Again you are referring to the hosting or presentation of non-free content and I am not. I am not referring to the DISPLAY of videos within Wikipedia. Only the LINKING of videos from Wikipedia. 99.9999% of Youtube videos have no licensing information at all so there is no way to tell if they are being uploaded by the copyright holder. The Wikipedian copyright police take a worst-case position and disallow all such linking. I am suggesting that linking itself should be a moot issue. By the way Thomas this thread is for suggesting ways to move forward. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.comTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.orgSent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who merely link to it. That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for example (not host them, just link to them). Why read an article on Wikipedia about say.... Shirley Temple, if someone else has an identical article AND video streaming as well so you can watch one of her movie or a newsreel interview. Re-hosters will eventually figure this out, grab all of our content and improve upon it. We should get there before they do. trongly disagree. Wikipedia is built on the principle that freely licensed ontent rocks and is the future. Making use of non-freely licensed content akes that goal hypocritical and awkward. (by the way; there is not necessairily an issue with linking to Youtube ontent - if it is correctly licensed, then it is fine) Besides; no one has managed to make use of Wikipedia content and build on it n a way that you suggest - if it were so clear an advantage I am sure omeone would have done it by now! Wikipedia but with extra non-free images and videos is not a Wikipedia with ignificant extra value. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but we ave millions :) Tom ______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I would suggest that you don't see the significant value in including photographic content either. I would suggest that's an outdated value system. A picture is worth a thousand words, an audio is worth ten thousand, a video is worth a million. Will Johnson

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.

Pick a spot that you think is appropriate. But you are missing the point. The point in not to continue forward *under the current restrictions and requirements*, that is a dead horse. The glamour is off the rose. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.comTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.orgSent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations 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. This is, I think, the wrong forum for our disagreement. I mostly rose to our nasty casting of "copyright police", which was a mistake. Sorry to veryone else :) But my final comment is thus; you have misconstrued, I think, the point of he argument against such links. In fact; pretty much all cases I have ever een have been unambiguous in one way or another. So while I would entertain he notion that such a policy is limiting our ability to link to egitimately licensed/hosted content I suggest you kinda need to demonstrate hat with specifics. Perhaps an on-wiki discussion is the way to progress this. Tom ______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

In terms of en.wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNEVER<http://en.wikipedia.org/w… That is the main restriction against external linking which makes an extremely strong (even for WP policy) statement; *"Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to… should not be linked."* * * Specific guidance on YouTube (and related) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_vi… Which clearly just cautions care against using such links (*Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis*). Policy discussion is best done on the relevant talk page. Although I seriously doubt that this is likely to be changed. Tom

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

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Krinkle &lt;krinklemail(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: There's a big difference - those are copyrighted _by the person who put the material on the web site_. On YouTube the videos are often uploaded by people who do not own the copyright, nor are connected to them. It's not copyright that is the problem, it is copyright violations. -- André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com