Alex756,
The history is not a great concern. It's
Since we can't know for sure that rationale
is:" probably" better to delete "potential" copyright infringements <
If the article had gone through many revisions and much of it was not infringing it would be less clear that deletion was a good course. Losing the history with a delete and creating the article from the pieces which didn't infringe would lose the history of the non-infringing gradual construction of the page and risk losing that defence against a bogus infringement claim based on accidental resemblence to some other document. Not such an issue in this case because the history is insignificant. I don't want to see delete as the method for all cases, though.
To see how Google handles this, take a look at http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT... and follow the convenient link they provide to the takedown notice, which includes the content they have been asked to take down, effectively making it available again. That's approximately what the history pages here do, though I agree with your archive argument and suggest also that the history is a working document and not part of the current publication, which is the Wikipedia itself, not the history of every page in every version. That's well illustrated by the many sites making the Wikipedia but not the history available.
Sounds as though you and I and Google agree that it's not likely to be problematic (you wrote "probably no damages or no infringement or both") and the only potential disagreement is in how far to go to reduce the chance of a suffering a lawsuit which will fail on its merits but still cost money. Personally, I'm inclined to think that anyone taking action against the Wikipedia will generate strongly negative publicity for themselves and that the risk of that will significantly inhibit baseless legal action. Besides, it might be cheap publicity as long as its settled in the very early stages ... AFTER the Wikipedia press release and Jimbo Wales TV appearances about it.:) Settlement offer along the lines of "$1 as far more than your demonstrable losses and you don't have to explain to the court and the ethics committee why you're wasting the resources of the court".
Still, if Jimbo is more comfortable with a delete, he's the one other than the contributor who is most likely to be hit by legal action and his comfort level matters so long as that remains true.
It might be useful to downstream users to keep a clear log of what we've acted on to deal with actual copyright infringement notices, to help them know tha thtey have pages which are likely to attract legal attention. We're also lacking, so far as I know, a page listing the people we've contacted for permission and what the result was, so we can avoid making repeated requests for the same thing. Think its worth creating them?
Yes, I've read the history page discussion. I generally agree with the view expressed by Brian Vibber, that anyone may choose to use any revision of the Wikipedia they wish, or any combination of revisions and derivative works based on them. That's not inconsistent with the intent to have the current Wikipedia as the currently published document. The history is really just our working document available as part of the process of constructing the actual work.
Where I disagree is in cases like abuse or personal information about themselves which private people contributing to the Wikipedia (rather than public record about public figures) want removed. While it's true that they were once published that way, it's socially good to assist people with removing such things, including ceasing to make them available through the history. Yes, someone could have the page and it would be GFDL, but it's still socially good for Wikipedia to stop distributing it, to inhibit further distribution. Our removal also makes it a bit easier for them to pursue a right of privacy action against whoever is harassing them, though I wouldn't like to speculate on their chance of success.
I don't agree that talk pages or the mailing lists need to be under the GFDL. I think that gets in the way of frank discussion and isn't necessary. A narrower licence, "GFDL but only within the Wikipedia project and for the purpose of that project", suffices for them and doesn't get in the way of researchers, who have ample fair use rights for the purpose.
From: "user_Jamesday" user_Jamesday@myrealbox.com
Where I disagree is in cases like abuse or personal information about
themselves which private people contributing to the Wikipedia
(rather than public record about public figures) want removed.
This is not a copyright issue. If someone places material on Wikipedia, they do so, they have the right to do so and as long as that information is not defamatory or breaking any laws there should be no prohibition against posting any such information. The persons posting information is responsible for posting it, not the volunteers nor Jimbo. It is the person who has posted the information who is responsible for it, not the OSP, this seems to be the case law that you and I have been reviewing lately James.
Our removal also makes it a bit easier for them to pursue a right of
privacy action against whoever is harassing them,
though I wouldn't like to speculate on their chance of success.
I think if a person posts information about themselves anywhere on the internet there is a reasonable expectation that it can be reposted by other people. It is not the job of Wikipedia to determine when to take down information they have put up there. Once it is out there it is irrelevant if it is hidden in the page history files. The person who is harrassing them is abusing that information and they have a claim against that person, not Wikipedia.
There is one fact that you do not seem to keep in mind, the user page creates a link to the person in the world outside Wikipedia. This is important in terms of authorship. Each user has copyright to their contributions and if someone wants to relicense Wikipedia content they have some expectation that there will be some way to determine that a user has contributed. Otherwise such user can be submitting infringing content.
Of course if someone has a reason (like Isis did as it appears to me) then that person can discuss it with Jimbo (and I am guessing it will eventually be a Wikimedia board decision once we become a constitutional monarchy).
Actually the arbitration process that is being created for banning people could also be used to resolve all these types of issues. Personally I would think it would be better to do it in such a context that have these kinds of non-copyright issues discussed to death. I became part of Wikipedia because I liked making contributions to the encyclopedia I am finding that I am spending way too much of my available volunteer time responding to opinions about issues that are just plain wrong or misleading.
Can I make a complaint to the arbitration committee about that?
Alex756
--- "Alex R." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
This is not a copyright issue. If someone places material on Wikipedia, they do so, they have the right to do so and as long as that information is not defamatory or breaking any laws there should be no prohibition against posting any such information. The persons posting information is responsible for posting it, not the volunteers nor Jimbo. It is the person who has posted the information who is responsible for it, not the OSP, this seems to be the case law that you and I have been reviewing lately James.
Should'nt WP take an stand and defend its users from prosecution? There is a movement now dealing with security issues (since it was recently shown how invasive profiling can be done with hacking cookies and web server logs) that websites simply wipe their ip server logs. (There generally is no good reason not to) but does WP? And would a legal defense require WP to keep these logs?
What I mean is: since WP enables the publishing of stuff -- and then says "this user who did the posting is responsible, for any infringement not us" (forgeting about shielding the user for now) -- is WP under some obligation to keep its ip logs just in case, to deflect liability? If these are insufficient-- ( in the case that some violators may use decent enough proxies) -- might a court say that WP (since its in the business of "publishing") must also be in the business of ID-ing its "users" -- and not simply give them free reign to pubish?
This was kind of the argument against the centralized filesharing hubs (ie Napster) wasnt it? In this case, might WP run into an eventuality where its existence as a "Wiki" is a simple contradiction to the responsibilities demanded by US legal liability?
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Should'nt WP take an stand and defend its users from prosecution? There is a movement now dealing with security issues (since it was recently shown how invasive profiling can be done with hacking cookies and web server logs) that websites simply wipe their ip server logs. (There generally is no good reason not to) but does WP? And would a legal defense require WP to keep these logs?
Why should we defend our users from procecution? If they're criminals, why does that matter to us? Why should we be responsible?
What I mean is: since WP enables the publishing of stuff -- and then says "this user who did the posting is responsible, for any infringement not us" (forgeting about shielding the user for now) -- is WP under some obligation to keep its ip logs just in case, to deflect liability? If these are insufficient-- ( in the case that some violators may use decent enough proxies) -- might a court say that WP (since its in the business of "publishing") must also be in the business of ID-ing its "users" -- and not simply give them free reign to pubish?
This was kind of the argument against the centralized filesharing hubs (ie Napster) wasnt it? In this case, might WP run into an eventuality where its existence as a "Wiki" is a simple contradiction to the responsibilities demanded by US legal liability?
~S~
IMHO, we non-lawyers shouldn't question the legal expertice of a lawyer. He went to law school for three years; you read one article about Napster in 5 minutes. I'm not saying all lawyers are always right, there are some lawyers that are corrupt or wrong, but Alex definitely isn't one of them.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
IMHO, we non-lawyers shouldn't question the legal expertice of a lawyer.
It is ok Dan, really the beauty of law is that anyone can come up with a new argument and sometimes a fresh perspective
...He went to law school for three years;
Actually I was in law school for four years, I have two law degrees and every year take continuing legal education courses required by the court to keep up with developments in the law
...you read one article about Napster in 5 minutes. I'm not saying all lawyers are always right, there are some lawyers that are corrupt or wrong, but Alex definitely isn't one of them.
Thank you Dan, but SV does bring up some good points now and then and they are thoughtful. As a general rule lawyers do not dislike people who enliven a debate, after all that is what we do even amongst ourselves.
Alex756
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
IMHO, we non-lawyers shouldn't question the legal expertice of a lawyer.
You can question my expertise and remember that I am not really giving a legal advice here. I am just providing input. As far as I know as a lawyer I have no greater voice than any other volunteer here, Wikipedia operates on a consensus decisionmaking model so that is why I try (though sometimes fail) to put my legal knowledge in simple terms so that everyone can make their own decision about it.
I am not about getting anyone to agree with me, I just want to be informative and help the community that contributes here to be better informed and make better decisions.
Alex756
From: "Stevertigo" utilitymuffinresearch2@yahoo.com
What I mean is: since WP enables the publishing of stuff -- and then says "this user who did the posting is responsible, for any infringement not us" (forgeting about shielding the user for now) -- is WP under some obligation to keep its ip logs just in case, to deflect liability? If these are insufficient-- ( in the case that some violators may use decent enough proxies) -- might a court say that WP (since its in the business of "publishing") must also be in the business of ID-ing its "users" -- and not simply give them free reign to pubish?
There is an argument that because of the GFDL that requires WP to maintain any information that can establish the identity of contributors. The GFDL is worthless if it is impossible to confirm that the contributions being made by WP are original and without infringing material. How can one do that without getting a statement from the contributor that the materials are not copied from someone else (people working at VfD/copyvio try to do this, but they can only really check for online copying, there are tonnes of text out there that are not searchable over the internet but still copyright).
Thus the ip logs can help to establish and confirm identity.
I doubt that a court could order WP to register its users. There is a strong freedom of speech argument there. Also US copyright law specifically protects pseudonymous authorship (though it is not tied to the death of the individual, it is actually the shortest copyright period available, on of the reasons I don't post under my full name).
might WP run into an eventuality where its existence as a "Wiki" is a simple contradiction to the responsibilities demanded by US legal liability?
Someone will analyze it and figure out some way to fit it in, but my intuitive response is that a wiki is really a pass through that goes back to the contributor/user. How can it be otherwise?
Of course the more institutionalized a wiki gets the more it takes on the persona of the institution. However it is not like a wiki used on an intranet, it is a free and open wiki that anyone can contribute to (even anonymously). For this reason it would seem it could never become a shield.
All the more reason to warn users of their potential liability if they post anything wrong.
Of course if someone has a good reason to take off material about themselves I think that serious consideration should be done to do so, but even deleted pages are reviewable by sysops, so everything is preserved and their is no destruction of evidence.
Alex756
To see how Google handles this, take a look at
http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT...
and follow the convenient link they provide to the takedown notice, which includes the content they have been asked to take down, effectively making it available again. That's approximately what the history pages here do, though I agree with your archive argument and suggest also that the history is a working document and not part of the current publication, which is the Wikipedia itself, not the history of every page in every version. That's well illustrated by the many sites making the Wikipedia but not the history available.
So, you think that court documents like that should be kept private? LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com