Ah, but there is one circumstance in which such accessing of Wikipedia is not an illegal act. That is when its purpose is to stop Wikipedia committing an illegal act upon you. Wikipedia is committing an illegal act upon me by trying to ignore my citation, made by email to Jimmy Wales as well as on this list, for it to the remove every word I have ever contributed to Wikipedia, on grounds of copyright violation and ides theft, and ensure they stay removed despite the public editability of pages. Unless you can demonstrate that the second requirement is technically possible, then the continued existence of Wikipedia has been proved entirely illegal.
Anything Skyring is doing that his block blocks him from doing, to raise awareness of the way he has been treated and seek due process concerning it, is automatically legal. Anything I do to raise awareness in the other editors of every page I've contributed to, of the violatuion they are dealing with, is automatically legal.
Message: 8 Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 03:07:42 +0100 From: "James D. Forrester" james@jdforrester.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Looking at the real world To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 4319056E.20100@jdforrester.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
On 9/2/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
In the past day, [[user:jtdirl]] has published my
name and address, and
[[user:mackensen]] has accused me of criminal
acts.
People who play with fire get burned.
And further, accessing a computer system without authorisation is illegal in the US, the UK, and Australia, to name but a few countries; given that you are banned from Wikipedia, any edits that you were to make would constitute such an illegal act. Several sysops, and not just Mackensen, have suggested that you may well be doing this, violating your ban order. Perhaps you might want to think about finding another place to play, Skyring?
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
On 9/3/05, MAURICE FRANK megaknee@btopenworld.com wrote:
Ah, but there is one circumstance in which such accessing of Wikipedia is not an illegal act. That is when its purpose is to stop Wikipedia committing an illegal act upon you. Wikipedia is committing an illegal act upon me by trying to ignore my citation, made by email to Jimmy Wales as well as on this list, for it to the remove every word I have ever contributed to Wikipedia, on grounds of copyright violation and ides theft, and ensure they stay removed despite the public editability of pages. Unless you can demonstrate that the second requirement is technically possible, then the continued existence of Wikipedia has been proved entirely illegal.
Anything Skyring is doing that his block blocks him from doing, to raise awareness of the way he has been treated and seek due process concerning it, is automatically legal. Anything I do to raise awareness in the other editors of every page I've contributed to, of the violatuion they are dealing with, is automatically legal.
Everying you contributed was relised uner the GFDL. We correctly credit you. You have no case.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
On 9/3/05, MAURICE FRANK megaknee@btopenworld.com wrote:
Ah, but there is one circumstance in which such accessing of Wikipedia is not an illegal act. That is when its purpose is to stop Wikipedia committing an illegal act upon you.
No, an "eye for an eye" is not legal doctrine. You may disagree, but I would strongly counsel against following it. You may well end up being prosecuted at the request of, or sued by, people who are less easy-going that we are.
Wikipedia is committing an illegal act upon me by trying to ignore my citation, made by email to Jimmy Wales as well as on this list, for it to the remove every word I have ever contributed to Wikipedia, on grounds of copyright violation and ides theft, and ensure they stay removed despite the public editability of pages.
Everying you contributed was relised uner the GFDL. We correctly credit you. You have no case.
Geni is wholly correct. There is no possible way in which you can have your words withdrawn. That's what the licence contract says. If you didn't read it, well, that's unfortunate. For you.
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
MAURICE FRANK stated for the record:
... then the continued existence of Wikipedia has been proved entirely illegal.
If you become aware of a crime, and you do not do alert the authorities, especially when the crime is continuous and growing, you are guilty of being an accessory. Since you have not filed criminal charges (I recommend the FBI -- Wikipedia is certainly engaged in interstate commerce), you are patently proved to be in conspiracy to cover up the crime and obstruct justice.
-- Sean Barrett | You can believe anything you want. sean@epoptic.com | The Arbitration Committee is not | obliged to keep a straight face.
MAURICE FRANK wrote:
Ah, but there is one circumstance in which such accessing of Wikipedia is not an illegal act. That is when its purpose is to stop Wikipedia committing an illegal act upon you. Wikipedia is committing an illegal act upon me by trying to ignore my citation, made by email to Jimmy Wales as well as on this list, for it to the remove every word I have ever contributed to Wikipedia, on grounds of copyright violation and ides theft, and ensure they stay removed despite the public editability of pages. Unless you can demonstrate that the second requirement is technically possible, then the continued existence of Wikipedia has been proved entirely illegal.
This sounds like the work of someone who got a law degree from reading comic books.
No-one has any legal obligation to pay attention to you. Unless you were infringing someone else's copyrights when you first added the material, the continued presence of your material that you yourself put into Wikipedia is not an infringement of copyright.
If you contribute material you agree to the GFDL at the time that you add the material. There is no provision to withdraw that material.
As to "idea theft", please remember that ideas themselves are not copyrightable; copyrights apply only to the way they are presented.
Of course, if someone *else* has added material to which you have the legal copyright.there exist formal legal procedures whereby you can demand its removal.
Ec