On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 19:43, Ray Saintonge wrote:
bob frasier wrote:
Why would you assume that someone whose copyright is infringed is only
looking to have the offending material removed.
This seems like a particularly sinister approach to the issue. I agree
that in a litigious society there are some individuals who would see
perceived copyright violations as an opportunity to get rich. But let's
be realistic about this: reasonable people will be satisfied when the
violation is removed. If they aren't prepared to be reasonable they
will have the burden of proof in establishing that we did not act
correctly when the violation was brought to our attention. Will they be
prepared to go through all the expense that may be involved to prove
their cas?. I would be interested to know how many claims have so far
been received from people who believe their copyrights have been
violated, even foolish claims.
If these worse case scenarios are at all realistic, then it is an
incentive to setting up a non-profit that has very limited assets.
Perhaps too there should be a second non-profit in a different country
to sponsor a mirror site that would be prepared to take over if things
should get that far.
They are realistic.
I know I've been invoking sturmg und drang, and the future does look
bleak, but pretty much the only thing we shouldn't do is copy images
from other websites. That's about all we have to worry about.
But really, my preference is to apply common sense to
and not allow copyright paranoia and far-fetched scenarios stiffle what
we are trying to do.
Yes. The only other consideration is that we should recognize that if we
come up with a policy that involves mixing GFDL material with non-GFDL
material, we've done something wrong.
The problem with fair use is that it means "acceptable copyright
infringement". If you claim fair use, you've already lost half (most)
the battle--you've admitted you're infringing copyright. It's better to
ignore the concept that a single sentence can be copyrightable, etc.