On 5/3/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I would not assume that a money judgment could not be obtained from anyone who publishes the code. Thus I have been quite aggressive about removing it. We could have done more.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Lau [mailto:netsnipe@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:07 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
Hi everyone,
Today I was approached by a journalist (who is a colleague of a friend of mine from Uni) at IDG regarding our position on the publication of the HD-DVD decryption key.
As far as I know:
- the [[WP:OFFICE]] has so far refused to intervene in the matter and
- the departure of Brad Patrick means we currently have no general counsel
- the Foundation has recieved no DMCA take down notices regarding the matter
For the last 24 hours, we've been censoring the HD-DVD key from articles, talk pages, user pages and signatures and relying on draconian measures such as full protection of [[HD-DVD]] and blocks with the justification that we were awaiting official guidance.
Now that the desperately needed legal advice is apparently not forthcoming, it may eventually appear to outsiders that we are paranoid of what the AACS/MPAA may do to us instead of only being cautious. I am starting to feel uncomfortable that many administrators such as myself may be acting unilaterally over the matter based upon our own personal (mis)interpretations of the DMCA instead of enforcing an official stance or community consensus.
So how exactly should we respond to the press regarding this?
Yours sincerely, Andrew Lau (Netsnipe)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: mitchell_bingemann@idg.com.au mitchell_bingemann@idg.com.au Date: May 3, 2007 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: HD-DVD controversy To: netsnipe@gmail.com
Hi Andrew,
I'm a colleague of Liz's and was following the whole HD-DVD debacle. Just hoping for a Wikipedia update on the whole thing, where do you guys stand on it now? Cheeers,
Mitchell Bingemann Journalist IDG Online (02) 9902 2711
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred, why do you presume it could? In theory, maybe, but we're certainly not the richest target (Youtube/Google, anyone?), we're far from doing the least to stop it being posted gratuitously (Youtube again, not to mention Slashdot and hundreds of thousands of others -deliberately- publishing it), we're not revealing anything (it's already out there, it can no longer, in any reasonable way, be considered a trade secret), we're publishing it for educational purposes (rather than just for grins or in an undisguised flip-em-the-finger attempt), and we're a PR nightmare (You think suing dead grandmas and soldiers about to leave for Iraq for having some mp3's got some bad press? You ain't seen nothing yet...). Overall, even if they decided to go after -someone- (which would be petty and vindictive at this point anyway, and hopefully one could expect a judge to recognize that), we're pretty far down the list of "tempting targets". (We'd also make a pretty sympathetic defendant, and they don't like sympathetic defendants, especially when the case in question is something of a "test case").
Now, is that to say it -couldn't- happen? Of course not. But there might be a time to say "Well, look, this particular numeral does have an educational and cultural value. We have an interest in publishing it, because we intend to create an educational resource. If someone wants to fight over this, that just might be a fight worth having." It's not -impossible- that the AP would come after us for use of a fair-use photo either, but in that case, we've made a conscious decision that if a truly iconic photo or image cannot have an article on it without the image itself, we'll use it, and see if anyone challenges it. So why not do the same with the number? Put it into the relevant articles (only the -very- relevant ones, of course, not anywhere some spammer might conceivably be able to wedge it), if we get a C&D, take it down temporarily and talk to the EFF/ACLU.
There's something wrong, Fred, when an educational resource is scared to publish (or even mention in discussion besides oblique references to "that key" or "the number") a -numeral-. (And despite the fancy hex coding, I could easily convert that into decimal, and it would just look like any other number in the world. It really is just a number.) Now, you'll tell me that's not necessarily Wikipedia's battle, and I'll tell you you're right. But must we be pushed around so easily (and without anyone even having to do any pushing, just the hint they might!), when there is a good case for use of this numeral in some articles? We already have a DeCSS image on that article, no one's come after us yet.