Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage intellectual rights of the copyrighted material. Can't the same apply to summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy it still violates the copyright of the text?
Mgm
On 1/15/07, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
and
But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for
to
start with.
What did you mean by "should"? Making information freely available is part of why Wikipedia exists and why Wikipedia is a good thing. Sharing information is not normally termed "piracy" when it does not transgress IP law.[1]
As far as I'm aware, the only general argument against exposure on Wikipedia is an ethical one (presuming we otherwise have reliable sources, don't copy and paste text etc.) But Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of magicians.
-- Matt
[1] And you might not wish to term it "piracy" even when it does transgress IP law, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l