Todd Allen wrote:
Well, my personal feelings on copyright, especially as involves personal not-for-profit copying, involve something to the effect of "Long live DVD Jon, Linus Torvalds, and Richard Stallman, and limit the damn term to 5 years, no one else profits from their work for life plus 70!" Just to make sure that's out in the open.
That being said. Wikipedia has a nice DMCA compliance notice on the page. -If-, and only if, Wikipedia gets a DMCA notice regarding that string, we could temporarily take it down (in a legitimate OFFICE action), while the community is notified what's going on and asked what to do. If so, they post it on Chilling Effects, like everyone else does, and we talk about the issue. And we watch whoever sent it get crucified all over the place. And indeed, once that article hits Slashdot and Digg and X million blogs, one might just find that a lot of "anonymous people" are willing to throw in a few bucks for legal expenses, on fighting that one.
But in the meantime, if we can reliably source it (and if we can't today, we can tomorrow!), publish the damn string. It's a -number-. Yes, we should generally go along with the legal system. But not those who are hyperventilating that there is any -realistic- possibility that a number, a string of digits, can be forbidden by law.
Seraphimblade
Sorry, I thought we were an encyclopedia, not a free-speech campaign group?
Exactly how does publishing the string, as opposed to writing an article about it, further our declared aims?
Doc