projects (including Wikimedia projects if they are re-licensed), and could be difficult to change. After the release of the GFDL 1.3, we came to the conclusion that it would be best to upgrade and change our licence to the CC-BY-SA, even though this means that, unfortunately, content cannot easily be shared between Wikipedia and Epistemia in the current situation.
Best regards,
Richard Austin
-------------------------------------------------
Your Life on the Net
DreamWiz Free Mail @ http://www.dreamwiz.com/
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:46:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Okey so you consider copying images different to copying formulas? The
endpoint of your argument would be that if someone takes a PD image
and converts it into SVG it is okey to copy it but if they put it in a
raster format it isn't.>>
------------------------------
If you take a chemical formula and make your own drug out of it, fine.
If you walk into a pharmacy and say "Give me your aspirin because the
formula is in the public domain, the will laugh at you or call the police."
Walking onto a website and saying, well since the *underlying object* that
you are photographing is itself in the public domain, I think I'll just steal
your image of it, is the same example as trying to take a drug where the
formula itself is public domain.
The drug thing is just a bad example. It is not nearly close enough to the
issue.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:25:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Sigh. Companies that make generic pharmaceutical are making a product
I am free to take, analyse and copy (okey so in reality I'd just look
up the expired patent). They cannot control exclussive access to the
stuff. And yet they make money.>>
-------------------------------------------------
You are copying the formula.
You are not stealing the item itself.
There is quite a difference, sigh or no sigh.
If you are so worn out by this argument, then stop arguing.
In the case of images, you are not copying a formula, you are copying the
item itself.
Next bad example ?
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:27:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
I've mentioned rather a lot of times I'm British. British law in this
area is slightly different.>>
------------------------------------------
Wikipedia operates under US law.
So you're admitting that you want to argue forever over it, but you're not
willing to actually test it.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:08:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Ah no. I want Americans to exercise the legal ability they have to use
certain material in certain ways. If that cases companies issues then
under the principles of capitalism that isn't my problem unless I own
shares in them.
>That's not very nice.
1)Copyright law isn't nice
2)Compared to most of the other bits the relevant area isn't very nasty.>>
---------------------------
No one is stopping any American, from going to the repository where the
originals items are stored and viewing them. You know this, I don't know why you
keep pushing on that button, when it's clear that it's a non starter.
The companies are not trying to prevent people from viewing PD items. They
are trying to prevent the viewing of their own copies of those items. Not
the items. The copies.
You want readers of this thread to think that the only issue here is
copyright law, but it's not. Never was. That's just a handy crutch for people who
are intent on theft to justify their actions.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:27:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
> yes.... that's my point.
> You scanned it.
> You scanned it from PD documents.
> So this example only repeats what I've been saying.
Not really.>>
---------------------
You yourself stated that you scanned these items.
"Not really" is a vague counter argument.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:21:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
US law however has for the time being decided that sweat of the brow
is not a variable to be considered.
Since scanning is non creative there can be no copyright under US law.
They may be under UK law depending on the process and they are rather
unlikely to be under swiss law (which has rather high barriers to
copyright).>>
---------------------------------
Then put your money where your mouth is :)
Go copy a bunch of stuff off one of these cites and post it to Commons.
If you're not willing to steal someone else's work, you should stop
advocating other people test your theory.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)