I think the BBC make everything available on their site for a week. Someone recording it and putting up an ogg would be nice! 2008/12/7 John Reaves <johnjreaves(a)gmail.com>om>:

It could be interesting if Wikimedians around the planet uploaded pictures of themselves holding the cover. :) On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- http://durova.blogspot.com/

2008/12/7 Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com>om>: Yes, they couldn't go on commons, but they would almost certainly qualify as fair use so they could go somewhere else. It's only really useful if people have just bought the record, owning it already doesn't tell us much (levels of acceptability change), so the pictures should include the receipt as well.

Gregory Maxwell wrote: I'm not sure that would send the right message. On the radio interview: I thought David sounded unfair, espousing some unlikely conspiracy theories suggesting that the IWF chose Wikipedia for any other reason than the fact that some disgruntled Wikipedian submitted it to their tip box a few days ago. On the wider issue: I'm sure the IWF would not mind at all if the police started raiding music stores. And there are elements of the wider community that would support them in that. Australians are in the privileged position of having seen this all before, in the form of the Bill Henson controversy six months ago. An art gallery was raided by police and explicit photographs were seized. Journalist David Marr gave us an incisive analysis of the motivations of the prudes, both at the time, and at length in a book published in October. Why is it that this cover image has been around for 30 years, but only now do we see moves for censorship? Marr was asked a similar question in a TV interview regarding the Bill Henson case, and he said "It's the Internet". "The Internet has changed the way we view photography. There is a sense in which no photograph can actually be corralled anymore. Everything is potentially available to anybody anywhere in the world, once it gets on the Internet. We still have to deal with that, that apprehension of the Internet, because it's changing the way we consider art, photography, all sorts of things. Part of the purpose of my book is to look at the history of that fear of the Internet, and try to work out whether in fact we need to be so afraid. I don't think we do." http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2383376.htm -- Tim Starling

Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview. Everyone's a critic (and these things are so much easier to second guess after the fact), yet if another interview such as this comes up it would make a stronger finish to wonder how many other websites had been blocked by this organization's dubious assessments without appeal, and ask whether they're really qualified to play nanny to the public. -Durova On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:03 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: -- http://durova.blogspot.com/

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: How do we appeal whatever else they might be blocking? For all we know there could be dozens of other articles blocked now or in the future. We only know that this page is being blocked because the traffic hijacking caused collateral damage and someone took a lucky guess.

The point is that this group goes around preventing other people from accessing this or that, and neither the website nor the visitors get a fair notification. The way they handled this one was loopy, and if Wikipedia didn't have such heavy traffic it probably would have gone unnoticed. So what else *does* go unnoticed? -Durova On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: -- http://durova.blogspot.com/

2008/12/8 Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com>om>: Most likely mostly one sites that really do host problematical images. Ones we know about are rapidshare and part of 4chan. We have no real reason to think that they frequently make significant mistakes. In terms of them being more open we would be better arguing that they should asses if the site operator can be considered responsible and if they are inform them of the issue (if there is actual child porn on wikipedia we would like to know about it). Their counter arguments to that but most can be shot apart by pointing out they are currently withholding information that responsible site operators need to keep their sites child porn free. -- geni

Thomas Dalton wrote: In that case you would be appealing against arbitrary action. Not knowing what you are charged with is a common characteristic of arbitrary action. Ec

2008/12/8 KillerChihuahua <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com>om>: Yes. It stops them from pointing out they're a charity too (which they are, legally). - d.

Yes, very good. :) On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- http://durova.blogspot.com/

Thomas Dalton wrote: [...] In the interview, Sarah Robertson said "as I understand it, the only report we received of this content as of Friday was the content on Wikipedia." I'll assume stupidity rather than malice. "Pragmatic" could mean anything. If they wanted this to be a test case, why would they have handled it so ineptly? -- Tim Starling

English Wikipedia strictures on nonfree image use would reduce the number of acceptable images to a minimum. Unless this is a fair application of IAR, it would be more effective for David Gerard to have a *large* number of photos of volunteer editors from around the globe, proudly demonstrating that the site's article is no worse than an ordinary music store. Personally I think the album cover is tasteless. But in the eternal struggle between bad taste and hypocisy, I usually find bad taste less offensive. Best wishes, Durova On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- http://durova.blogspot.com/

2008/12/7 Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com>om>: Indeed, I think everyone I have seen express an opinion on the picture has said they dislike it (I certainly do - pictures like that belong in medical textbooks, not album covers), but the fact remains that it is a) legal and b) significantly adds to the article discussing it (and is notable enough to be discussed in that article), thus it should be included.

Covered in the Guardian's Technology blog in a very sympathetic way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/internet "The Scorpions album was released in 1976, so it's amazing to think that civilisation has managed to survive for more than 40 years, in spite of this evil in our midst." Further comments about how the IWF just ensured that millions go to see the cover in order to work out what all the fuss is about. "Millions of people" may just be an exaggeration. -- Sam Blacketer

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Good article, other than the poor math (unless 2016 has passed when I wasn't looking...) -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

On 12/7/08, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote: My self-educated guess is that you mean the one properly credited to [[Evelyn Beatrice Hall]]. I did find one actually which might be equally applicable and actually from Voltaire. "Un peuple qui trafique de ses enfants est encore plus condamnable que l'acheteur" As far as I'm concerned if somebody thinks they have a problem they'd better speak to the record company first... —C.W.

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: Maybe I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but me, I prefer a [[Herostratus]] reference over a Streisand one. --Oskar

Also, check out this Boing Boing post about how now everyone in the UK visiting Wikipedia is now potentially tracked by a third-party server: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/07/how-the-great-firewa.html --Oskar

On 12/8/08, K. Peachey <p858snake(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: I just get silence on that link - anyone else having problems, or know of a link that works? (Missed it live - gah!) Cormac

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio(a)gmail.com> wrote: Use "Save as" to save the mp3, I've got it playing fine that way. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:56 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Great job anyway though. :) I especially liked the bit about the FBI telling them to go away. And it'll be very interesting to see what they do about Amazon, and how quick they get the legal papers if they try to pull anything there. You had her quite on the defensive, and had the whole thing looking quite foolish (which, of course, it is). -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer(a)googlemail.com> wrote: I submitted every instance I could find on Saturday. I'm aware of other people making similar efforts.