Thomas Dalton writes:
The number of people doing something, and the likelihood of someone doing it are different things. I think there is a significant (while still probably quite low) chance of at least one person suing, and as I've said, that's all it takes to cause a very big and expensive problem.
Remember that it's expensive to the plaintiff as well as to the defendant.
My guess (and that's all it is at this stage), is that the changes required to unify GFDL and CC-by-SA would be fairly large, and it would end up being dependant on people's views of the "spirit" of the license.
What is the basis of this guess? Most people who've reviewed CC-BY-SA and compared it to GFDL see lots of similarities.
Would you care to enlighten me? Risk assessment involves assessing potential damage and the chance of that happening. Is legal risk assessment somehow different?
Yes, in the sense that Pascal's Wager is wholly unhelpful in assessing risk. (I think it's wholly unhelpful in other contexts as well, but you certainly can't conduct an enterprise by applying "it only takes one" logic to a legal question.)
I can't see how it would be. Legal costs are just as damaging as any other similar sized cost.
Apparently you are under the impression that legal costs are not damaging to plaintiffs as well as to defendants.
Let's boil this down to what the real argument is:
1) It would be wrong to relicense GFDL content on Wikipedia to a new GFDL that's like CC-BY-SA. 2) Allowing those who object to the content would do no good because it's impossible. 3) Therefore, people will sue us because they object to the new license. 4) What will they sue for? Damages (unclear how to calculate those, since there's no market value or lost profit calculation that's obvious, and since the content isn't registered, which is a requirement for statutory damages), plus removal of the content.
So ... either removal of the content is impossible, in which case why sue? Or it's possible, in which case, why spend the money on a lawsuit when you can get the same result by asking. (You don't even have to ask nicely.)
It helps in analysis of this question to be familiar with how copyright litigation actual works, and what it actually costs plaintiffs to bring one.
Yes, an American court might enforce a foreign judgment that would have led to a different result if brought initially in an American court. That's first-year civil procedure (i.e., an early lesson in the basic training of every American law student).
I'm not saying it wouldn't be legal, I'm asking if it would actually happen.
No one can tell you whether it would happen in any given instance. It has happened, however, in the past.
--Mike
Remember that it's expensive to the plaintiff as well as to the defendant.
Ok, it only takes one *rich person*. Point stands.
What is the basis of this guess? Most people who've reviewed CC-BY-SA and compared it to GFDL see lots of similarities.
It's a guess, it doesn't really have much of a basis, just gut feeling. I would have called it an estimate otherwise.
Would you care to enlighten me? Risk assessment involves assessing potential damage and the chance of that happening. Is legal risk assessment somehow different?
Yes, in the sense that Pascal's Wager is wholly unhelpful in assessing risk. (I think it's wholly unhelpful in other contexts as well, but you certainly can't conduct an enterprise by applying "it only takes one" logic to a legal question.)
The flaw in Pascal's Wager is that it incorrectly assumes zero cost, what's that got to do with anything?
I can't see how it would be. Legal costs are just as damaging as any other similar sized cost.
Apparently you are under the impression that legal costs are not damaging to plaintiffs as well as to defendants.
Why would I care about the plaintiff's costs? There are plenty of people in this world with more money than sense.
Let's boil this down to what the real argument is:
- It would be wrong to relicense GFDL content on Wikipedia to a new
GFDL that's like CC-BY-SA. 2) Allowing those who object to the content would do no good because it's impossible. 3) Therefore, people will sue us because they object to the new license. 4) What will they sue for? Damages (unclear how to calculate those, since there's no market value or lost profit calculation that's obvious, and since the content isn't registered, which is a requirement for statutory damages), plus removal of the content.
So ... either removal of the content is impossible, in which case why sue? Or it's possible, in which case, why spend the money on a lawsuit when you can get the same result by asking. (You don't even have to ask nicely.)
Removal of content isn't impossible, it's just impossible without causing a great deal of harm to Wikipedia. As for registering copyright, isn't that US law? We're not talking about the US here. Do France and Germany have similar requirements?
It helps in analysis of this question to be familiar with how copyright litigation actual works, and what it actually costs plaintiffs to bring one.
It costs the plaintiffs money. Something lots of people have and the WMF doesn't.
On Nov 25, 2007 7:13 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Remember that it's expensive to the plaintiff as well as to the defendant.
Ok, it only takes one *rich person*. Point stands.
Or one poor person with a significant knowledge of the court systems.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Remember that it's expensive to the plaintiff as well as to the defendant.
Ok, it only takes one *rich person*. Point stands.
They don't get rich by taking stupid cases to their extreme through the court systems.
What is the basis of this guess? Most people who've reviewed CC-BY-SA and compared it to GFDL see lots of similarities.
It's a guess, it doesn't really have much of a basis, just gut feeling. I would have called it an estimate otherwise.
Does Judge Judy accept copyright cases?
Why would I care about the plaintiff's costs? There are plenty of
people in this world with more money than sense.
Of course. Let them be the ones to beat their heads against a stone wall.
As for registering copyright, isn't that US law? We're not talking about the US here. Do France and Germany have similar requirements?
Even in the US registration is not a prerequisite for owning copyrights. Getting rid of that was a requirement on the US before becoming a part of some international treaties. Registration is only required for sustaining certain cases in court.
It helps in analysis of this question to be familiar with how copyright litigation actual works, and what it actually costs plaintiffs to bring one.
It costs the plaintiffs money. Something lots of people have and the WMF doesn't.
That all strikes me as planning for failure. At least the kids who visited the confessional with hypothetically impossible schemes in the George Carlin skit had the good sense to know that their schemes weren't real. Not acting because someone has speculated about the most improbable of lawsuits is a good way of getting nothing done. One still needs to keep in mind the maxim that it is easier to get forgiveness than to get permission.
Ec
I can't help feeling that continuing this thread is not the best way to spend Mike's time.
Can we please discontinue this, and wait until the FSF actually release something?
Brianna
On Nov 25, 2007 9:02 PM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I can't help feeling that continuing this thread is not the best way to spend Mike's time.
Can we please discontinue this, and wait until the FSF actually release something?
Mike's a big boy, he can choose for himself how to spend his time. He's not on the clock charging for this, is he?
On 26/11/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 25, 2007 9:02 PM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I can't help feeling that continuing this thread is not the best way to spend Mike's time.
Can we please discontinue this, and wait until the FSF actually release something?
Mike's a big boy, he can choose for himself how to spend his time.
Fine, can you stop wasting the time of me & the dozens of other subscribers to this mailing list for whom this thread's usefulness has long since evaporated?
I realise I can ignore this thread, but if foundation-l recurringly exists of long argumentative threads with rapidly decreasing relevance to WMF or its projects then it will just turn more people off participating at all.
Why not continue this discussion if and when FSF releases something concrete and we all know where we stand.
regards Brianna
I agree with this psot!
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Fine, can you stop wasting the time of me & the dozens of other subscribers to this mailing list for whom this thread's usefulness has long since evaporated?
I realise I can ignore this thread, but if foundation-l recurringly exists of long argumentative threads with rapidly decreasing relevance to WMF or its projects then it will just turn more people off participating at all.
Why not continue this discussion if and when FSF releases something concrete and we all know where we stand.
Brian McNeil
Mike Godwin wrote:
damaging to plaintiffs as well as to defendants.
Let's boil this down to what the real argument is:
- It would be wrong to relicense GFDL content on Wikipedia to a new
GFDL that's like CC-BY-SA. 2) Allowing those who object to the content would do no good because it's impossible. 3) Therefore, people will sue us because they object to the new license. 4) What will they sue for? Damages (unclear how to calculate those, since there's no market value or lost profit calculation that's obvious, and since the content isn't registered, which is a requirement for statutory damages), plus removal of the content.
--Mike
BTW, who says that parts of Wikipedia haven't been registered with national copyright registration agencies (like the Library of Congress)? I certainly wouldn't want to make that assumption up out of whole cloth without checking first. I know for a fact that some Wikimedia content (Wikibooks to be specific) has been sent to national registration bodies. We also don't need to notify the WMF is such a registration occurs.
And I think I could come up with a market value of some of this content vs. its diminished value due to ignoring GFDL requirements. That it wouldn't be easy is true, but it is not wise to assume no value to this content.
-- Robert Horning
On 26/11/2007, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
And I think I could come up with a market value of some of this content vs. its diminished value due to ignoring GFDL requirements. That it wouldn't be easy is true, but it is not wise to assume no value to this content.
Again, we're talking about invoking the "or later." Are you talking about something else that isn't in any way planned again?
- d.
And I think I could come up with a market value of some of this content vs. its diminished value due to ignoring GFDL requirements. That it wouldn't be easy is true, but it is not wise to assume no value to this content.
I don't know about that. "Value" in this context means monetary value, and something you're willing to give away for free doesn't have a monetary value to you... If someone made money out of it, you might be able to get that off them on the grounds that they shouldn't benefit from breaking the law, but that's all.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org