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(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l