Like any US business, Wikipedia must either conform to an existing particular protectionist system (hence entering into an implicit agreement to somewhat conform to a particular cultural imperialism) or choose to defy it, in the hope that the means of enforcing its protections elsewhere are impractical. WP can continue to skirt indefinitely around the issue of violating various "laws," as long as it complies with 'US law.' But at some point, US law may come to excessively test WP's conformity to its implied contract to conform, and may have to find somewhere else to go.
Considering some of the methods by which the RIAA for example (a much-coddled entity) has excercised its "authority" to enforce IP rights in the cyberworld, its perhaps only on the continued disbelief in the wiki model that WP is not being legally challenged. IMHO its worth the effort to just imagine a future wherein WP can exist and function outside of all "legal" restrictions; and yet, as an entity in good faith with human goals, still prosper. The authority of courts to enforce their juristiction ultimately comes down to means of enforcement, and hence the extension of Constitutional principle (free speech, habeas corpus, etc.) to international matters is on the cutting edge of current legal issues; which is why in Iraq for example, dominant enforcement system without the extension of Constitutional juristiction and citizen protections, is an ethical anomaly which calls to explanation the very basis of US legal authority in an international context.
S
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On Wednesday 04 August 2004 18:28, Jimmy (Jimbo)
Wales wrote:
p.s. I would be interested in gathering examples
of content that (a)
we ought to have in the encyclopedia on editorial grounds but that (b) would not be legal for us to host in the United States.
In some countries, works enter public domain 50
years after author's death.
So, there are wagons of pictures and texts of
authors who died between 1934
and 1954 which are PD in those countries but not PD
in the US.
All 1954 deaths are still have their works under copyright until the end of this year. What you cite is the standard under international law. It is interesting to note that the countries that have or are pushing for longer copyright terms are rich ones with many businesses that are already heavily invested in their intellectual properties. The artists that did the work more than 50 years ago have long since been paid off.
Lately the third world countries have been more interested in agricultural subsidies since that has a greater impact on them than intellectual property.
-Ec
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail