-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info] Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 05:42 PM To: 'Todd Allen' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
-----Original Message----- From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 05:30 PM To: fredbaud@waterwiki.info, 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
On 5/3/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I would not assume that a money judgment could not be obtained from anyone who publishes the code. Thus I have been quite aggressive about removing it. We could have done more.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Lau [mailto:netsnipe@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:07 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
Hi everyone,
Today I was approached by a journalist (who is a colleague of a friend of mine from Uni) at IDG regarding our position on the publication of the HD-DVD decryption key.
As far as I know:
- the [[WP:OFFICE]] has so far refused to intervene in the matter and
- the departure of Brad Patrick means we currently have no general counsel
- the Foundation has recieved no DMCA take down notices regarding the matter
For the last 24 hours, we've been censoring the HD-DVD key from articles, talk pages, user pages and signatures and relying on draconian measures such as full protection of [[HD-DVD]] and blocks with the justification that we were awaiting official guidance.
Now that the desperately needed legal advice is apparently not forthcoming, it may eventually appear to outsiders that we are paranoid of what the AACS/MPAA may do to us instead of only being cautious. I am starting to feel uncomfortable that many administrators such as myself may be acting unilaterally over the matter based upon our own personal (mis)interpretations of the DMCA instead of enforcing an official stance or community consensus.
So how exactly should we respond to the press regarding this?
Yours sincerely, Andrew Lau (Netsnipe)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: mitchell_bingemann@idg.com.au mitchell_bingemann@idg.com.au Date: May 3, 2007 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: HD-DVD controversy To: netsnipe@gmail.com
Hi Andrew,
I'm a colleague of Liz's and was following the whole HD-DVD debacle. Just hoping for a Wikipedia update on the whole thing, where do you guys stand on it now? Cheeers,
Mitchell Bingemann Journalist IDG Online (02) 9902 2711
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
Fred, why do you presume it could? In theory, maybe, but we're certainly not the richest target (Youtube/Google, anyone?), we're far from doing the least to stop it being posted gratuitously (Youtube again, not to mention Slashdot and hundreds of thousands of others -deliberately- publishing it), we're not revealing anything (it's already out there, it can no longer, in any reasonable way, be considered a trade secret), we're publishing it for educational purposes (rather than just for grins or in an undisguised flip-em-the-finger attempt), and we're a PR nightmare (You think suing dead grandmas and soldiers about to leave for Iraq for having some mp3's got some bad press? You ain't seen nothing yet...). Overall, even if they decided to go after -someone- (which would be petty and vindictive at this point anyway, and hopefully one could expect a judge to recognize that), we're pretty far down the list of "tempting targets". (We'd also make a pretty sympathetic defendant, and they don't like sympathetic defendants, especially when the case in question is something of a "test case").
Now, is that to say it -couldn't- happen? Of course not. But there might be a time to say "Well, look, this particular numeral does have an educational and cultural value. We have an interest in publishing it, because we intend to create an educational resource. If someone wants to fight over this, that just might be a fight worth having." It's not -impossible- that the AP would come after us for use of a fair-use photo either, but in that case, we've made a conscious decision that if a truly iconic photo or image cannot have an article on it without the image itself, we'll use it, and see if anyone challenges it. So why not do the same with the number? Put it into the relevant articles (only the -very- relevant ones, of course, not anywhere some spammer might conceivably be able to wedge it), if we get a C&D, take it down temporarily and talk to the EFF/ACLU.
There's something wrong, Fred, when an educational resource is scared to publish (or even mention in discussion besides oblique references to "that key" or "the number") a -numeral-. (And despite the fancy hex coding, I could easily convert that into decimal, and it would just look like any other number in the world. It really is just a number.) Now, you'll tell me that's not necessarily Wikipedia's battle, and I'll tell you you're right. But must we be pushed around so easily (and without anyone even having to do any pushing, just the hint they might!), when there is a good case for use of this numeral in some articles? We already have a DeCSS image on that article, no one's come after us yet.
-- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
I have enough experience that I don't know what courts or aggrieved parties will do. I would avoid finding out. A fully comprehensive article can be written about this affair without using the code.
Fred
On 04/05/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I have enough experience that I don't know what courts or aggrieved parties will do. I would avoid finding out. A fully comprehensive article can be written about this affair without using the code.
An article would be written, but it would most certainly *not* be fully comprehensive.
- d.
Fully agreed there. We could write -an article- on the speed of light without ever numerically specifying that speed. We could write -an article- on the United States without putting in its population as of the last census. But while we could indeed write such articles, they are not comprehensive or complete.
On 5/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/05/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I have enough experience that I don't know what courts or aggrieved parties will do. I would avoid finding out. A fully comprehensive article can be written about this affair without using the code.
An article would be written, but it would most certainly *not* be fully comprehensive.
- 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
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Fully agreed there. We could write -an article- on the speed of light without ever numerically specifying that speed. We could write -an article- on the United States without putting in its population as of the last census. But while we could indeed write such articles, they are not comprehensive or complete.
Your analogies are poor. An accurate analogy for this situation would be, for example, an article on legal proceedings where the names of some of the parties have been suppressed by the court. A perfectly comprehensive article could be written about the legal proceedings without the need to break the law and use the names.
On 5/3/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Fully agreed there. We could write -an article- on the speed of light without ever numerically specifying that speed. We could write -an article- on the United States without putting in its population as of the last census. But while we could indeed write such articles, they are not comprehensive or complete.
Your analogies are poor. An accurate analogy for this situation would be, for example, an article on legal proceedings where the names of some of the parties have been suppressed by the court. A perfectly comprehensive article could be written about the legal proceedings without the need to break the law and use the names.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
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 think any rational court would realize that its "suppression" is meaningless once a link to the real names hits everything from Digg to Slashdot to blogs to the New York Times.
G'day Todd,
On 5/3/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Fully agreed there. We could write -an article- on the speed of light without ever numerically specifying that speed. We could write -an article- on the United States without putting in its population as of the last census. But while we could indeed write such articles, they are not comprehensive or complete.
Your analogies are poor. An accurate analogy for this situation would be, for example, an article on legal proceedings where the names of some of the parties have been suppressed by the court. A perfectly comprehensive article could be written about the legal proceedings without the need to break the law and use the names.
I think any rational court would realize that its "suppression" is meaningless once a link to the real names hits everything from Digg to Slashdot to blogs to the New York Times.
Let's push Stephen's analogy. Suppose you wanted to write about a child abuse case where the Supreme Court had ordered the victims' names suppressed.
Would you include the names of the victims? What if you found a forum post where a schoolmate of the victims had posted the names already?
On 5/4/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Todd,
On 5/3/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Fully agreed there. We could write -an article- on the speed of light without ever numerically specifying that speed. We could write -an article- on the United States without putting in its population as of the last census. But while we could indeed write such articles, they are not comprehensive or complete.
Your analogies are poor. An accurate analogy for this situation would be, for example, an article on legal proceedings where the names of some of the parties have been suppressed by the court. A perfectly comprehensive article could be written about the legal proceedings without the need to break the law and use the names.
I think any rational court would realize that its "suppression" is meaningless once a link to the real names hits everything from Digg to Slashdot to blogs to the New York Times.
Let's push Stephen's analogy. Suppose you wanted to write about a child abuse case where the Supreme Court had ordered the victims' names suppressed.
Would you include the names of the victims? What if you found a forum post where a schoolmate of the victims had posted the names already?
-- Mark Gallagher "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
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 depends. One forum, or a few, absolutely not. In that case, the names of the victims are still semi-secret, even if they can be found with some digging. (In that case, I probably would, given my own personal ethics, not publish the names of the child(ren) involved even if -no- court order were in place.)
On the other hand, if the names of the children were so damn famous they'd become news stories of their own, and there were hundreds of thousands of places including mainstream news you could find them, yes, absolutely, I would. In that case, the secret's out of the bag long since, and it's never going back in. I am, in that case, doing no harm to anyone by publishing those names. Nor am I violating the court order that mandates the names remain secret-they're -already- not secret in any way whether I publish too or not. In that case, for me to hold back and suppress the names is no longer responsible, it is silly. And here, it is -silly-.
Now, of course, in this case, we're not talking about some poor, innocent, abused child. We're talking about thugs (and thugs in fancy suits who know how to write legal papers are still thugs, a SLAPP or the threat thereof is every bit the equivalent of a gun in the face), who decided they could push people around, using a law that has not an ounce of constitutional merit to begin with. Now, in most cases, they'd be right, and I'd sure not be up for saying "HEY! Next time someone breaks an encryption key, let's let 'em publish it on Wikipedia first!" That's not in keeping with our place or our mission, and it would likely land us in a hell of a lot of trouble, just to do something we shouldn't be doing anyway (being a first publisher). It -is-, however, our place and mission to note topics of genuine noteworthiness, and not to suppress any details because someone might not like them. And if we cave -this- time, mark it, everyone in the world with a lawyer and a dislike for anything on Wikipedia will note it.
You think our legal "issues" are bad now, wait until everyone reads the "WIKIPEDIA CAVES TO SLAPP THREAT" across the headlines. If we can't deal with one squad of nicely-dressed thugs, I certainly don't know how we're going to deal with the thousand me-toos. Right now, we can nip that in the bud, just by saying "Hey, you can't just make a whisper about legal action and have us take down anything you don't like." Or we can say "Hey, send us a letter from a lawyer (or don't even bother doing that, just make it sound like you -might- send a letter from a lawyer), and anything you dislike, regardless of how true or well-sourced it is, is gone -posthaste-."
I know which project I would rather work on. What about you?
On 5/5/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
It depends. One forum, or a few, absolutely not.
...
On the other hand, if the names of the children were so damn famous they'd become news stories of their own, and there were hundreds of thousands of places including mainstream news you could find them, yes, absolutely, I would.
So you'd base your decision as to whether to put yourself in contempt of court on how many other people were in contempt of court?
On 5/5/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
It depends. One forum, or a few, absolutely not.
...
On the other hand, if the names of the children were so damn famous they'd become news stories of their own, and there were hundreds of thousands of places including mainstream news you could find them, yes, absolutely, I would.
So you'd base your decision as to whether to put yourself in contempt of court on how many other people were in contempt of court?
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For one thing, there's no "contempt of court" here. No court has issued a gag order, unless I've missed something, so the analogy is not terribly applicable anyway.
As to the rest, yes, I would look at the reality of the situation. If the traffic on the freeway is going 10 miles over the speed limit, I'll flow with traffic, even though it's technically illegal, because under the circumstances that's the best and safest option. On the other hand, I would under no circumstances speed through a school zone. It depends on the reality of the circumstances, not just technical legality.
At this point, a court order to suppress the information would be roughly analogous to a court order for the world to quit spinning. Pandora's box on that has been open for a while now. And the fact remains, -no such order exists-. You can't be in contempt of court for defying a court order that's never been issued! If there were in fact some type of legitimate order out there from a court, I probably would look at this differently.
On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
An article would be written, but it would most certainly *not* be fully comprehensive.
Yes and no. At random [[Modularity theorem]] does not include the proof.
On 5/3/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
An article would be written, but it would most certainly *not* be fully comprehensive.
Yes and no. At random [[Modularity theorem]] does not include the proof.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Doesn't look tremendously complete to me, either. (Though a proof seems more to me the type of thing that would go on Wikisource. That's not the same thing as a single numerical value.)