On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly@pobox.com> wrote:
Rather than nitpicking about this, I hope people are signing the
petition and sharing it via twitter and facebook.
I mean,_linking to_ online TV is considered a copyvio? Next thing you
know, being able to remember any details of a TV show you watched last
week will be considered a copyvio for having a 'copy' in your brain.
Brian McNeil
--
I am not sure of the charges, but, yes, I can see how a link to is a copyright violation, in the context of "sharing".
YMMV,
FWIW, that's the point of view Wikipedia itself takes. It expressly forbods linking to copyright violations, and cites a legal precedent as its reasoning. The relevant policy paragraph is
Wikipedia:LINKVIO –
"... if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."
The point is repeated in WP:ELNEVER:
"For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:
- Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.
Not sure how that squares with Jimbo's First Amendment argument.