[Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[Foundation-l] The Communist...

[Foundation-l] MediaWiki Server

David Monniaux

8 Feb 2007 8 Feb '07

11:04 p.m.

Geni said:

...

>/ To me, these include, among others://

/>/ * military operations and hardware /

...

US military photos and trade fairs. Also various open days. About the only think you won't get is NK stuff such as Ch'onma-ho

So, only US hardware and activities. So much for NPOV. (There are tons of interesting things that you won't see unless you're in operations. Trade fairs will show only small arms.)

...

/ * spacecraft

...

NASA for a lot of stuff and countries tend to put a lot of their space hardware on display

NASA => only US You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the broadcasting of the activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-)

Show replies by thread

Gregory Maxwell

8 Feb 8 Feb

11:29 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

On 2/8/07, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux(a)free.fr> wrote:

...

You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the broadcasting of the activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-)

Lets pretend for a moment that the Republic of Iceland had a fantastic space program, but they kept it utterly secret because they are afraid that that Norway would take credit for it anyways. Would we be violating NPOV because our lack of knowledge of the program prevented us from giving it coverage equal to the coverage we give NASA? I don't think that it does... and to whatever extent that it does, I think we would do well to look at Iceland as the cause rather than Wikipedia. I do not see how the real situation with the ESA could be any worse. At least we can still write articles about their activities since they are not secret. We are only limited in the media which they do not release freely. The ESA has chosen a copyright policy which limits the freedom the world can take with work, presumably they have good reasons for this, but their decisions have negative consequences as well. One of those negative consequences is a reduction in how widespread information of their work can travel, and Wikipedia is just a single symptom of that. I also don't see this as any different to the fact that most of our astronomical photographs are from NASA, while there are many University and private telescope's whos works we do not use because they are not released freely. Are we promoting NASA because we use their pictures more often than pictures which are not freely release? ... Perhaps, but since free content is our mission, I think that if there is any promotion of sources of free content, it is both unavoidable and not a bad thing.

Robert Scott Horning

9 Feb 9 Feb

12:10 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Monniaux wrote:

...

US military photos and trade fairs. Also various open days. About the only think you won't get is NK stuff such as Ch'onma-ho

So, only US hardware and activities. So much for NPOV. (There are tons of interesting things that you won't see unless you're in operations. Trade fairs will show only small arms.)

/ * spacecraft

NASA for a lot of stuff and countries tend to put a lot of their space hardware on display

NASA => only US You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the broadcasting of the activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-)

Perhaps there is some merit to the philosohpy that the U.S. Federal Government has that all of its publications are released to the public domain. What value crown copyright actually gives the government in the UK is beyond me, but perhaps by showing some of the other governments that they don't need to be so paranoid about copyright (including many U.S. state governments) and trying to milk every last drop of money from content produced by salaried employees of these governments that perhaps there are some strong benefits to their own citizens and to their country as a whole if they would "lighten up" and allow some sort of free usage of this sort of content. Is NASA really the only national space agency that releases images that can be used under terms compatable with the GFDL and Wikimedia Commons restrictions? I know ESA releases their images under a non-commercial use only license, but there have been attempts to try and open that licensing up a bit more to something more akin to the standard CC-by-SA type license. -- Robert Scott Horning

Yonatan Horan

1:12 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

It isn't quite WMF's fault that other countries don't release their pictures under free licenses (or like the US into the public domain). You could just as well say that because enwp uses English sources it is biased towards the US\UK and therefore is not NPOV. No encyclopedia in the world is NPOV going by the same standards because they don't really go to North Korea and take photos there nor do they get a North Korean writer to write some parts of articles regarding NK. NPOV is the sublime ideal we should all strive for but in order to further one ideal, you sometimes have to give up another and in this case when you look at both sides I think it's a no-brainer. Yonatan On 2/9/07, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux(a)free.fr> wrote:

...

Geni said:

>/ To me, these include, among others://

/>/ * military operations and hardware /

US military photos and trade fairs. Also various open days. About the only think you won't get is NK stuff such as Ch'onma-ho

So, only US hardware and activities. So much for NPOV. (There are tons of interesting things that you won't see unless you're in operations. Trade fairs will show only small arms.)

/ * spacecraft

NASA for a lot of stuff and countries tend to put a lot of their space hardware on display

NASA => only US You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the broadcasting of the activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geni

1:46 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

On 2/9/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

En managed the next best thing. -- geni

Ray Saintonge

11 Feb 11 Feb

9:45 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Monniaux wrote:

...

Geni said:

>/ To me, these include, among others:// > >

/>/ * military operations and hardware

US military photos and trade fairs. Also various open days. About the only think you won't get is NK stuff such as Ch'onma-ho

So, only US hardware and activities. So much for NPOV. (There are tons of interesting things that you won't see unless you're in operations. Trade fairs will show only small arms.)

/ * spacecraft NASA for a lot of stuff and countries tend to put a lot of their space hardware on display

NASA => only US You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the broadcasting of the activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-)

As much as I enjoy blaming the United States for most of the world's ills, this is one point where that would have no justification. If the Europeans want to whinge about the availability of American material being a violation of NPOV they have one excellent solution: Make their own material free. Ec

David Strauss

10:12 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

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 "U.S. centrism." Ray Saintonge wrote:

...

geni

11:08 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

On 2/11/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote:

...

The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the move the foundation and servers to Iran. There are a number of items that are public domain in their home country but not in the US that we as a result we do not accept. US laws are liberal in one area but in others not so much. Assuming shortest possible term sound recordings in the US are protected for 20 years longer than they are in the UK. -- geni

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

12 Feb 12 Feb

8:48 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

geni wrote:

...

On 2/11/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote:

The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the move the foundation and servers to Iran.

We'd have to remove all the images of people. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Gerard Meijssen

9:07 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:

...

geni wrote:

On 2/11/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote:

The problem with that is the logical end point of that position is the move the foundation and servers to Iran.

We'd have to remove all the images of people.

Hoi, To me, this sounds like a complete absurd assertion.. what do you base THAT on ? Thanks, GerardM

David Strauss

10:20 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

geni wrote:

...

On 2/11/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote:

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"? I'm arguing that we should weigh the advantages of accommodating foreign restrictions (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. U.S. centrism is borne of ignorance or willful exclusion. Neither is the case here.

geni

11:06 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

On 2/12/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote:

...

geni wrote:

On 2/11/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote:

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 accommodating foreign restrictions

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 case here.

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. -- geni

David Strauss

2:28 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

geni wrote:

...

On 2/12/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote:

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 accommodating foreign restrictions

Try again this time try not to think so americano centric

U.S. centrism is borne of ignorance or willful exclusion. Neither is the case here.

There's simply no way I can discuss this issue with you unless you're willing to adopt a more holistic consideration of Wikipedia's needs. Your arguments are trapped in the consideration of the *one* idea you seem to support, which is restricting Wikipedia content to what may be republished in *your* country. Nowhere in my post did I mention copyright, yet you framed my argument as if copyright were its only consideration. You straw-manned my argument by ignoring aspects of the balance I proposed -- most notably ignoring censorship -- that didn't fit nearly within your pet issue. Finally, you invoked a false slippery slope by stating my argument leads to hosting Wikipedia in Iran. Only your imaginary, straw-manned version of my argument has that flaw.

geni

2:48 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

On 2/12/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote:

...

There area couple of unclear elements of English and welsh law which mean that I cannot support that at this time. However given the percentage of countries that follow English and welsh law it would not be an entirely irrational approach.

...

Nowhere in my post did I mention copyright,

You mentioned fair use

...

yet you framed my argument as if copyright were its only consideration.

You didn't mention any other in your initial post.

...

You straw-manned my argument by ignoring aspects of the balance I proposed -- most notably ignoring censorship -- that didn't fit nearly within your pet issue.

You didn't propose a balance.

...

Finally, you invoked a false slippery slope by stating my argument leads to hosting Wikipedia in Iran. Only your imaginary, straw-manned version of my argument has that flaw.

Not a strawman. Just feeding extreme values into your argument as presented. A standard technique for testing the validity of models. Of course you are free to present a modified version of that argument. You may also wish to take more care in stating your auxiliary assumptions. -- geni

Andre Engels

2:52 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

2007/2/12, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com>om>:

...

And isn't that exactly the same thing you are doing, with the only difference being that your country is also the country where the Wikipedia servers happen to be? -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

Yann Forget

2:55 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

geni a écrit :

...

Canada (or Australia, or South Africa) would be a better option: only 50 years p.m.a. Next India might be interesting: 60 years p.m.a. Yann

geni

3:10 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

On 2/12/07, Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote:

...

Canada (or Australia, or South Africa) would be a better option: only 50 years p.m.a. Next India might be interesting: 60 years p.m.a. Yann

I've run across reports of India selectively filtering a few wikipedia pages so no. India is also has a slightly less free fair dealing system than the UK in that it doesn't include the private study clause although I doubt that would have any impact on us. Australian copyright law may be kinda unstable right now there are a couple of possible changes that would really bite. I don't really know anything about South African law other than I assume it is based of old British law. -- geni

Stephen Bain

10:27 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

...

On 2/12/07, Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote: > Canada (or Australia, or South Africa) would be a better option: only 50 > years p.m.a. Next India might be interesting: 60 years p.m.a.

Most of the terms of copyright under Australian law went up from 50 to 70 years recently following AUSFTA, the Australia-United States "Free" Trade Agreement. On 2/13/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Australian copyright law may be kinda unstable right now there are a couple of possible changes that would really bite.

Like the conversion of certain types of copyright infringement from civil to criminal offences. Or like the automatic increase in jail term if the infringement involves converting something into digital form. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

Ray Saintonge

14 Feb 14 Feb

5:46 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

geni wrote:

...

On 2/12/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote: You want minimum restrictions with regard to copyright that is the correct course of action.

I agree with minimum restriction, but a move to Iran strikes me as slightly unrealistic.

...

I'm arguing that we should weigh the advantages of accommodating foreign restrictions

Try again this time try not to think so americano centri

Some accomodation of "foreign" restrictions is necessary, but it seems that the most retrogressive pressures are the ones that come from the European Union.

...

U.S. centrism is borne of ignorance or willful exclusion. Neither is the case here.

I can see where the word "foreign" leads to a number of anomalous problems. The location of the hardware in the United States does lead to the natural tendency to have other laws considered foreign. At the same time it would be good to have a contingency plan for the location of servers even if there is no immediately forseeable reason for invoking that plan. In any circumstances it would be helpful if we can start developping more international terminology for our discussions. Would the Berne Convention be a good starting point for this?. Ec

Ray Saintonge

5:48 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Yann Forget wrote:

...

geni a écrit :

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.

Canada (or Australia, or South Africa) would be a better option: only 50 years p.m.a. Next India might be interesting: 60 years p.m.a.

Australia went to 70 years not long ago. Ec

6281

days inactive

6287

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

19 comments

12 participants

tags (0)

participants (12)

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Andre Engels
David Monniaux
David Strauss
geni
Gerard Meijssen
Gregory Maxwell
Ray Saintonge
Robert Scott Horning
Stephen Bain
Yann Forget
Yonatan Horan