On 04/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Nope: just say "Here's an encyclopedic article. They're trying to suppress this. Have a look at them SUPPRESSING a NUMBER." Instant press disaster. Same reason the RIAA backed down from suing Ed Felten.
Given the number of take down notices sent and how bullish the MPAA is being about further legal action we would expect the kind of press already if it was going to happen.
The number of takedown notices sent to Wikimedia is zero.
The number of takedown notices sent to the press for naming the key in their coverage is zero.
An industry that is able to hide the suck in matix reloaded is unlikely to have significant problems outspinning us.
Their customers despise them.
The people posting to this list with the apparent impression that a DMCA notice sent to Wikimedia about the key would cause the site to be switched off an hour later or sent broke ... are being ridiculous. Completely and utterly clueless about how these things work in practice. If you feel I'm being unfair to you in saying that, please detail your experience, 'cos I bet I have way more than you do.
Foundation would take down the code. If it didn't MPAA would be left with the option of appearing completely toothless or fighting in court. Yes it would take a few months and the sale of the wikipedia domain would probably cover the eventual judgement but the damage done would be significant.
You seem to be assuming that Wikipedia is powerless simply because we don't use our power.
Imagine a serious threat to Wikipedia, where our offence is displeasing thugs with money. Now imagine us mentioning the threat in the site notice.
That would be a not-quite-nuclear option. But the assumption that we are somehow required to fold like a tissue at the whisper of the possibility of a DMCA notice is ridiculous.
In all the thousands of words arguing this issue on Wikipedia, none have said it would actually be *unencyclopedic* to name the key in the article about the key controversy. The only objection has been that thugs with money wouldn't like it.
I seriously doubt us naming the key in the article about the key controversy would actually be illegal. Not unless and until we lost - up till that moment, it's academic and educational free speech.
We are ridiculously powerful just for doing the encyclopedic thing that we claim to be doing.
- d.