Hi all,
I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that did cross my mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other links here?
Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as copyrighted as YouTube ?
Consider links to IMDb for example, the content we link to, through that, is all copyrighted!
Or just a good old "Official website"-link on an article about person X or organization Y, likely also "All rights reserved."
YouTube atleast is partially (and soon more) under a CC-license.
-- Krinkle
Fred Bauder wrote:
There are practices which are beyond the pale, for example, linking to a pirated copy of the latest Harry Potter movie. Linking to the typical YouTube video of unknown provenance is quite another matter; although it is quite true that in both cases there may be a technical copyright violation. In the second case, there is usually no one complaining. When there are complaints YouTube takes the material down. The copyright police demand proof of ownership and either expiration or release in instances where such information is unavailable. That may be what is required if we are to host the material, but might be unreasonable for mere linking.
Fred
I agree 100% with this. Some people on Wikimedia want to enforce copyright much beyond what is reasonable. This is hurt us, and is outside of our mission.
Yann
2011/7/13 Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com:
Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree. So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this point. The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
We are arbiters of information content, should not be acting as the police and judge over what is on YouTube. We cannot know is something loaded is under copyright or not and should not be attempting to know. It's none of our business. Our business should be merely to decide what is useful for our project.
The links themselves, I repeat, are free. The point of contention is whether a link by itself IS a copyright violation. And on the presumption that it MIGHT be (which is itself ridiculous) our project suffers immense harm by a handful of ummmm persons.
All that is beside the point, my point, which is that a link cannot be a copyright violation, and cannot be licensed.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l