On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:26:50 -0500, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Here is where I see the crux of the issue in this
thread: you are not
interested in keeping the information in question. You do not value it.
You are willing to eliminate it at request (which is all that their
reply could possibly be seen as).
And you are wrong in your assertion. I am interested in the article
subject, I just don't think we may or should include the list in its
entirety.
Yes, I am prepared to eliminate it on request. I am prepared to
eliminate *any* asserted copyright on request, and allow it back in
only when it is established that it does not violate copyright. We
get a steady trickle of complaints of copyright violation, and we
generally *do* remove them.
Wikipedia/Wikimedia was established (and I hope
continues to exist) to
make information freely available. Caving in to unreasonable claims of
copyright is not the way to do that.
You are, I think, confusing free-as-in-beer with free-as-in-speech. We
are not allowed to include content that violates other people's
copyright, and this is not in any way seen as incompatible with
Wikipedia's mission. The subject of the Cool Wall can be discussed
perfectly satisfactorily without including the list, just as we can
discuss popular songs without including mp3s or lyrics of the songs.
In fact, that is probably a good example: a song is part of an album,
as the Cool Wall is part of Top Gear; the song is published in the
form of a performance; the lyrics are in some cases transcribed by
fans; it is generally accepted that these lyrics are copyright. Not
only do we not allow them to be included, we don't even allow links to
them unless on the official site of the band.
Removing unfree content has never been incompatible with Wikipedia's
mission to make information freely available. We do it all the time.
Note that I'm not saying that their claim would be
unreasonable--I am
not an expert in copyright law. But your position is that their mere
request should result in our removing the information, when the question
of whether this is a copyright violation is still very much in question.
Yes. The request of any rights owner should always be respected, even
if that respect takes the form of removing the content, debating,
proving that the claim to rights is invalid, and re-inserting. Someone
is right now claiming that some material in [[KRISTI snowcat]]
violates his copyright. After taking advice from Brad, I removed some
and left other facts in with {{fact}} tags.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG