Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
As it is, it is easy for a company with a huge legal staff to shut down small "fair users" with the threat of endless, if futile, litigation. Lessig talks about a number of instances where this happened in his book, _Free Culture_.
Only if the fair users roll over and die, like Wikimedia is doing.
Since you seem completely unaware of the occasions where the Wikimedia Foundation has received complaints from copyright owners and told them, "Fair use, so buzz off" (couched in more polite terms, of course), perhaps you're not in a position to make informed comments on what Wikimedia is doing.
--Michael Snow
I really don't see what Wikimedia has done on other occassions has to do with what they are doing on this occassion.
From the message to which I was replying, you appeared to be talking about fair use law overall, not any particular instance. There have been several specific situations mentioned in this discussion. Perhaps next time you might be more precise if you're talking about only one, instead of making comments that sound like sweeping generalizations.
--Michael Snow
On 5/20/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
As it is, it is easy for a company with a huge legal staff to shut down small "fair users" with the threat of endless, if futile, litigation. Lessig talks about a number of instances where this happened in his book, _Free Culture_.
Only if the fair users roll over and die, like Wikimedia is doing.
Since you seem completely unaware of the occasions where the Wikimedia Foundation has received complaints from copyright owners and told them, "Fair use, so buzz off" (couched in more polite terms, of course), perhaps you're not in a position to make informed comments on what Wikimedia is doing.
--Michael Snow
I really don't see what Wikimedia has done on other occassions has to do with what they are doing on this occassion.
From the message to which I was replying, you appeared to be talking about fair use law overall, not any particular instance. There have been several specific situations mentioned in this discussion. Perhaps next time you might be more precise if you're talking about only one, instead of making comments that sound like sweeping generalizations.
--Michael Snow
s/is doing/has done/. OK?
Anthony
Michael Snow wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
As it is, it is easy for a company with a huge legal staff to shut down small "fair users" with the threat of endless, if futile, litigation. Lessig talks about a number of instances where this happened in his book, _Free Culture_.
Only if the fair users roll over and die, like Wikimedia is doing.
Since you seem completely unaware of the occasions where the Wikimedia Foundation has received complaints from copyright owners and told them, "Fair use, so buzz off" (couched in more polite terms, of course), perhaps you're not in a position to make informed comments on what Wikimedia is doing.
--Michael Snow
I really don't see what Wikimedia has done on other occassions has to do with what they are doing on this occassion.
From the message to which I was replying, you appeared to be talking about fair use law overall, not any particular instance. There have been several specific situations mentioned in this discussion. Perhaps next time you might be more precise if you're talking about only one, instead of making comments that sound like sweeping generalizations.
I've certainly been responding in the spirit of a general discussion. I have no personal interest in the owl picture, but if somebody else wants to argue that one in court they should have every opportunity on their own dime.
Ec