On 1/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/29/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My attitude is that Wikipedia should be pushing the copyright envelope (within reason, of course) on all fronts.
And how much money do you plan to provide to make this possible?
One meeeellion dollars.
All non-governmental content from the past century is covered by copyright
(essentially).
That simply isn't the case.
Please elaborate.
We should also be demonstrating the importance of challenging the absurd life and strength of copyright laws by taking advantage of fair use when
we
can.
Your reasons do not support your actions here.
Huh? What actions, where?
Google is a great example of a company that by dint of its popularity gets
to run roughshod over copyright restrictions that companies would squash
if
they weren't so reliant on Google.
Evidences?
In any case the "no one will sue us" is not a valid argument for wikipedia if only because sooner or latter someone will and it doesn't help reusers.
Who made that argument?
Similarly Wikipedia is now in the position of being one of the 800-pound
gorillas.
Annual turnover less than that of my nearest collage. I think not.
Collage?
Wikipedia has the power to shape law because of its size and influence.
How? Political campaigning is pretty much out. We have neither the money nor the impact. People go to wikipedia looking for information. They are not looking for an ideology
You severely underestimate Wikipedia's impact. Any website that is in the top 20 of the world has a political impact.