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 -- Wikinews, Accredited Reporter. Personal: brian.mcneil@o2.co.uk "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news."
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Piece by Jimmy Wales on front page f Today's Guardian From: Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com Date: Mon, June 25, 2012 10:39 am To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: office office@wikimedia.org.uk, Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org
On 25/06/12 09:13, Jon Davies wrote:
And before you email the Guardian in the on-line version he has become 'founder' not 'chief'!
Not "co-founder" then?
Gordo
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 25/06/12 10:59, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org 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,
Gordo
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 25/06/12 10:59, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org 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:LINKVIOhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:LINKVIO&redirect=no –
"... 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 infringementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_copyright_infringement in the United States (*Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Reserve_v._Utah_Lighthouse_Ministry * [1] http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/IntRes.html). 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOP or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, *without exception*:
1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works 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 infringementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribd or YouTubehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org