http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/news/2007/05/digglegal
Not a blog, actual press coverage. Online, but it's eminently Reliable Source-worthy - real journalists, editors and money.
Will they dare DMCA legitimate press? If not, I really doubt they'll DMCA an encyclopedia.
If they do DMCA an encyclopedia when not DMCAing the press, they will be buried.
If they do DMCA Wired, then Wired get to go first!
- d.
On 5/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If they do DMCA Wired, then Wired get to go first!
Near simultaneous filings are legal and logisticaly possible.
On 5/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If they do DMCA Wired, then Wired get to go first!
According to [[Universal v. Reimerdes]], DeCSS was a single case that included all defendants. Does one party 'go first' in cases like this?
MPAA would loose nothing by including Wikipedia in a suit against Wired even if we only linked to the Wired article that published it, after all that was the crux of the latter part of the DeCSS case: 2600 deep linking to other publishers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes
Also, do we have an obligation to mirrors to not include content that could put them in hot water ? Answers.com is currently proudly displaying the DeCSS descrambler image...
On 5/4/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Near simultaneous filings are legal and logisticaly possible.
If we publish it because Wired is the source and MPAA filed the cases separately, is it reasonable to assume that a separate Wikipedia case would be stayed pending the resolution of a Wired case?
-- John
On 5/3/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Also, do we have an obligation to mirrors to not include content that could put them in hot water ? Answers.com is currently proudly displaying the DeCSS descrambler image...
We provide no warranty and explicitly disclaim one. Even to the mirrors.
On 04/05/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Also, do we have an obligation to mirrors to not include content that could put them in hot water ? Answers.com is currently proudly displaying the DeCSS descrambler image...
We provide no warranty and explicitly disclaim one. Even to the mirrors.
And Answers.com is smart enough to know that answering "Blatantly academic fair use, go away" would not only win but be excellent marketing.
- d.
On 5/3/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If they do DMCA Wired, then Wired get to go first!
According to [[Universal v. Reimerdes]], DeCSS was a single case that included all defendants. Does one party 'go first' in cases like this?
MPAA would loose nothing by including Wikipedia in a suit against Wired even if we only linked to the Wired article that published it, after all that was the crux of the latter part of the DeCSS case: 2600 deep linking to other publishers.
The thing is, the WMF, unlike Wired, is not a publisher, or at least is going to claim it's not a publisher. So the two cases would be inherently different.
Anthony
For god's sake, the NYT -is- a publisher, and they linked to it all over their official blog. You think their lawyers would have let them do that, if there were any significant degree of risk?
On 5/3/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/3/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If they do DMCA Wired, then Wired get to go first!
According to [[Universal v. Reimerdes]], DeCSS was a single case that included all defendants. Does one party 'go first' in cases like this?
MPAA would loose nothing by including Wikipedia in a suit against Wired even if we only linked to the Wired article that published it, after all that was the crux of the latter part of the DeCSS case: 2600 deep linking to other publishers.
The thing is, the WMF, unlike Wired, is not a publisher, or at least is going to claim it's not a publisher. So the two cases would be inherently different.
Anthony
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/3/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
For god's sake, the NYT -is- a publisher, and they linked to it all over their official blog. You think their lawyers would have let them do that, if there were any significant degree of risk?
Obviously they think the benefits outweigh the risks. But what does this have to do with my comment?
On 5/3/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/3/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If they do DMCA Wired, then Wired get to go first!
According to [[Universal v. Reimerdes]], DeCSS was a single case that included all defendants. Does one party 'go first' in cases like this?
MPAA would loose nothing by including Wikipedia in a suit against Wired even if we only linked to the Wired article that published it, after all that was the crux of the latter part of the DeCSS case: 2600 deep linking to other publishers.
The thing is, the WMF, unlike Wired, is not a publisher, or at least is going to claim it's not a publisher. So the two cases would be inherently different.
Anthony
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Because, if everyone else in the world is publishing it and linking to it, and we're running around worrying that the sky will fall if anyone breathes a mention of the Forbidden Number, we're going to look ridiculous. And rightly so, that -is- ridiculous.
On 5/4/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/3/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
For god's sake, the NYT -is- a publisher, and they linked to it all over their official blog. You think their lawyers would have let them do that, if there were any significant degree of risk?
Obviously they think the benefits outweigh the risks. But what does this have to do with my comment?
On 5/3/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/3/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If they do DMCA Wired, then Wired get to go first!
According to [[Universal v. Reimerdes]], DeCSS was a single case that included all defendants. Does one party 'go first' in cases like this?
MPAA would loose nothing by including Wikipedia in a suit against Wired even if we only linked to the Wired article that published it, after all that was the crux of the latter part of the DeCSS case: 2600 deep linking to other publishers.
The thing is, the WMF, unlike Wired, is not a publisher, or at least is going to claim it's not a publisher. So the two cases would be inherently different.
Anthony
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l