do we say someone can claim that? When they are next to each
other? When they are in the same article? When they are both in
Wikipedia? When they are both on the Internet?
Someone can claim for the copyright when they are in the same article.
That's enough for us to worry and to define a precise policy.
Right. We're not worrying about some ignorant policy compiler in the
sky.... The concern is convincing a court of law (i.e. a human or a
few humans) in a climate where increasingly copyright is being
regarded as a very expansive, and infectious, natural right.
There are still plenty of limits to copyright. A French Appeal Court
just ruled that copying movies on Internet was not copyright
infringement when it was made for private purposes.
I am confident in Courts and Judges.
You couldn't convince a court that the entirety of wikipedia was
derived from some text in a Nintendo article, but given a substantial
enough copyvio contribution you could easily argue that most of the
after-the-fact edits were derived and thus the article is tainted.
Every addition is work in itself, only the article is a derivative
work. Supressing the original copyvio text results in a nice FDL text.
Then doing every additions once again is only adding new works.
The only limit is that these addition must not be derivated from some
parts of the copyvio text.
But as far as I know, there is no such thing as "tainting" of copyvio.
So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the criminal charges
(copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( )
It always was (in France at least).
and make the
argument in court, arguing fine points that have never been tested
before (how many generations of changes and replacements are needed to
untaint derived text,
"tainting" is not a legal concept... law only know about original work
and derivative work...
is any number sufficient), in a court which is
likely unfavorable due to the political climate, and potential lose
years of contributions if we lose the battle. Basically taking a huge
bet that wikipedia will be large enough to generate a large enough
public out-cry on the matter to influence the political situation...
It's not a huge bed at all, it's the normal way to do.
The copyright climate today is a huge burden on our increasingly
information drive society, we can pay the price every edit, or we can
roll the dice and pay it all at once, but it will be paid unless the
laws are changed.
I don't agree. You should take for granted what copyfight activists can
say (and I can tell since I am a copyfight activist myself...)
Copyright law exist and we should use it. What you say is that you
don't understand copyright law and so, you would prefer to find a
solution that would not rely on its exceptions because you don't
understand how they apply.
Fine, but if I were an anti-copyright activist, in 5 years from now I
would just say that these exceptions do not apply anymore since nobody
is using it...
If everyone takes the bet that the laws will change, there will be
little direct incentive for anyone to go and change them.
There is no need to change the law. Not on its core principles at