Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" andreengels@gmail.com:
Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article), paragraph 3:
"Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
"Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered or used via these services."
If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not, then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.
As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.
Rupert
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:12 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" andreengels@gmail.com:
Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article), paragraph 3:
"Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
"Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for
internet
access services dependent on the services and applications that are
offered
or used via these services."
If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not, then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.
As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.
Rupert
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikipedia, or at least portions of it, is illegal under many countries' laws. Any article showing a swastika, even if it's a neutral article about Nazi Germany or the like, is illegal under German law. Probably almost all of Wikipedia is illegal under North Korean law.
It cannot reasonably be expected that WMF would follow the laws of every country in the world. Wikimedia's infrastructure and staff are located in the United States, so WMF must respect US law. No other really is relevant.
I live in the US. I don't follow the laws of Germany, or Iran, or China, in my day to day life. Why should I? I'm not subject to them.
Todd Allen
Wikipedia, or at least portions of it, is illegal under many countries' laws. Any article showing a swastika, even if it's a neutral article about Nazi Germany or the like, is illegal under German law. Probably almost all of Wikipedia is illegal under North Korean law.
It cannot reasonably be expected that WMF would follow the laws of every country in the world. Wikimedia's infrastructure and staff are located in the United States, so WMF must respect US law. No other really is relevant.
I live in the US. I don't follow the laws of Germany, or Iran, or China, in my day to day life. Why should I? I'm not subject to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_%C2%A7_86ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_%C3%82%C2%A7_86a: “(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes. […]” Hence, German law of course allows usage of the swastika in Wikipedia, one of the best places to further civil enlightenment. Yet, one German left-wing party member, Katina Schubert ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katina_Schubert ), “filed criminal charges against German Wikipedia […] for featuring Nazi symbols such as the swastika in its articles [… but] after criticism from other members of her party, Schubert withdrew her charges.”
Best regards Martin Rulsch
Btw., great combination of country laws …
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" andreengels@gmail.com:
Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article), paragraph 3:
"Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
"Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for
internet
access services dependent on the services and applications that are
offered
or used via these services."
If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not, then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.
Well, they are not illegal, as they do not fall under Dutch jurisdiction.
As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.
For me personally, it is a moral question. As specified above, it's not illegal for the simple reason that it's not been rolled out or planned in countries with net neutrality laws as far as I know. To me the question is: Even if it is not illegal, is it a good idea from a moral standpoint? I don't think WMF has spoken out about net neutrality, but undoubtedly many people within our movement stand behind it. If the WMF would endorse net neutrality, and if Wikipedia Zero would break it, then supporting Wikipedia Zero would be hypocritical. For me personally, the solution is to stand for a more relaxed definition of net neutrality, where giving an alternative or better service for specific services is not problematic as long as this does not adversely affect service for other services. YMMV.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org