Tim Starling wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
My secret dream is to see the United States
Congress hauled up before
the Arbitration Committee. Maybe we could get them to pass clearer
fair-use legislation as part of their parole.
Clearer fair use legislation is not likely to do us any good. What we
want is *more generous* fair use legislation.
US fair use legislation is already among the most generous in the world. Coupled
with US-centric
Wikipedia policy, this has the effect that anyone attempting to distribute Wikipedia
offline outside
the US risks being sued for copyright infringment. I'd prefer it if US fair use
legislation was
brought into line with the rest of the world, i.e. made more restrictive not less.
You mean this seriously? You'd rather make fair use in the US more
restrictive than make fair use/dealing/practice/whatever in other
countries less restrictive?
I understand the concern about Wikipedia policy vis-a-vis the laws of
nations generally, and personally I think we should avoid relying on
fair use if at all possible, but that's not what I was getting at. The
point was that asking for more clarity on these issues from Congress, or
any other body where rights organizations wield their influence, would
likely only result in making it more clear when the answer is "No."
Or, you know, they could just give us money. Whatever.
Now there's a question - if the US government offered us money, no
strings attached, how would people respond?
--Michael Snow