Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
But Britain and the other developed countries are not where the distribution would be most useful.
I'm not so sure about that. Distribution in developed countries is important, because as we maximize our audience in those countries, we gain access to the hearts and minds of people who can fund our distribution in developing countries.
Imagine a free Wikipedia dvd mailed to millions of households in the UK, along with a letter from me explaining who we are and what we are doing, and asking for money to distribute our work in Africa. If we found a way to do that cheaply enough (for example, by working with popular magazines), the results would likely be amazing.
Ahh! but that's looking at distribution in developed countries only as a means to an end. :-)
With the British laws under discussion, more than one interpretation is possible. How do we determine which of two conflicting interpretations is the right one?
Well, the fact that interpretation may be difficult surely doesn't mean that we can just throw up our hands and ignore the issue. We have to do _something_, so we should consult with people who are likely to know, and just do our best.
Certainly. Even lawyers are likely to be divided in their opinions. Doing "_something_" should be a decision, and not a default. There will be opportunities to change course as more information comes in. For now, if they are alleging copyright infringement it is up to them to make a specific accusation, and get the legal ball rolling. What's the down side? The fact that there was a favorable decision in Bridgeman v. Corel may eventually not stand up as valid law for the substantial issue, but relying on it is evidence that you at least have a good faith argument.
Statutory law makes no provision for poker bluffs. They want us to believe that they are playing with a full house. Checking the bidding around to them may be the best thing to do.
Ec