On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Whether you draw the distinction between
print or non-print, or between "online" and "offline", is always
somewhat arbitrary, as content can change from one state to another
very easily. (A file downloaded to your harddisk becomes an offline
copy; so does an email attachment.)
How is it arbitrary? A file downloaded to your harddisk becomes an offline
copy. There's nothing at all arbitrary about that.
If you're trying to imply that someone creating such a copy is thereby
breaking the law, then you're being quite disingenuous. Whether it's fair
dealing or fair use or legal precedent or whatever, it's clear that a court
of law in any reasonable jurisdiction is going to excuse such incidental
Besides, in most any jurisdiction other than US (as well as under the Berne
Convention), the right to attribution is inalienable and not covered by
copyright law or licenses anyway.
A licensing regime that relies on
such arbitrary transformations of attribution is fundamentally
unworkable for re-users.
It's not at all arbitrary. The difference between attribution being a click
away and attribution being provided over a completely different medium which
may or may not be available is quite clear. It's also unclear how it's
unworkable. Static Wikipedia has provided author lists for quite a while,
and that's without much thought at all being put into culling down the
authors. It's only if you invent some convoluted scenarios involving
T-shirts or postcards that it becomes unworkable.