On Nov 25, 2007 8:16 PM, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
BTW, who says that parts of Wikipedia haven't been registered with national copyright registration agencies (like the Library of Congress)?
The sad thing is, it's actually illegal to publish Wikipedia in the United States *without* depositing a copy with the Library of Congress. "In general, the owner of copyright or the owner of the exclusive right of publication in the work has a legal obligation to deposit in the Copyright Office, within 3 months of publication in the United States, two copies (or in the case of sound recordings, two phonorecords) for the use of the Library of Congress. Failure to make the deposit can result in fines and other penalties but does not affect copyright protection" http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
I wonder if section 230 of the CDA would come into place there. Are deposit requrements a "law pertaining to intellectual property"?
The sad thing is, it's actually illegal to publish Wikipedia in the United States *without* depositing a copy with the Library of Congress.
What exactly constitutes "publishing"? I wouldn't say that we publish anything, and the WMF's traditional stance as an ISP and not a publishing house confirms that. Even in the cases where people print Wikipedia articles, or Wikibooks pages or whatever for personally use, is that considered "publishing"? I guess I could use a little lesson in the terminology.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Nov 25, 2007 8:50 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
The sad thing is, it's actually illegal to publish Wikipedia in the United States *without* depositing a copy with the Library of Congress.
What exactly constitutes "publishing"?
In the US, at least as used in Title 17, "publication" is defined at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_...
"distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending"? For Wikipedia I'd say generally no, but I guess it could be argued yes. (*)
"The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." Hmm, in the case of Wikipedia, I think that's true. (*) Copies *are* distributed for the purpose of further distribution. But on the other hand: "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." I've heard it argued before that distribution over the Internet is more adequately defined as a public performance/display, which is defined as:
"To transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work [...] to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times"
I think I'm going to adopt that POV. Running a website is not publication, it is public display. (*)
I wouldn't say that we publish anything, and the WMF's traditional stance as an ISP and not a publishing house confirms that.
I've mostly heard that in the context of a misinterpretation of section 230 of the CDA, which does not say that an interactive computer service is not a publisher, it says that they shall not "be treated as" a publisher ("of any information provided by another information content provider"). But this law provides an exception for "any law pertaining to intellectual property". (*)
Reading the case law regarding section 230 seems to follow this line of reasoning. (*)
Even in the cases where people print Wikipedia articles, or Wikibooks pages or whatever for personally use, is that considered "publishing"? I guess I could use a little lesson in the terminology.
For personal use, I doubt it. (*) For sale, "rental, lease, or lending", I guess so. (*)
(*) Use the preceding information at your own risk. I have basically no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to this stuff, I'm just trying to take a guess and hopefully someone more knowledgeable will respond.
Anthony
On Nov 25, 2007 9:45 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I've heard it argued before that distribution over the Internet is more adequately defined as a public performance/display
Ah, here it is. It's the EFF (!) making the argument, in this case with respect to the transmission of music over a P2P network, but I don't see how it wouldn't apply equally to transmission of Wikipedia over the web.
http://www.eff.org/cases/elektra-v-barker/attachments/effs-amicus-brief
It kind of makes you rethink everything you always thought about copyright law as it applies to the Internet. For instance, the GFDL apparently (I did a quick search) doesn't even mention public performance or public display. Oops?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org