These threads would be much shorter if the links provided actually got read for the information they contain. ;)
The governing policy is linked from the opening post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_work...
Policy does not instruct editors to wait for a complaint, nor is it accurate to assert that no copyright violation has occurred until a complaint occurs.
Yet in all probability actual complaint did occur, because right after linking to the relevant policy the opening post also notes " Footnote 19 is no longer even functional because the copyvio material has been removed from YouTube." (that was as of 22 March 2008).
Now this is getting silly. I'm not going to continually repost the details of evidence already provided, simply to rebut false negative assertions that get put forward with no evidence at all. I supported Bluemarine's siteban because it was merited by his conduct; afterward I mentored him--that's no secret. Nor is it partisanship. Frivolous claims of bias are one of the reasons I've stopped accepting new mentorships. Which is sad for the people who honestly want to turn over a new leaf.
-Durova
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
ArbCom did not "uphold copyright violation" because there was no copyright violation. No person, holding copyright, ever complained about anything. What occurred was simply silence. The owner of the copyright has not now, nor ever had any problem with the audio being hosted from the radio program.
Was he merely silent about the issue, or did he say "I own the copyright, go ahead and host it"?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l