Delirium wrote: [...] Every new computer today has a CD-burner, and when 1.0 is ready for distribution every computer will have a DVD-burner. We just have to produce some ISO-images and a handbook in PDF ready for print (and some nice artwork with a "handicraft work guide" (?) for those people who want "paperboard boxes" (?)). People can make as many copies for their friends as they like. We can distribute the process of sending copies to universities or libraries (like theopencd.org did) among Wikipedians, especially in developing countries. No need to order huge amounts from the "press shop" (?). BTW, I find all this talk about a paper Wikipedia completely useless (sorry if someone feels offended). It's (much!) too much work, too risky and I don't see a necessity for it. Can't we talk about this again in five or ten years when the DVD-version has stabilised and we are sure that our 50.000 most important articles (and pictures!) have no copyright violation in them? Book-on-demand production might also be a bit cheaper than today. Just my two WikiCent. Kurt P.S.: Sorry if I choose some strange word constructions :-)

Richard Grevers wrote: I'll send one to you by post if you promise to make at least 10 copies for friends, universities or libraries. And you should convince your friends to make copies, too. BTW, there is some kind of social underground movement in Germany (I'm sure in other contries too) where people are founding Umsonstläden ("gratis shops"). You can bring things you don't need any more to them or take-away things you need - for free. It's meant as an alternative to market economy or barter economy. Some of them also have a PC where you can copy the latest Linux distros. I think we should consider using them as distribution centers. Kurt P.S.: Some addresses in Germany are listed on http://co-forum.de/index.php4?UmsonstLaden (it's a wiki, btw)

The Bridgeman case was a British publisher; it is important to remember the national treatment principle in international copyright law. The regarguement in Bridgeman surrounded around the question of applying British law to infringement under US law. It was put aside because the British case on which Bridgeman relied was no longer good law in the UK (it was an 1865 that said a photograph that was just a copy of something else was copyrightable because at that time it was not just "slavish copying" as it is now considered. Is such an issue of applying another countries law in the US a possibility for Wikipedia? Yes. Will someone bring an infringement suit? I doubt it because Wikipedia has a very strong fair use AND fair dealing defense (depending on the country). Regarding privacy rights Wikipedia's NPOV approach will also make any lawsuit that might deal with such privacy invasions a nonsuit, after all if someone does not like what they read on Wikipedia they can change it and make it more accurate. It is probably the problem of the person posting the information rather than the Wikipedia collective; there is a strong argument that Wikipedia cannot police its own content and thus cannot be responsible for copyright violations, libel or any other tort that might be committed by its volunteers; the volunteer attempts at policing are laudable, but in and of themselves doing so does not appear to create any kind of obligation to do so; after all Wikipedia does not have any resources to apply to such due dilligence. Anyway, the publicity from any infringement/privacy suit will be good for Wikipedia, no? Of course Wikipedia 1.0 will have to have much higher standards as it will be a fixed product. Alex756 From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)bomis.com>