We need to especially follow our own "laws", Wikipedia terms of use, our own bylaw. Definitely copyright law which all members need to learn and respect for the welfare of the project. Since we are not copyright experts we need to make conservative interpretations.
With respect to real world law in general, we need to use common sense. For example, in Colorado, it is slander to speak ill of the dead. Unconstitutional but on the books last I heard. Likewise we cannot so completely avoid covering the activities of Nazis and Communist mass murderers that we can satisfy France, Germany, or Red China.
Fred
From: "Martin Harper" martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk Reply-To: martin@myreddice.co.uk Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:38:37 -0000 To: arbitration@nerstrand.net Subject: Next on the agenda - "Rules"
Next on the agenda is "Rules": what rules are we going to enforce - on what basis will people be found guilty. Some possibilities (brainstorming, really):
- The real world law
- The [[Wikipedia:terms of use]]
- The copyright license
- Wikimedia bylaws
There are no doubt many more. There's also the option of going with a similar approach to the way we handled Jurisdiction and starting off with a minimal set that we can interpret flexibly and nail down (if necessary) later.
So, opinions?
-Martin
Fred Bauder wrote:
We need to especially follow our own "laws", Wikipedia terms of use, our own bylaw. Definitely copyright law which all members need to learn and respect for the welfare of the project. Since we are not copyright experts we need to make conservative interpretations.
With respect to real world law in general, we need to use common sense. For example, in Colorado, it is slander to speak ill of the dead. Unconstitutional but on the books last I heard.
The common sense approach should apply in all cases. Following a law just because it is on the books is silly, as the Colorado example plainly shows. The spirit of the laws is far more important than the letter of the law.
Respect for copyright law does not mean taking it to the point of putting ourselves at extreme disadvantage. If in a given situation two interpretations are reasonably available there is nothing wrong with opting for the more favorable one. An ISP does have the duty to remove clear copyright violations when he finds them without being notified. If there are reasonable doubts about the violation it should stay until there is a direct complaint by an authorized person; at that point there will be plenty of time for review.
I also follow the principle that there is no copyright unless someone exists to own it.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
With respect to real world law in general, we need to use common sense. For example, in Colorado, it is slander to speak ill of the dead. Unconstitutional but on the books last I heard. Likewise we cannot so completely avoid covering the activities of Nazis and Communist mass murderers that we can satisfy France, Germany, or Red China.
German law doesn't forbid covering the activities of Nazis (on the contrary). The only thing which is forbidden is stating as a fact that the holocaust never happened and making Nazi propaganda. Two things which I hope Wikipedia will never do anyway.
greetings, elian