-----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net] Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 11:16 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
On Thu, 3 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
As I said on the blog:
A flashmob of fight-the-power morons are still spamming an allegedly illegal number into every input box on the web. The Wikipedia admins collectively declared "FUCK OFF YOU SPAMMERS." (Some have gone rabid "ZOMG LAWSUIT" and we were getting a pile of oversight requests as well $B!= (B I didn't zap, Fred did, until Erik told us not to. Mind you, it nicely short-circuited the idiotic deletion review.) Eventually it was put into the spam filter, because distributed spam is spam.
I entirely agree the number shouldn't be put in a zillion places in Wikipedia. But I get the impression that the loudest objections are about use of the number *at all* and that getting rid of number spamming is merely a more publically acceptable first step towards getting rid of it period.
The proper response is to allow the number on Wikipedia, but ban its use as spam, not to completely ban it in any form whatsoever.
It is foolish for anyone with assets that could be levied on to display the number.
Fred
On 5/3/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It is foolish for anyone with assets that could be levied on to display the number.
Too late, it's in the mailing list archives.
Anthony
Fred Bauder wrote:
The proper response is to allow the number on Wikipedia, but ban its use as spam, not to completely ban it in any form whatsoever.
It is foolish for anyone with assets that could be levied on to display the number.
It is foolish for anyone with assets that could be levied on to host a publicly accessible encyclopedia that anyone can edit, where edits go live immediately. =]
-Mark
On 5/3/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
The proper response is to allow the number on Wikipedia, but ban its use as spam, not to completely ban it in any form whatsoever.
It is foolish for anyone with assets that could be levied on to display the number.
It is foolish for anyone with assets that could be levied on to host a publicly accessible encyclopedia that anyone can edit, where edits go live immediately. =]
We're reasonably well covered for random "someone came by and published something without our knowing". Same logic by which ISPs and so forth are protected.
When "we" can be shown to have known about the illegal behavior, though...
On 5/3/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
The proper response is to allow the number on Wikipedia, but ban its use as spam, not to completely ban it in any form whatsoever.
It is foolish for anyone with assets that could be levied on to display the number.
It is foolish for anyone with assets that could be levied on to host a publicly accessible encyclopedia that anyone can edit, where edits go live immediately. =]
We're reasonably well covered for random "someone came by and published something without our knowing". Same logic by which ISPs and so forth are protected.
When "we" can be shown to have known about the illegal behavior, though...
Unless there is a valid DMCA counter-notification in place.
Which brings up an interesting question. Can a DMCA counter-notification be given *before* the DMCA take-down notification?
Anthony
On 5/3/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Unless there is a valid DMCA counter-notification in place.
Would you please stop using "wikilegal" as your email address, you must realize by now that it's misleading people. Mods, please put Anthony on moderation until he picks a less misleading email address. Twice now I've seen people assume his posts are some sort of official Wikipedia legal opinion.
The whole notice/counter notice procedure is almost certainly moot. No one is bothering to make a copyright claim over the key. They are claiming that it is a component of an anti-circumvention device, the trafficking of which is illegal under the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. Safe harbor is provided against infringement claims and the requirements of the notice procedure are clearly built around infringement claims. The AACS key complaint is related to the anti-circumvention rules in an entirely different part of the DMCA bundle, so there is no notice/counter notice procedure.
Which brings up an interesting question. Can a DMCA counter-notification be given *before* the DMCA take-down notification?
It doesn't appear that any requirement for the content of the counter notice depends on the content of the notice. I don't see why someone couldn't write a well formed counter notice in advance and leave it on file with the service provider. However, it must identify the material .. so they'd probably have to write a statement per each piece of content.
On 04/05/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Unless there is a valid DMCA counter-notification in place.
Would you please stop using "wikilegal" as your email address, you must realize by now that it's misleading people. Mods, please put Anthony on moderation until he picks a less misleading email address.
That's probably unnecessarily apocalyptic. Anthony, you said you wanted to use a different address anyway - subscribe with the other address, email me offlist and I'll unmoderate it.
- d.
On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/05/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Unless there is a valid DMCA counter-notification in place.
Would you please stop using "wikilegal" as your email address, you must realize by now that it's misleading people. Mods, please put Anthony on moderation until he picks a less misleading email address.
That's probably unnecessarily apocalyptic. Anthony, you said you wanted to use a different address anyway - subscribe with the other address, email me offlist and I'll unmoderate it.
OK, I think I got it. Had to subscribe to wikien-l, then had to confirm, then I had to log in and set mail delivery to off (since I already have the mail sent to a different address).
Anyway, hopefully this worked. Now I've gotta do it for all the other lists. I'll get to that some day.
Anthony
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/3/07, Anthony wrote:
Which brings up an interesting question. Can a DMCA counter-notification be given *before* the DMCA take-down notification?
It doesn't appear that any requirement for the content of the counter notice depends on the content of the notice. I don't see why someone couldn't write a well formed counter notice in advance and leave it on file with the service provider. However, it must identify the material .. so they'd probably have to write a statement per each piece of content.
IIRC doesn't the person who sent the take down notice also need to be notified of the counter-notice? That would be tough to do before a notice has been received.
Ec
On 5/5/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/3/07, Anthony wrote:
Which brings up an interesting question. Can a DMCA counter-notification be given *before* the DMCA take-down notification?
It doesn't appear that any requirement for the content of the counter notice depends on the content of the notice. I don't see why someone couldn't write a well formed counter notice in advance and leave it on file with the service provider. However, it must identify the material .. so they'd probably have to write a statement per each piece of content.
IIRC doesn't the person who sent the take down notice also need to be notified of the counter-notice? That would be tough to do before a notice has been received.
As someone has recently pointed out to me, OCILLA offers protection only for "infringement of copyright", so I suppose it could be argued that this protection doesn't apply to circumvention tools anyway.
Anthony