On 2/12/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote:
On 2/11/07, David Strauss
Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar
issue surrounds fair use.
Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the
move the foundation and servers to Iran.
That's absurd. How does one go from "not changing to accommodate
restrictive laws from other countries is not U.S. centrism" to "we must
move our servers to Iran"?
You want minimum restrictions with regard to copyright that is the
correct course of action.
I'm arguing that we should weigh the advantages of
Try again this time try not to think so americano centric
(further reach) with the disadvantages of changing the
content (esp. censorship). If we happen to decide that accommodating a
restriction isn't worth the changes to content, then we're still not
guilty of U.S. centrism. Accommodating Iran's requirements is clearly
out of the question.
So not copyright on items produced outside Iran doesn't appeal? Well
Ok then how about move commons to the UK? At least one type of item
enters the public domain there well before ti does in the US. Sure it
might be a good idea to win a Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case
first but that should be doable.
U.S. centrism is borne of ignorance or willful exclusion. Neither is the
Then try and think why when dealing with the option of moving the
foundation to somewhere with the most liberal copyright laws on an
international mailing list why using the term "foreign restrictions"
isn't exactly ideal phrasing.