--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Ilya Schurov <ilya.schurov(a)noo.ru> wrote:
Yes, it's clear. Nobody is going to require
editors to do
copyvio
investigation of third-party resources before linking them.
It's a
conflict resolution matter: e.g. one editor claim that some
site
violates copyright and therefore we shouldn't link there,
while the
other editor try to put this link into the article and
argue that
copyright issues are not important here. ArbCom believes
that the site
under consider indeed violates copyright. Should we
consider this as an
argument to remove such link, or just ignore it?
Do you acknowledge that what you are suggesting would be immoral? Or is one of those
situations were you believe the copyright claim is immoral itself and see the legal
situation as some technicality based on a corruption of government? I know Russian
copyright has a few areas that defy common sense.
Either way it would probably be best to follow to the rule of law, even when on stupid
corner cases. Because in the long run different groups will have a different opinions on
which cases qualify as stupid corner cases and always following the law is easier for the
entire community to accept without fracturing.
But those are my personal thoughts. You probably won't get an actual straight answer
here.
Birgitte SB