On 2 Jun 2007 at 18:12:05 -0500, "Philippe Beaudette" philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, I know copyright is critical, but I can't help but think it was used as a means to the desired end in this case.
Yeah... they should have just declared BJAODN to be an Attack Site.
Let's just get this straight: does anybody claim that these pages are necessary to the encyclopedia?
On 03/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Let's just get this straight: does anybody claim that these pages are necessary to the encyclopedia?
Necessary? No.
Desirable? Yes. Why? Because it makes Wikipedia a more entertaining place to be. Should we be making Wikipedia a more entertaining place to be, or a less entertaining place to be?
On 6/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Let's just get this straight: does anybody claim that these pages are necessary to the encyclopedia?
Necessary? No.
Desirable? Yes. Why? Because it makes Wikipedia a more entertaining place to be. Should we be making Wikipedia a more entertaining place to be, or a less entertaining place to be?
I think you meant that to be a rhetorical question, but I think it's actually the key to whether or not these pages should stay. If these were user pages the answer would be clearly no, right?
Anthony
On 6/2/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Let's just get this straight: does anybody claim that these pages are necessary to the encyclopedia?
Necessary: no more so than most of our rules, guidelines, procedures, templates, user-pages, user-page templates, and other miscellaneous administrative mechanisms -- or, in fact, this mailing list. But, desirable -- yes.
Here's what I said in my last message on the subject, in the other thread:
"Note that ironically enough, I counted 9 !votes to "move to BJAODN" on other MfDs for completely unrelated articles... BJAODN is a stronger part of Wikipedia's culture than many people realize. In general, things that make people feel like they are part of a community are useful, including open in-jokes. If we are busted for not following the GFDL (by whom, exactly? with what interpretation?) it's not going to be for this part of the site."
-- phoebe
And there are plenty of things that are strongly integrated into society too, but we have to let them go when it's time. There are scores of these examples in society. I dont think BJAODN is on the same level as say, slavery, so I wont detail a list, but this is just to point out that argument 1 is entirely fallacious as an argument to keep something around.
As for argument 2, we are, first and foremost, a free content project. We dont create this encyclopedia for us, but for downstream users. We support and nurture free content. It's one of the Five Pillars. Just because we can get away with breaking a free content license does not mean we should. Go fork if this is what you truly believe.
On 6/2/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Let's just get this straight: does anybody claim that these pages are necessary to the encyclopedia?
Necessary: no more so than most of our rules, guidelines, procedures, templates, user-pages, user-page templates, and other miscellaneous administrative mechanisms -- or, in fact, this mailing list. But, desirable -- yes.
Here's what I said in my last message on the subject, in the other thread:
"Note that ironically enough, I counted 9 !votes to "move to BJAODN" on other MfDs for completely unrelated articles... BJAODN is a stronger part of Wikipedia's culture than many people realize. In general, things that make people feel like they are part of a community are useful, including open in-jokes. If we are busted for not following the GFDL (by whom, exactly? with what interpretation?) it's not going to be for this part of the site."
-- phoebe _______________________________________________ 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 03/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
As for argument 2, we are, first and foremost, a free content project. We dont create this encyclopedia for us, but for downstream users. We support and nurture free content. It's one of the Five Pillars. Just because we can get away with breaking a free content license does not mean we should. Go fork if this is what you truly believe.
Indeed, but it's not advisable to push potential contributors away.
On 6/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
As for argument 2, we are, first and foremost, a free content project.
We
dont create this encyclopedia for us, but for downstream users. We
support
and nurture free content. It's one of the Five Pillars. Just because we
can
get away with breaking a free content license does not mean we should.
Go
fork if this is what you truly believe.
Indeed, but it's not advisable to push potential contributors away.
With four years under my belt I think I've moved beyond potential and into actual, and I have done a lot of work in my life for the cause of free content, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. What I meant was simply this:
a) whether the page was or was not a GFDL violation seems subject to doubt -- both in specific, as plausible arguments have been raised on this list why it might not be a violation, and in general -- while I am no expert on free licenses, I know enough people who are to know that there are few cut & dried cases of interpretation, and I am not inclined to believe that this is one of those rare and happy obvious situations; b) regardless, I do not believe, as others have also stated, that BJAODN was the most egregious potential copyright violation on the site, nor the most important to fix; c) if b) is true, then moving deleting the page up to the top of the to-do pile and deleting it hastily seems advisable only if there is a real and pressing danger that the page will affect Wikipedia adversely by existing, which is usually because we are clearly breaking the law with a copyright violation, or because someone is likely to sue and/or be harmed by the contents; d) the former danger (that it is a clear copyright and thus legal violation) does not exist if a) is true; and the latter danger (that someone will sue or be harmed) pretty clearly also doesn't exist, since the majority of stuff in BJAODN is silly vandalism which I suspect no-one will ever come back to claim or otherwise be bothered by ("hi, I vandalized Wikipedia in 2004, and I'd like credit for it, plz!" or "your bad jokes and outrageous claims were so bad they adversely affected my health, and I'm suing!"); e) hence, the action of deleting the entire group of 60 pages that were 6 years in the making on GFDL grounds with no review and no discussion seems, well, a bit silly, if not downright rude. My concerns are not primarily with the copyright issues, they are with the community, and whether this is acceptable.
My apologies for condensing all this in a way that could be misinterpreted. -- phoebe
I do agree that BJAODN likely does consist largely of GFDL violations, and it does make sense to delete it for that reason. On the other hand, the day that an anonymous vandal decides to claim copyright over his BJAODN contributions is the day that Chthulu is destined to return.
It certainly is an interesting situation, and I can't say it really matters either way.
phoebe ayers schreef:
a) whether the page was or was not a GFDL violation seems subject to doubt -- both in specific, as plausible arguments have been raised on this list why it might not be a violation, and in general --
What plausible arguments are you referring to? I'm now looking at the latest subpage, the one that geni wants to undelete [*].
Let's take an example:
== From Obanair == Obanair is a small start-up airline based at Oban airport. they currently do not fly any routes and do not have a plane.
That's the entire entry. The associated history entry is: 20:57, 29 April 2007 . . EliminatorJR (Talk | contribs | block) (61,556 bytes) (From [[Obanair]])
According to the GFDL, we have to acknowledge the author of [[Obanair]]; we don't. There is a link to the original page, but it has been deleted. There is no way this complies with the GFDL. The only way to include it is to claim fair use, but according to our policy ([[WP:FU]]): "Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text.. is acceptable". So we need attribution for that as well.
There's also the problem that we're making fun of a startup company here. The third google hit for this company's name is now "Wikipedia: Bad Jokes". This is not very good for the company; it is the reason why AfD's are noindexed. If it was a living person, it would be a BLP case.
(And there are many entries about LP's; so the page could have been deleted on BLP grounds.)
(Additionally, it's not funny.)
I know enough people who are to know that there are few cut & dried cases of interpretation, and I am not inclined to believe that this is one of those rare and happy obvious situations;
No, this is not correct. There are a lot of situations that are unclear, but that does not mean that there are few obvious situations. In faact, I think the latter outnumber the former.
b) regardless, I do not believe, as others have also stated, that BJAODN was the most egregious potential copyright violation on the site, nor the most important to fix;
Every contributor to Wikipedia has his/her own priority list, and this has long been accepted. We won't tell people that they must work on our serious articles before starting on [[Pokemon]], and we won't tell people which copyright violations they must give priority to.
c) if b) is true, then moving deleting the page up to the top of the to-do pile and deleting it hastily seems advisable only if there is a real and pressing danger that the page will affect Wikipedia adversely by existing, which is usually because we are clearly breaking the law with a copyright violation, or because someone is likely to sue and/or be harmed by the contents;
No, it's always advisable to do something about a copyright violation. (If it's advisable to do it *now*, doesn't matter; see my previous reply.)
Eugene
This mail is partly based on GFDL text by [[User:Obanair]].
[*] A worthwhile idea, if only to show that it won't work; that the will to make these pages complyant is not there.
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
According to the GFDL, we have to acknowledge the author of [[Obanair]]; we don't. There is a link to the original page, but it has been deleted. There is no way this complies with the GFDL. [...]
No, it's always advisable to do something about a copyright violation. (If it's advisable to do it *now*, doesn't matter; see my previous reply.)
Is this a copyright violation? It seems to me that it's a contract violation but not a copyright violation. We believe that text was given to us to use under the terms of the GFDL. We believe that we are complying with the spirit of the license. We don't believe that any contributor cares about lack of credit on BJAODN. If anybody cared to claim credit unintentionally lost, we'd remedy it in a flash. Or they could. So if we are violating the license (and the "five principal authors" clause makes me wonder), it seems a very minor contract violation, not a crime.
On the other hand, if we treat all copy-paste moves and merges like this as copyright violations serious enough to demand instant deletion, extended drama, and coming to the brink of a wheel war, then surely BJAODN isn't our biggest problem. Shouldn't we drop everything and go around deleting all of the articles where we suspect proper credit has been lost?
William
phoebe ayers wrote:
c) if b) is true, then moving deleting the page up to the top of the to-do pile and deleting it hastily seems advisable only if there is a real and pressing danger that the page will affect Wikipedia adversely by existing, which is usually because we are clearly breaking the law with a copyright violation, or because someone is likely to sue and/or be harmed by the contents;
It's also important to point out that US law provides a three year limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright. Material that has already been there for three years cannot be subject. There is a five year limitation for criminal wilful infringement, but it would be extremely difficult to establish wilfullness when the actual copyright of the material is seriously diswputed.
d) the former danger (that it is a clear copyright and thus legal violation) does not exist if a) is true; and the latter danger (that someone will sue or be harmed) pretty clearly also doesn't exist, since the majority of stuff in BJAODN is silly vandalism which I suspect no-one will ever come back to claim or otherwise be bothered by ("hi, I vandalized Wikipedia in 2004, and I'd like credit for it, plz!" or "your bad jokes and outrageous claims were so bad they adversely affected my health, and I'm suing!");
In such circumstances the legal obligation is likely not there. Nevertheless, it would be good public relations to accomodate in that way any idiot who is willing to publically admit that he is one.
Thank you for your comments in general on this. The fact that they are coming from a person who does not habitually participate in wikicatfights makes them all the more cogent.
Ec
On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
c) if b) is true, then moving deleting the page up to the top of the
to-do
pile and deleting it hastily seems advisable only if there is a real and pressing danger that the page will affect Wikipedia adversely by
existing,
which is usually because we are clearly breaking the law with a copyright violation, or because someone is likely to sue and/or be harmed by the contents;
It's also important to point out that US law provides a three year limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright. Material that has already been there for three years cannot be subject.
Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement, and so a new three years.
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement, and so a new three years.
If that's the case, the US legal system is even more fucked up than we already knew.
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement, and so
a
new three years.
If that's the case, the US legal system is even more fucked up than we already knew.
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_stat...
Makes sense to me. Every time you make a copy, you commit a new infringement. If the copyright holder knows about the infringement you could probably argue some other defense, but what sense would it make to let someone get away with ongoing copyright infringement just because they started more than 3 years ago (assuming, if you will, that copyright makes sense in the first place).
On 6/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement, and
so a
new three years.
If that's the case, the US legal system is even more fucked up than we already knew.
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_stat...
Makes sense to me. Every time you make a copy, you commit a new infringement. If the copyright holder knows about the infringement you could probably argue some other defense, but what sense would it make to let someone get away with ongoing copyright infringement just because they started more than 3 years ago (assuming, if you will, that copyright makes sense in the first place).
Remember also that copyright infringement of a non-registered work is limited to actual damages.
On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's also important to point out that US law provides a three year limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright. Material that has already been there for three years cannot be subject.
=20 =20 Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement, and s=
o a
new three years.
{{verify}}{{dubious}}<cough>bullshit</cough>
--=20 Sean Barrett | It is just as dangerous to move your hands sean@epoptic.com | too fast near sharp objects as it is to move | sharp objects too fast near your hands.
On 6/3/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
It's also important to point out that US law provides a three year limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright. Material that has already been there for three years cannot be subject.
=20 =20 Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement, and s=
o a
new three years.
{{verify}}{{dubious}}<cough>bullshit</cough>
http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+statute+of+limitations
Next time read the rest of the thread before making an ass out of yourself.
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
It's also important to point out that US law provides a three year limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright. Material that has already been there for three years cannot be subject.
=20 =20 Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement, and s=
o a
new three years.
{{verify}}{{dubious}}<cough>bullshit</cough>
http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+statute+of+limitations
Next time read the rest of the thread before making an ass out of yourself.
"However, the courts are divided as to how this applies." http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_stat...
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of "purchase", not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
It's also important to point out that US law provides a three year limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright. Material
that
has already been there for three years cannot be subject.
=20 =20 Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement,
and s=
o a
new three years.
{{verify}}{{dubious}}<cough>bullshit</cough>
http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+statute+of+limitations
Next time read the rest of the thread before making an ass out of
yourself.
"However, the courts are divided as to how this applies."
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_stat...
"Some courts hold that you can recover your damages for the entirety of the infringement so long as a lawsuit is filed within 3 years of the last infringing act; others limit damages to those acts which occurred within the three years leading up to the lawsuit."
The courts are divided as to whether or not infringing acts which occurred more than three years ago count, they are *not* divided on the fact that you can recover for damages for those infringing acts which occurred less than three years ago.
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of "purchase",
not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
On 6/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
It's also important to point out that US law provides a three
year
limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright. Material
that
has already been there for three years cannot be subject.
=20 =20 Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement,
and s=
o a
new three years.
{{verify}}{{dubious}}<cough>bullshit</cough>
http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+statute+of+limitations
Next time read the rest of the thread before making an ass out of
yourself.
"However, the courts are divided as to how this applies."
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_stat...
"Some courts hold that you can recover your damages for the entirety of the infringement so long as a lawsuit is filed within 3 years of the last infringing act; others limit damages to those acts which occurred within the three years leading up to the lawsuit."
The courts are divided as to whether or not infringing acts which occurred more than three years ago count, they are *not* divided on the fact that you can recover for damages for those infringing acts which occurred less than three years ago.
"Here's how limitations works in copyright cases. A complaint is filed in 2005. Under what circumstances may plaintiff collect damages for acts of infringement that began in 2000 and continued into 2005? (If the infringement began in 2000 but stopped in 2001, a suit brought in 2005 is untimely and no recovery is possible). All circuits permit recovery reaching back to 2002."
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/05/statute-of-limitations-part-one.htm...
"The statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years for both civil and criminal lawsuits. This means that if somebody infringes your copyright, you must bring a lawsuit within three years of the infringing act. If your bring a suit more than three years after the infringement began, you may only be permitted to recover three years worth of damages."
http://www.alankorn.com/articles/copyright_infringe.html
Do I need more?
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
>It's also important to point out that US law provides a three > >
year
>limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright. Material > >
that
>has already been there for three years cannot be subject. > > =20 =20 Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement,
and s=
o a
new three years.
{{verify}}{{dubious}}<cough>bullshit</cough>
http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+statute+of+limitations
Next time read the rest of the thread before making an ass out of
yourself.
"However, the courts are divided as to how this applies."
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_stat...
"Some courts hold that you can recover your damages for the entirety of the infringement so long as a lawsuit is filed within 3 years of the last infringing act; others limit damages to those acts which occurred within the three years leading up to the lawsuit."
The courts are divided as to whether or not infringing acts which occurred more than three years ago count, they are *not* divided on the fact that you can recover for damages for those infringing acts which occurred less than three years ago.
"Here's how limitations works in copyright cases. A complaint is filed in 2005. Under what circumstances may plaintiff collect damages for acts of infringement that began in 2000 and continued into 2005? (If the infringement began in 2000 but stopped in 2001, a suit brought in 2005 is untimely and no recovery is possible). All circuits permit recovery reaching back to 2002."
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/05/statute-of-limitations-part-one.htm...
I'm sorry to admit having done a bit of homework on this before replying. :-P Your quotation is grossly out of context, and what follows puts a serious shadow on your position.
Aside from tolling doctrines, when does a claim for infringement "accrue"? There are two basic approaches, violation accrual and discovery accrual. Violation accrual runs the limitations period from when infringement first occurred, regardless of whether plaintiff knew of the infringement or could have known of it. Violation accrual's value is certainty. Discovery accrual runs from when a reasonable person in plaintiff's position knew or should have known of facts which would support a claim of infringement. Discovery accrual's value is fairness to plaintiffs.
Courts have historically used discovery accrual in copyright infringement actions. That may be a thing of the past. The Supreme Court has been extremely critical of discovery accrual as of late. In TRW, Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001), Justice Ginsburg noted the Court had only approved of it in two situations, latent disease and medical malpractice. Justices Scalia and Thomas went further, calling discovery accrual "bad wine of a recent vintage." If so, the drek continues. In 2004, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its commitment to discovery accrual in copyright cases, Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22131 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2004). Polar Bear didn't cite TRW, though, relying on an earlier circuit copyright case. Polar Bear makes my point about relying on copyright decisions to the exclusion of trends in general law.
A notable exception is Auscape International v. National Geographic Society, 71 USPQ2d 1874 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2004). Judge Lewis Kaplan, in an exhaustive opinion citing TRW and the 1957 legislative history, held that it is "strikingly clear that Congress intended to adopt a three-year limitations period running from the date of infringement, as a discovery rule would have defeated its overriding goal of certainty." Auscape is a very good indication that reliance on past precedent in the area may be a big mistake.
In the second part of his essay Patry talks about the recovery of rights, and the remedial role of copyright legislation. Thus, if one of our jokers sought to recover his rights from the time that he issues a claim he could, but that would not have the effect of recovering damages for past infringements.
This whole discussion seems to highlight the extend to which some of our colleagues have taken copyright paranoia. It has already been stated that a person seeking relief for infringement of his copyrights on the part of BJAODN would need to admit that he was the one to have made such idiotic contents. He would also need to show where the copyrighted text was taken from, something that he can't do unless he has access to the deleted original article; if he was a common vandal he doesn't have access to much of anything. Maybe he'll start looking for evidence that the material was cached on his hard drive, but that ceases to work when he remembers that he made his submission at some time before he last blew out that hard drive.
If he can establish that the idiocy was his he will need to register his copyright before he can carry on with his law suit. At that point the infringer can use the laches argument, and if it ever gets that far we always have the ever-popular fair use claim in our back pocket.
So tell me: How many of our idiots would be capable and willing to go through all that?
"The statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years for both civil and criminal lawsuits. This means that if somebody infringes your copyright, you must bring a lawsuit within three years of the infringing act. If your bring a suit more than three years after the infringement began, you may only be permitted to recover three years worth of damages."
I would question the credibility of a site that can't even get a simple fact straight. Section 507(a) clearly says five years for criminal infringement. There is significant difference in the wording of the two clauses, but at least the two time periods are clear. I should also add that this reference deals with the more rarified atmosphere of music copyrights.
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of "purchase",
not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer, not by the person who acquires the infringed material.
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of "purchase",
not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer, not by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of "purchase",
not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer, not by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement". That means that something done by the person who acquires the material causes the infringement.
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
"purchase",
not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer, not by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement".
Yes, there is.
That means that something done by the person who
acquires the material causes the infringement.
No, it doesn't.
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
"purchase",
not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer, not by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement".
Yes, there is.
That means that something done by the person who
acquires the material causes the infringement.
No, it doesn't.
You're going to have to explain that, rather than just state it.
Each time we serve up copyrighted material is a new infringement. It's not hard to understand. Anthony happens to be correct here.
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
"purchase",
not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer, not by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement". That means that something done by the person who acquires the material causes the infringement.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[I fixed your post for you.]
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
"purchase",
not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer, not by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement". That means that something done by the person who acquires the material causes the infringement.
Each time we serve up copyrighted material is a new infringement. It's not hard to understand. Anthony happens to be correct here.
Ah, so an action by the person receiving the material *does* cause an infringement! Anthony said it didn't.
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[I fixed your post for you.]
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
"purchase",
> not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer,
not
by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement". That means that something done by the person who acquires the material causes the infringement.
Each time we serve up copyrighted material is a new infringement. It's
not
hard to understand. Anthony happens to be correct here.
Ah, so an action by the person receiving the material *does* cause an infringement! Anthony said it didn't.
It causes it in a technical sense? OK, I suppose you could argue that. It's your argument though, not mine. All I'm saying is that infringement does in fact take place. This is pretty obvious. A copy is made without permission. Who "causes" such a copy to be made, technically and/or legally, can be argued, I suppose, but there is no question that a copy is being made.
Could a downloader ever be found liable for copyright infringement? I don't know, probably so, but I don't know of any case where this has actually happened. In most cases the downloader isn't worth going after anyway because the recoverable damages would be too small - certainly in the case where all the downloader does is visit a Wikipedia page.
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[I fixed your post for you.]
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
"purchase",
> not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer,
not
by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement". That means that something done by the person who acquires the material causes the infringement.
Each time we serve up copyrighted material is a new infringement. It's
not
hard to understand. Anthony happens to be correct here.
Ah, so an action by the person receiving the material *does* cause an infringement! Anthony said it didn't.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does. A weird distinction in, but one generally held to be the de facto, if not de jure, standard in us copyright issues. And I moved it down since you dont like the top posting :)
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[I fixed your post for you.]
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: > On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
> As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
"purchase",
> > not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up. > > > Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public > performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer,
not
by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement". That means that something done by the person who acquires the material causes the infringement.
Each time we serve up copyrighted material is a new infringement. It's
not
hard to understand. Anthony happens to be correct here.
Ah, so an action by the person receiving the material *does* cause an infringement! Anthony said it didn't.
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their" action, not "ours".
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their" action, not "ours".
Even if you successfully make the argument that the downloader is the one doing the infringing (an argument which I thought you said was "fucked up"), in the case where you know about the file, you're still liable for contributory infringement. If you don't know about the file then you've got the DMCA protection anyway.
Oh yeah, and even if you're not copying, and not contributorily liable, you've also got the "distribution" and "public performance/display" problems to deal with.
On 6/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
in the case where you know about the file, you're still liable for contributory infringement.
Before someone takes *that* the wrong way, I'm talking about the person who runs the server and knows about the file, not *everyone* who knows about the file.
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
in the case where you know about the file, you're still liable for contributory infringement.
Before someone takes *that* the wrong way, I'm talking about the person who runs the server and knows about the file, not *everyone* who knows about the file.
It's a matter of knowing about the infringement; not just knowing about the file. Just because a few people with no connection to the material allege that there is a copyvio does not imply that you know about the infringement. Once you get past that you need to remember that we are only considering a small part of the file. The rest may be perfectly keepable as far as copyrights are concerned.
Ec
On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
in the case where you know about the file, you're still liable for contributory infringement.
Before someone takes *that* the wrong way, I'm talking about the person
who
runs the server and knows about the file, not *everyone* who knows about
the
file.
It's a matter of knowing about the infringement; not just knowing about the file.
Specifically, it requires "knowledge of the infringing activity", which seems to me to be different from "knowledge that the activity is infringing". But now we're getting way beyond my initial statement, and into the realm of hypotheticals which are far too poorly defined. If you can find some material on exactly what constitutes "knowledge" for the purposes of contributory copyright infringement, I would be interested in it, though.
Just because a few people with no connection to the material
allege that there is a copyvio does not imply that you know about the infringement. Once you get past that you need to remember that we are only considering a small part of the file. The rest may be perfectly keepable as far as copyrights are concerned.
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
in the case where you know about the file, you're still liable for contributory infringement.
Before someone takes *that* the wrong way, I'm talking about the person who
runs the server and knows about the file, not *everyone* who knows about the
file.
It's a matter of knowing about the infringement; not just knowing about the file.
Specifically, it requires "knowledge of the infringing activity", which seems to me to be different from "knowledge that the activity is infringing". But now we're getting way beyond my initial statement, and into the realm of hypotheticals which are far too poorly defined. If you can find some material on exactly what constitutes "knowledge" for the purposes of contributory copyright infringement, I would be interested in it, though.
How can you possibly have knowledge of infringing activity when you don't know that the material is infringing? The former is necessarily a precondition of the latter. I can easily admit that many of the terms are poorly defined, but in poorly defined laws the benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant.
A good place to start for understanding what constitutes knowledge of infringement is the list of things that must appear in a takedown order. For contributory infringements it may be sufficient to show that theres has already been a case filed against the original infringer. There are no doubt other criteria, but they would need to be based on solid evidence, and not on shaky presumptioins.. Knowledge also needs to make allowance for plausible defences, including fair use, the merger principle, and waiver of rights.
Ec
On 6/4/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
in the case where you know about the file, you're still liable for contributory infringement.
Before someone takes *that* the wrong way, I'm talking about the person
who
runs the server and knows about the file, not *everyone* who knows
about the
file.
It's a matter of knowing about the infringement; not just knowing about the file.
Specifically, it requires "knowledge of the infringing activity", which seems to me to be different from "knowledge that the activity is infringing". But now we're getting way beyond my initial statement, and into the realm of hypotheticals which are far too poorly defined. If you can find some material on exactly what constitutes "knowledge" for the purposes of contributory copyright infringement, I would be interested in it, though.
How can you possibly have knowledge of infringing activity when you don't know that the material is infringing? The former is necessarily a precondition of the latter.
I don't understand the question. If you know about the activity, but aren't sure if it's infringing, then you have knowledge of the infringing activity but don't know that the material is infringing. I'm kind of just restating the question though, so I'm not sure if I've explained myself.
I can easily admit that many of the terms
are poorly defined, but in poorly defined laws the benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant.
I'd be happy to see any precedents in the matter. Until then I can only speculate.
A good place to start for understanding what constitutes knowledge of
infringement is the list of things that must appear in a takedown order.
I'm not talking about the DMCA, though.
For contributory infringements it may be sufficient to show that
theres has already been a case filed against the original infringer. There are no doubt other criteria, but they would need to be based on solid evidence, and not on shaky presumptioins.. Knowledge also needs to make allowance for plausible defences, including fair use, the merger principle, and waiver of rights.
Are you talking here about the standard under the DMCA (OCILLA), or the standard for contributory copyright infringement? Again, two completely different things. Like I said, we're probably getting way too hypothetical and not properly defining situations here.
Anthony
On 6/4/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
How can you possibly have knowledge of infringing activity when you don't know that the material is infringing? The former is necessarily a precondition of the latter. I can easily admit that many of the terms are poorly defined, but in poorly defined laws the benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant.
When I trespass on someone else's property, I may not know who it belongs to or that I am trespassing - but it doesn't change the fact that I am aware of my activity in walking on to that land. Knowledge of the infringing activity does not imply knowledge that the activity constitutes infringement; I believe the legal doctrine concerned is known as [[strict liability]].
Johnleemk
On 04/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their" action, not "ours".
Even if you successfully make the argument that the downloader is the one doing the infringing (an argument which I thought you said was "fucked up"),
"Fucked up" is blaming the site for the downloader's infringement.
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their" action, not "ours".
Even if you successfully make the argument that the downloader is the
one
doing the infringing (an argument which I thought you said was "fucked
up"),
"Fucked up" is blaming the site for the downloader's infringement.
LOL. Before you said that" if the infringement of copyright is the act of "purchase", not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up." Then you said that "All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer, not by the person who acquires the infringed material."
Now you're contradicting yourself.
On 04/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their" action, not "ours".
Even if you successfully make the argument that the downloader is the
one
doing the infringing (an argument which I thought you said was "fucked
up"),
"Fucked up" is blaming the site for the downloader's infringement.
[...if such a thing is an infringement.]
LOL. Before you said that" if the infringement of copyright is the act of "purchase", not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up." Then you said that "All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer, not by the person who acquires the infringed material."
Now you're contradicting yourself.
Not at all, it's evidently doubly fucked up. I'm hardly surprised.
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[I fixed your post for you.]
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: > > On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: > > On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: > > > As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
"purchase",
> > > not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up. > > > > > > Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or
"public
> > performance/display". > > All of which look to me like that which is done by the
infringer,
not
> by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is
a
new infringement". That means that something done by the person
who
acquires the material causes the infringement.
Each time we serve up copyrighted material is a new infringement.
It's
not
hard to understand. Anthony happens to be correct here.
Ah, so an action by the person receiving the material *does* cause an infringement! Anthony said it didn't.
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their" action, not "ours".
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"that" argument is the one "I" just told "you" was wrong. Read the rest of my post.
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[I fixed your post for you.] On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: > On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: > > On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: > > > On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Can I just note the useful, productive and argument-ending nature of this thread. Thank you. Do please all continue.
- d.
On 6/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[I fixed your post for you.] On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: > On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: > > On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: > > > > On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Can I just note the useful, productive and argument-ending nature of this thread. Thank you. Do please all continue.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
*cough* Yeah, wow, we are going around in circles. Copyright laws derive from Nazis.
There, Godwinned, lets all go do something useful :)
On 6/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[I fixed your post for you.] On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: > On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: > > On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: > > > > On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Can I just note the useful, productive and argument-ending nature of this thread. Thank you. Do please all continue.
Flaimbait is hard to ignore :). Anyone know who James Farrar is, anyway?
On 04/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Flaimbait is hard to ignore :). Anyone know who James Farrar is, anyway?
Lots of people do. Not sure if anyone on this list knows me personally, or what difference that would make, though.
On 04/06/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their" action, not "ours".
Run back to first principles for a second. I give you a pirated copy of a novel I made. Which one of us has infringed copyright? That would be me; I did the copying without the right. The law considers copyright infringement to be an act done by the publisher of the material, which is sensible enough. (There may or may not be ancillary punishments for then recieving it, but that's secondary)
The legal interpretation of having material on the internet is that you are "publishing" it each and every time to each and every person who comes along and requests the file (at least, this seems to be the dominant view at the moment) - as such, each time someone requests a copy of the file *you* make a copy of it and give it to them.
Logically, therefore, you breach copyright every time someone else accesses the file. Follow the wonderful twisted insanity? Their action, your criminal act.
It becomes weird because you don't have to be involved in the loop at all, and as such they can initiate *you* breaking the law, though there's probably some wonderful case from the fifties involving automated musical phone lines or something to show why it all makes sense. After all, you do presumably have to knowledgeably have put the file there, or something.
(Imagine, incidentally, if I built a machine which would print and bind bootleg copies of Harry Potter novels on the push of a button. Am I the maker responsible for the breach of copyright? Is the user? I am tempted to see if we can get that set as a question in a law exam...)
On 04/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The legal interpretation of having material on the internet is that you are "publishing" it each and every time to each and every person who comes along and requests the file (at least, this seems to be the dominant view at the moment) - as such, each time someone requests a copy of the file *you* make a copy of it and give it to them.
Interesting. Has RIAA not been chasing leeches as well as seeds?
On 04/06/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The legal interpretation of having material on the internet is that you are "publishing" it each and every time to each and every person who comes along and requests the file (at least, this seems to be the dominant view at the moment) - as such, each time someone requests a copy of the file *you* make a copy of it and give it to them.
Interesting. Has RIAA not been chasing leeches as well as seeds?
I believe there is an offence of knowingly pinching material you know to be copyrighted, too :-)
[My following of and-this-constitutes-publication is mostly from the defamation end, not the copyright end, but it's all publication liability when you get down to it...]
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 04/06/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their" action, not "ours".
Run back to first principles for a second. I give you a pirated copy of a novel I made. Which one of us has infringed copyright? That would be me; I did the copying without the right. The law considers copyright infringement to be an act done by the publisher of the material, which is sensible enough. (There may or may not be ancillary punishments for then recieving it, but that's secondary)
OK
The legal interpretation of having material on the internet is that you are "publishing" it each and every time to each and every person who comes along and requests the file (at least, this seems to be the dominant view at the moment) - as such, each time someone requests a copy of the file *you* make a copy of it and give it to them.
I'm familiar with the theory, and know that it has been applied in some countries. Its application in US law is far from clear. There is also the question of safe harbour for ISPs.
Logically, therefore, you breach copyright every time someone else accesses the file. Follow the wonderful twisted insanity? Their action, your criminal act.
It's only logical if you accept your underlying premise. If the download is from a neutral ISP it acts as a kind of firewall. Sometimes I'm led to believe that paranoid application of copyright law with the approval of WMF could endanger our ISP status. Also, we are talking about civil infringement, not criminal infringement. Criminal infringement is more serious, but requires an even higher standard of proof.
It becomes weird because you don't have to be involved in the loop at all, and as such they can initiate *you* breaking the law, though there's probably some wonderful case from the fifties involving automated musical phone lines or something to show why it all makes sense. After all, you do presumably have to knowledgeably have put the file there, or something.
That remains to be seen.
(Imagine, incidentally, if I built a machine which would print and bind bootleg copies of Harry Potter novels on the push of a button. Am I the maker responsible for the breach of copyright? Is the user? I am tempted to see if we can get that set as a question in a law exam...)
Building the machine itself would not be a problem. It could still be used to print works that are safely in the public domain. It's the actual printing and distribution that would violate Rowlings copyrights. Binding would be irrelevant. She would be in a better position to prove damages thab our bad joke idiots.
Ec
On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sometimes I'm led to believe that paranoid application of copyright law with the approval of WMF could endanger our ISP status.
I think that qualifies as "copyright paranoia paranoia".
On 6/4/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[I fixed your post for you.]
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: > > On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: > > On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: > > > As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
"purchase",
> > > not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up. > > > > > > Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or
"public
> > performance/display". > > All of which look to me like that which is done by the
infringer,
not
> by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is
a
new infringement". That means that something done by the person
who
acquires the material causes the infringement.
Each time we serve up copyrighted material is a new infringement.
It's
not
hard to understand. Anthony happens to be correct here.
Ah, so an action by the person receiving the material *does* cause an infringement! Anthony said it didn't.
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their" action, not "ours".
Considering how the HTTP protocol works, by making the page publicly available, we are publishing it, and every time a user requests the page, we are publishing it for them. I don't have too much of an opinion on BJAODN; just pointing this out.
Johnleemk
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Let's just get this straight: does anybody claim that these pages are necessary to the encyclopedia?
Please consider the implications of a "no" on that: Is anything in the "Wikipedia:" namespace necessary to the encyclopedia?
Ec
On 03/06/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Let's just get this straight: does anybody claim that these pages are necessary to the encyclopedia?
Please consider the implications of a "no" on that: Is anything in the "Wikipedia:" namespace necessary to the encyclopedia?
Wiping the entire project space has its temptations. Start again from NPOV and NPA and see where we go third time around. (I'm counting Citizendium as the second system for this discussion.)
- d.