It's unfortunate when not wanting to break the law is considered paranoia.
Danny
In a message dated 5/5/2007 10:51:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
Are you going to suggest we purge all emails that ever mentioned potential libels, too, in all the arguments over WP:OFFICE? Rather than imagining that the sky will fall, imagine the consequences of excessive paranoia.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Excessive avoidance of activities that are not likely to result in legal troubles, but which some people irrationally fear might, is pretty much the definition of "chilling effects" style paranoia.
Seriously, do you think *mailing list archives*, and non-search-engine-indexed ones at that, are actually illegal? It's not even clear that such archives legally constitute publication, and certainly they are far less high profile than many other sources that have *not* been held legally accountable in any way, such as Google's own archives, or Wired's explicit publication.
-Mark
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
It's unfortunate when not wanting to break the law is considered paranoia.
Danny
In a message dated 5/5/2007 10:51:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
Are you going to suggest we purge all emails that ever mentioned potential libels, too, in all the arguments over WP:OFFICE? Rather than imagining that the sky will fall, imagine the consequences of excessive paranoia.
Delirium wrote:
Excessive avoidance of activities that are not likely to result in legal troubles, but which some people irrationally fear might, is pretty much the definition of "chilling effects" style paranoia.
Seriously, do you think *mailing list archives*, and non-search-engine-indexed ones at that, are actually illegal? It's not even clear that such archives legally constitute publication, and certainly they are far less high profile than many other sources that have *not* been held legally accountable in any way, such as Google's own archives, or Wired's explicit publication.
The DMCA does not prohibit publication, it prohibits "trafficking". The MPAA vs Corely case held that publication on a website constitutes trafficking, and this was upheld at appeal. The Act specifies damages of $200-$2500 per "act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service". Presumably every time someone downloads the number from the mailing list archive, and every time we send it to someone by email, this constitues trafficking of such a device.
WikiEN-L has 878 members, so sending the key to the list would create a liability of between $175,600 and $2.2M, plus archive downloads and what not.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-L has 878 members, so sending the key to the list would create a liability of between $175,600 and $2.2M, plus archive downloads and what not.
Who is liable for the archive downloads, though? The person that sent the email or the archiver? This mailing list is archived in more places than just the WMF servers, I believe - we have no control over those archives.
On 5/6/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Excessive avoidance of activities that are not likely to result in legal troubles, but which some people irrationally fear might, is pretty much the definition of "chilling effects" style paranoia.
Seriously, do you think *mailing list archives*, and non-search-engine-indexed ones at that, are actually illegal? It's not even clear that such archives legally constitute publication, and certainly they are far less high profile than many other sources that have *not* been held legally accountable in any way, such as Google's own archives, or Wired's explicit publication.
The DMCA does not prohibit publication, it prohibits "trafficking". The MPAA vs Corely case held that publication on a website constitutes trafficking, and this was upheld at appeal. The Act specifies damages of $200-$2500 per "act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service". Presumably every time someone downloads the number from the mailing list archive, and every time we send it to someone by email, this constitues trafficking of such a device.
WikiEN-L has 878 members, so sending the key to the list would create a liability of between $175,600 and $2.2M, plus archive downloads and what not.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If "trafficking" were as simple as "making the number show up on someone's computer screen", they'd get a lot more mileage out of suing Google than us. And there -are- exceptions built into the law for academic use of the number. This isn't the same as the 2600 case, nor MPAA vs. Corel. Neither of those institutions are primarily academic and educational in nature, nor are they nonprofit. They've actually been pretty hesitant to sue academic users, because they -know- that's not one they'll probably win.
Todd Allen wrote:
On 5/6/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Excessive avoidance of activities that are not likely to result in legal troubles, but which some people irrationally fear might, is pretty much the definition of "chilling effects" style paranoia.
Seriously, do you think *mailing list archives*, and non-search-engine-indexed ones at that, are actually illegal? It's not even clear that such archives legally constitute publication, and certainly they are far less high profile than many other sources that have *not* been held legally accountable in any way, such as Google's own archives, or Wired's explicit publication.
The DMCA does not prohibit publication, it prohibits "trafficking". The MPAA vs Corely case held that publication on a website constitutes trafficking, and this was upheld at appeal. The Act specifies damages of $200-$2500 per "act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service". Presumably every time someone downloads the number from the mailing list archive, and every time we send it to someone by email, this constitues trafficking of such a device.
WikiEN-L has 878 members, so sending the key to the list would create a liability of between $175,600 and $2.2M, plus archive downloads and what not.
If "trafficking" were as simple as "making the number show up on someone's computer screen", they'd get a lot more mileage out of suing Google than us. And there -are- exceptions built into the law for academic use of the number. This isn't the same as the 2600 case, nor MPAA vs. Corel. Neither of those institutions are primarily academic and educational in nature, nor are they nonprofit. They've actually been pretty hesitant to sue academic users, because they -know- that's not one they'll probably win.
Delirium didn't ask "will they sue us?", he asked "is it illegal?" The answer is to the latter question is almost certainly yes. Which academic exception do you think is relevant exactly?
-- Tim Starling
"I don't want to be number one on Google. This is the position I expressed to Brad Patrick over a year ago. I could live with a bio under those conditions. ... All it would take is a new flag in the system to generate a "noindex" meta in the header of certain articles. You wouldn't have to change robots.txt. It might be slightly easier than getting the article deleted, and it could be one option to offer BLP victims short of a deletion" (Brandt)
Why not agree to this?
In saying that, I'm not arguing that Brandt should be treated differently, but we could consider the following options:
1) *no index bios on subject's request*. We keep the info, but the subject doesn't have an article on them , with all the vandalism or POV pushing risks, as top on google. They don't need to check their article everyday.
OR
2) *no index all low-notability living-person bios* which have experienced any problems. Any admin, or OTRS op seeing repeat problems can flag it as such, reducing the collateral damage if their are future issues.
OR
3) *no index ALL BLPs* - being in [[category:Living persons]] could automatically flag the article. This would be easiest to maintain, and apply consistently. The argument against it will be that it will take [[George W. Bush]] etc off google, but if it were combined with stable versions, so that all BLPs were removed from Google UNLESS they were stable, we might have a workable solution. The popular ones are likely to have stable versions very quickly. Incidentally, this would also reduce the attraction of vanity bios.
Is this crazy?
Doc
On 06/05/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
"I don't want to be number one on Google. This is the position I expressed to Brad Patrick over a year ago. I could live with a bio under those conditions. ... All it would take is a new flag in the system to generate a "noindex" meta in the header of certain articles. You wouldn't have to change robots.txt. It might be slightly easier than getting the article deleted, and it could be one option to offer BLP victims short of a deletion" (Brandt) Why not agree to this?
Some variant on this sounds plausible to me. Anyone see a serious problem with this?
- d.
On 5/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Some variant on this sounds plausible to me. Anyone see a serious problem with this?
Well I'm sure answers.com would love having the controversial bios market to themselves.
On 06/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Some variant on this sounds plausible to me. Anyone see a serious problem with this?
Well I'm sure answers.com would love having the controversial bios market to themselves.
Fine by me. We can get on with writing an encyclopedia and they can take the feed and put it up.
- d.
On 5/6/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
<snip> Is this crazy?
Not really, no, and it would possibly solve a great problem right off. Doing it on a sliding scale--low notability, semi, etc., would probably be a Very Bad Idea, as it would certainly need that sliding scale implemented to go with it, and that in and of itself would a be silly jungle war at times. The notability standards would likely need clear thresholds from status A, to status B, to status C, so that people wouldn't fight tons over it.
Making all BLPs nofollow outright gets around this, solving the problem of fighting over status, and making the bios less prominent. Two birds, one stone. It's always possible to go back later then to go a sliding nofollow scale, as the notability scaling would probably take longer to get consensus on than it would take to implement "no follow all BLP" on the tech side.
However, it adds a new third problem possibly to nofollow all BLPs: Bad crap in bios that are 'off the beaten path' may now fester longer, if someone can sneak them past Recent Changes before someone finds them off Googling the given the person.
On 06/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
However, it adds a new third problem possibly to nofollow all BLPs: Bad crap in bios that are 'off the beaten path' may now fester longer, if someone can sneak them past Recent Changes before someone finds them off Googling the given the person.
Yeah. There remains the problem that Wikipedia search is still sorta less than fabulous at times.
- d.
On 5/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. There remains the problem that Wikipedia search is still sorta less than fabulous at times.
We could always try to see if Google would be willing to part with a GB8008 on the cheap. :)
http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/product_models.html
On 06/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. There remains the problem that Wikipedia search is still sorta less than fabulous at times.
We could always try to see if Google would be willing to part with a GB8008 on the cheap. :) http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/product_models.html
I suspect we could have one for the asking. But not the source code under a free software license.
- d.
On 5/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
We could always try to see if Google would be willing to part with a
GB8008
on the cheap. :) http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/product_models.html
I suspect we could have one for the asking. But not the source code under a free software license.
Perhaps it's because I've just woken up in the past hour, but are you joking, or do we actually have a policy to only use equipment on the NOC/infrastructure level that only runs open-source/GFDL compliant?
(If we do have that policy: very cool, A++ as they say.)
On 06/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it's because I've just woken up in the past hour, but are you joking, or do we actually have a policy to only use equipment on the NOC/infrastructure level that only runs open-source/GFDL compliant? (If we do have that policy: very cool, A++ as they say.)
We do. We only use the Lucene search because someone ported it from Java to Mono.
- d.
On 0, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com scribbled:
On 06/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it's because I've just woken up in the past hour, but are you joking, or do we actually have a policy to only use equipment on the NOC/infrastructure level that only runs open-source/GFDL compliant? (If we do have that policy: very cool, A++ as they say.)
We do. We only use the Lucene search because someone ported it from Java to Mono.
- d.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Java at least open source these days? And Mono was uncertain with regard to Microsoft's patents, last I heard...
-- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.
On 06/05/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com scribbled:
We do. We only use the Lucene search because someone ported it from Java to Mono.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Java at least open source these days? And Mono was uncertain with regard to Microsoft's patents, last I heard...
Java not yet, and Mono not that they've actually told anyone rather than just FUDding. Also, quite a lot of software patents were suddenly put on shaky ground by the US Supreme Court.
But yeah, when enough of Java is freed, I suspect going back to the upstream version of Lucene will be considered.
- d.
On 5/6/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it's because I've just woken up in the past hour, but are you joking, or do we actually have a policy to only use equipment on the NOC/infrastructure level that only runs open-source/GFDL compliant?
(If we do have that policy: very cool, A++ as they say.)
For site operation yes (I don't know if it is actually policy per se since the idea and practice predates the formal foundation). There have been various foundation functions for which non open source software has been used and of course editors can use whatever software they like although we generally point people in the direction of open source stuff.
It has some unexpected benifits in that the handful of people who can convert files to .ogg Theora generaly know what they are doing with regards to copyright.
On 5/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It has some unexpected benifits in that the handful of people who can convert files to .ogg Theora generaly know what they are doing with regards to copyright.
This is only a benefit in terms of having few violations. The unintended side effect is about .0001% of our readers have the capability of playing the file.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bathwater
I know the issues, and that this can't easily change, but just saying :)
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On 5/6/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
We could always try to see if Google would be willing to part with a GB8008 on the cheap. :)
I always think of these as being for secret behind the firewall data, google seems to do a good job searching our stuff now :) We should just make our search box search google, haha.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On 5/6/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote: However, it adds a new third problem possibly to nofollow all BLPs: Bad crap in bios that are 'off the beaten path' may now fester longer, if someone can sneak them past Recent Changes before someone finds them off Googling the given the person.
Yes, but many of our slanderers will not work out what we are doing with Google anyway. A lot of the junk is not that well thought through.
On 5/6/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On 5/6/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote: However, it adds a new third problem possibly to nofollow all BLPs: Bad
crap
in bios that are 'off the beaten path' may now fester longer, if someone
can
sneak them past Recent Changes before someone finds them off Googling
the
given the person.
Yes, but many of our slanderers will not work out what we are doing with Google anyway. A lot of the junk is not that well thought through.
True. I'd say go for it myself, what could it hurt to try nofollowing them all for a month? From the code side, how hard is it to implement?
Also, out of 1.5 millionish articles, how many are BLPs?
doc wrote:
- *no index bios on subject's request*. We keep the info, but the
subject doesn't have an article on them , with all the vandalism or POV pushing risks, as top on google. They don't need to check their article everyday.
I think this may be a decent compromise to the deletion idea. It shouldn't be applied across the board, at least until we get a decent search mechanism in place, but this is sensible.
OR
- *no index all low-notability living-person bios* which have
experienced any problems. Any admin, or OTRS op seeing repeat problems can flag it as such, reducing the collateral damage if their are future issues.
This, however, isn't good - this continued distinction is not healthy for the project, especially when applied to things that aren't people. It's like being a little bit pregnant.
-Jeff
-- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly because you kind of get the impression she sang every song either about or to her cats. They seem to be the driving force in most of her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman
On 5/6/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
<snip>
OR 2) <snip> OR 3) <snip> Is this crazy? Doc
Another idea. 4) "noindex" all articles that "[do] not adequately cite [their] references or sources".
CW
On 06/05/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Delirium didn't ask "will they sue us?", he asked "is it illegal?" The answer is to the latter question is almost certainly yes. Which academic exception do you think is relevant exactly?
The First Amendment. That's why they sued 2600. The judgement has been dissected already on this list.
- d.
On 5/6/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
On 5/6/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Excessive avoidance of activities that are not likely to result in legal troubles, but which some people irrationally fear might, is pretty much the definition of "chilling effects" style paranoia.
Seriously, do you think *mailing list archives*, and non-search-engine-indexed ones at that, are actually illegal? It's not even clear that such archives legally constitute publication, and certainly they are far less high profile than many other sources that have *not* been held legally accountable in any way, such as Google's own archives, or Wired's explicit publication.
The DMCA does not prohibit publication, it prohibits "trafficking". The MPAA vs Corely case held that publication on a website constitutes trafficking, and this was upheld at appeal. The Act specifies damages of $200-$2500 per "act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service". Presumably every time someone downloads the number from the mailing list archive, and every time we send it to someone by email, this constitues trafficking of such a device.
WikiEN-L has 878 members, so sending the key to the list would create a liability of between $175,600 and $2.2M, plus archive downloads and what not.
If "trafficking" were as simple as "making the number show up on someone's computer screen", they'd get a lot more mileage out of suing Google than us. And there -are- exceptions built into the law for academic use of the number. This isn't the same as the 2600 case, nor MPAA vs. Corel. Neither of those institutions are primarily academic and educational in nature, nor are they nonprofit. They've actually been pretty hesitant to sue academic users, because they -know- that's not one they'll probably win.
Delirium didn't ask "will they sue us?", he asked "is it illegal?" The answer is to the latter question is almost certainly yes. Which academic exception do you think is relevant exactly?
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Exception 1, actually. It's short enough that I can post the full text here.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
On 5/7/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Exception 1, actually. It's short enough that I can post the full text here.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Communicating any methods or means for circumventing copyright protection, like communicating copyrighted material itself, is not protected speech.
On 07/05/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Exception 1, actually. It's short enough that I can post the full text here. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Communicating any methods or means for circumventing copyright protection, like communicating copyrighted material itself, is not protected speech.
This is entirely false. The second part of your assertion is covered by fair use (which can be up to 100% of the work quoted) and the first part is not tested. As noted in the Felten case, the RIAA, when told to shit or get off the pot, backpedaled so fast as to break the world record for reverse circumnavigation by bicycle.
- d.
On 5/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/05/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Exception 1, actually. It's short enough that I can post the full text here. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Communicating any methods or means for circumventing copyright protection, like communicating copyrighted material itself, is not protected speech.
This is entirely false. The second part of your assertion is covered by fair use (which can be up to 100% of the work quoted) and the first part is not tested. As noted in the Felten case, the RIAA, when told to shit or get off the pot, backpedaled so fast as to break the world record for reverse circumnavigation by bicycle.
- 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
Also note that the Constitution specifically gives Congress the authority to issue copyrights, so it's obviously intended that some restrictions on copyrighted speech are permissible. (Whether current laws -actually- serve to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" is left as an exercise for the reader, but that's a different discussion.) No such authority is granted for restrictions on speech about copyrights or the means used to enforce them, only on the copyrighted material itself.
Tim Starling wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
If "trafficking" were as simple as "making the number show up on someone's computer screen", they'd get a lot more mileage out of suing Google than us. And there -are- exceptions built into the law for academic use of the number. This isn't the same as the 2600 case, nor MPAA vs. Corel. Neither of those institutions are primarily academic and educational in nature, nor are they nonprofit. They've actually been pretty hesitant to sue academic users, because they -know- that's not one they'll probably win.
Delirium didn't ask "will they sue us?", he asked "is it illegal?" The answer is to the latter question is almost certainly yes. Which academic exception do you think is relevant exactly?
Edward Felten was threatened with a lawsuit under the DMCA for publishing, in an academic context, details of how to break the SDMI DRM algorithm; upon his countersuing for a declarative judgment, the RIAA and SDMI dropped the case, backtracking so far as to argue in court that his academic publication of details on how to break SDMI did *not* violate the DMCA; the Justice Department has since agreed that work like Felten's does not violate the DMCA. Since we're much more similar to Felten than 2600, I'd take this as good evidence that us publishing information in an educational context on how to break DRM algorithms is not illegal.
-Mark
On 5/6/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Edward Felten was threatened with a lawsuit under the DMCA for publishing, in an academic context, details of how to break the SDMI DRM algorithm; upon his countersuing for a declarative judgment, the RIAA and SDMI dropped the case, backtracking so far as to argue in court that his academic publication of details on how to break SDMI did *not* violate the DMCA; the Justice Department has since agreed that work like Felten's does not violate the DMCA. Since we're much more similar to Felten than 2600, I'd take this as good evidence that us publishing information in an educational context on how to break DRM algorithms is not illegal.
There is a big difference between an academic discussion of the security properties of an algorithm and the disclosure of key material which serves so other purpose than actually circumventing the protection.
Are you willing to the contributors to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation against losses which result from following your advice?
On 5/7/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
If "trafficking" were as simple as "making the number show up on someone's computer screen", they'd get a lot more mileage out of suing Google than us.
The actions under discussion are:
1) emailing material to all subscribers on the list, including other archivers, and 2) putting the material in our own list archives, which are websites
We already know from existing case law that hosting material on your website and linking to the material on another website both constitute "manufactur[ing], import[ing], offer[ing] to the public, provid[ing], or otherwise traffic[king]". So that covers 2. If anything, 1 (which involves actually sending the material out to people) is more likely to fall under this definition than merely hosting the material on a website is.
On 5/7/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
If "trafficking" were as simple as "making the number show up on someone's computer screen", they'd get a lot more mileage out of suing Google than us.
The actions under discussion are:
- emailing material to all subscribers on the list, including other
archivers, and 2) putting the material in our own list archives, which are websites
We already know from existing case law that hosting material on your website and linking to the material on another website both constitute "manufactur[ing], import[ing], offer[ing] to the public, provid[ing], or otherwise traffic[king]". So that covers 2. If anything, 1 (which involves actually sending the material out to people) is more likely to fall under this definition than merely hosting the material on a website is.
Do you realize how ludicrous what you're saying is, though? Can the **AA sue the telephone company if I read the key over the telephone? Can they sue Fedex if I ship the key through their service?
We know from existing case law that setting up a website with the intent of distributing a software program constitutes trafficking in the program. To extrapolate from that that whoever happens to own the machines which are used in such a distribution are liable is not at all logical.
C'mon, think for a second about what you're saying.
Anthony
On 5/6/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
The DMCA does not prohibit publication, it prohibits "trafficking". The MPAA vs Corely case held that publication on a website constitutes trafficking, and this was upheld at appeal. The Act specifies damages of $200-$2500 per "act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service". Presumably every time someone downloads the number from the mailing list archive, and every time we send it to someone by email, this constitues trafficking of such a device.
WikiEN-L has 878 members, so sending the key to the list would create a liability of between $175,600 and $2.2M, plus archive downloads and what not.
-- Tim Starling
I just want something clarified. If I understand it correctly, before the AACS people sue, they have to send a DMCA takedown notice, right? And then they can sue if we don't comply?
Why not just take it easy for a while and leave the archives intact, and if they do send a takedown notice, then we comply.
--Oskar
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 5/6/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
The DMCA does not prohibit publication, it prohibits "trafficking". The MPAA vs Corely case held that publication on a website constitutes trafficking, and this was upheld at appeal. The Act specifies damages of $200-$2500 per "act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service". Presumably every time someone downloads the number from the mailing list archive, and every time we send it to someone by email, this constitues trafficking of such a device.
WikiEN-L has 878 members, so sending the key to the list would create a liability of between $175,600 and $2.2M, plus archive downloads and what not.
-- Tim Starling
I just want something clarified. If I understand it correctly, before the AACS people sue, they have to send a DMCA takedown notice, right? And then they can sue if we don't comply?
Why not just take it easy for a while and leave the archives intact, and if they do send a takedown notice, then we comply.
No, that's for copyright violation. Doesn't anyone follow links? From "09 f9: A Legal Primer":
"What about the DMCA safe harbors? While no court has ruled on the issue, AACS-LA will almost certainly argue that the DMCA safe harbors do not protect online service providers who host or link to the key (the AACS-LA takedown letters do not invoke the DMCA "notice-and-takedown" provisions, nor do they include the required elements for such a takedown, thereby signaling the AACS-LA position on this). The DMCA safe harbors apply to liabilities arising from "infringement of copyright." Several courts have suggested that trafficking in circumvention tools is not "copyright infringement," but a separate violation of a "para-copyright" provision.
"It's difficult to say how a court would rule on this question, but it does create a specter of monetary liability for hosting providers, even if they otherwise comply with the "notice-and-takedown" procedures required by the DMCA safe harbors. "
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005229.php
-- Tim Starling
On 06/05/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
No, that's for copyright violation. Doesn't anyone follow links? From "09 f9: A Legal Primer":
Do they say anything about press reporting? Six US-based press articles so far proudly displaying the number in text or image. What about TV broadcast? It was broadcast on Current TV, Al Gore's cable channel, and is still on the Current TV website.
Realistically, the probability of Wikimedia being sued is zero.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 06/05/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
No, that's for copyright violation. Doesn't anyone follow links? From "09 f9: A Legal Primer":
Do they say anything about press reporting? Six US-based press articles so far proudly displaying the number in text or image. What about TV broadcast? It was broadcast on Current TV, Al Gore's cable channel, and is still on the Current TV website.
Realistically, the probability of Wikimedia being sued is zero.
The point I would make, and the sentiment behind my wry response to Danny, is that posting the key to the list was irresponsible. The damage has been done, and that there is little we can do to rectify it at this point. Yes the chance of being sued is small, but that doesn't stop us from trying to convince those responsible of their error.
-- Tim Starling
On 06/05/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
The point I would make, and the sentiment behind my wry response to Danny, is that posting the key to the list was irresponsible. The damage has been done, and that there is little we can do to rectify it at this point. Yes the chance of being sued is small, but that doesn't stop us from trying to convince those responsible of their error.
Oh, yeah. It's a bit dickish, certainly. (And I must apologise for having included the key in full myself in one message.)
I still support putting the key on [[09f9]], but in a week or two or four. Remember, we have the *next* memespam to discourage.
- d.
On 5/6/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why not just take it easy for a while and leave the archives intact, and if they do send a takedown notice, then we comply.
No, that's for copyright violation. Doesn't anyone follow links? From "09 f9: A Legal Primer":
' It's for *infringement of copyright*. Trafficking in circumvention tools *is* a violation of copyright law, so it *is* a "copyright violation".
"What about the DMCA safe harbors? While no court has ruled on the issue, AACS-LA will almost certainly argue that the DMCA safe harbors do not protect online service providers who host or link to the key (the AACS-LA takedown letters do not invoke the DMCA "notice-and-takedown" provisions, nor do they include the required elements for such a takedown, thereby signaling the AACS-LA position on this).
The CDA is more clear in this case. "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Anthony
On 5/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's for *infringement of copyright*. Trafficking in circumvention tools *is* a violation of copyright law, so it *is* a "copyright violation".
No it is a violation of intellectual property law. It doesn't behave like copyright at all so it doesn't fall under that. It has a little in common with trademark but the protection is rather wider that trademark offers. It has something in common with submarine patents but lasts longer.
On 5/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's for *infringement of copyright*. Trafficking in circumvention tools *is* a violation of copyright law, so it *is* a "copyright violation".
No it is a violation of intellectual property law. It doesn't behave like copyright at all so it doesn't fall under that.
It doesn't behave like copyright? It is copyright. It's part of Title 17 of the US Code, which is called "Copyrights". And the name of the law. The Digital Millenium *Copyright* Act. The title of section 3? *Copyright* protection systems and *copyright* management information. The treaty it was created to implement? The WIPO *Copyright* Treaty.
Copyright encompasses a lot of rights beyond just copying.
Anthony
On 5/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It doesn't behave like copyright? It is copyright. It's part of Title 17 of the US Code, which is called "Copyrights". And the name of the law. The Digital Millenium *Copyright* Act. The title of section 3? *Copyright* protection systems and *copyright* management information. The treaty it was created to implement? The WIPO *Copyright* Treaty.
Copyright encompasses a lot of rights beyond just copying.
Anthony
Copyright is finite the stuff we are talking about is not.
Copyright does not protect again independent creation. The stuff we are talking about does appear to.
Copyright under US law requires creativity. No evidence the DRM stuff does
Copyright has fair use clauses. The DRM protection stuff does not. It isn't copyright by any reasonable standards and the courts have not supported the suggestion that it is. If it was copyright it would quite possibly be be unconstitutional in it's current wording since it lasts longer than forever -1 day.
Additionally the name of the bill means nothing unless you are going to suggest that under UK law protesting in certain areas of London without a permit falls under the definition of "serious and organised crime"
On 5/6/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
The DMCA does not prohibit publication, it prohibits "trafficking". The MPAA vs Corely case held that publication on a website constitutes trafficking, and this was upheld at appeal. The Act specifies damages of $200-$2500 per "act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service". Presumably every time someone downloads the number from the mailing list archive, and every time we send it to someone by email, this constitues trafficking of such a device.
WikiEN-L has 878 members, so sending the key to the list would create a liability of between $175,600 and $2.2M, plus archive downloads and what not.
-- Tim Starling
I just want something clarified. If I understand it correctly, before the AACS people sue, they have to send a DMCA takedown notice, right? And then they can sue if we don't comply?
Why not just take it easy for a while and leave the archives intact, and if they do send a takedown notice, then we comply.
This is where things can get mixed up easily. You may be referring to the "DMCA takedown" as usually referenced when it comes to copyrighted content. And there is a strict procedure specified in the OCILLA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA#Take_down_and_put_back_provisions
The probelm with "the key" is that it's not a copyright issue -- it's the matter of it being part of circumvention. So in that case, it is not "safe harbor" that is an issue.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 5/6/07, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
This is where things can get mixed up easily. You may be referring to the "DMCA takedown" as usually referenced when it comes to copyrighted content. And there is a strict procedure specified in the OCILLA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA#Take_down_and_put_back_provisions
The probelm with "the key" is that it's not a copyright issue -- it's the matter of it being part of circumvention. So in that case, it is not "safe harbor" that is an issue.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Ahh, I see. Thank you for the clarification :)
On 06/05/07, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
This is where things can get mixed up easily. You may be referring to the "DMCA takedown" as usually referenced when it comes to copyrighted content. And there is a strict procedure specified in the OCILLA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA#Take_down_and_put_back_provisions
The probelm with "the key" is that it's not a copyright issue -- it's the matter of it being part of circumvention. So in that case, it is not "safe harbor" that is an issue.
OK, fine. But surely the first step before a lawsuit would be the sending of a cease and desist letter to the Foundation -- without a C&D, the WMF is *officially* unaware of any potential objection to the inclusion of the key within the encyclopaedia.
On 5/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/05/07, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
This is where things can get mixed up easily. You may be referring to the "DMCA takedown" as usually referenced when it comes to copyrighted content. And there is a strict procedure specified in the OCILLA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA#Take_down_and_put_back_provisions
The probelm with "the key" is that it's not a copyright issue -- it's the matter of it being part of circumvention. So in that case, it is not "safe harbor" that is an issue.
OK, fine. But surely the first step before a lawsuit would be the sending of a cease and desist letter to the Foundation -- without a C&D, the WMF is *officially* unaware of any potential objection to the inclusion of the key within the encyclopaedia.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Generally, the sending of a cease-and-desist precedes any legal proceedings that involve something ongoing. Judges don't particularly like to see cases on their (very full) dockets where someone hasn't even tried to work it out without going to court.
It seems to me like more of a case of being afraid of getting sued (which is of course a legitimate concern IMO and a very reasonable one considering the current situation) than being afraid of a lawsuit that actually has a legal ground. From what I've seen, the companies were making a case that the numbers are copyrighted (if this assumption is wrong, you can skip to the last sentence), which seems like a bullshit claim in a country where copyright depends on creativity. If there is a successful [copyright law-related] lawsuit (against digg or whomever) it'll be a sad day. Deleting these e-mails from WMF servers doesn't mean we should just as well delete e-mails concerning possibly libelous information, etc. as there is no threat of a probable lawsuit like there is in this case.
-Yonatan
On 5/6/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
It's unfortunate when not wanting to break the law is considered paranoia.
Danny
In a message dated 5/5/2007 10:51:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
Are you going to suggest we purge all emails that ever mentioned potential libels, too, in all the arguments over WP:OFFICE? Rather than imagining that the sky will fall, imagine the consequences of excessive paranoia.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.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
Yonatan Horan wrote:
From what I've seen, the companies were making a case that the numbers are copyrighted...
It's worth understanding that the number is *not* copyrighted. It's not patented, either, or trademarked, or a trade secret. It benefits from a brand-new kind of legal protection, specifically carved out by one clause of the DMCA: it is a component of a copyright protection device, and therefore may not be disseminated.
My own reading of the situation is that it is *not* illegal for me to post this number on my website, or Wikipedia's. It is not illegal for me to say "09f911029d7452692g6h56c5635688c0" right here in this email. It would only be illegal for me to say, or publish, a statement of the form "One of the HD-DVD decryption keys is 09f911029d7452692g6h56c5635688c0".
I know it isn't copyrighted, as is clearly outlined by my e-mail. I wasn't aware of the DMCA claim which is equally annoying.
On 5/6/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Yonatan Horan wrote:
From what I've seen, the companies were making a case that the numbers are copyrighted...
It's worth understanding that the number is *not* copyrighted. It's not patented, either, or trademarked, or a trade secret. It benefits from a brand-new kind of legal protection, specifically carved out by one clause of the DMCA: it is a component of a copyright protection device, and therefore may not be disseminated.
My own reading of the situation is that it is *not* illegal for me to post this number on my website, or Wikipedia's. It is not illegal for me to say "09f911029d7452692g6h56c5635688c0" right here in this email. It would only be illegal for me to say, or publish, a statement of the form "One of the HD-DVD decryption keys is 09f911029d7452692g6h56c5635688c0".
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l