On Tuesday 10 September 2002 05:28 pm, you wrote:
Correction: We didn't arrive at a consensus on the Dutch Wikipedia. I think that a small fragment should be fair-use. Also under Dutch law (which is basically the same as current USA/international law as I explained here earlier). On the Dutch Wikipedia we decided to 'disallow' such audio fragments for now because there was little need for it yet and we didn't want to pursue the matter further at this stage.
Greetings, Jaap
Unless I am mistaken, the Dutch Wikipedia is hosted in the United States along with the other Wikipedias. Therefore US law is the only one that counts. But you can make any policies you wish for your own 'pedia so long as it doesn't break US law (which I do believe is a lot more permissive in this case).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
At 2002-09-10 18:05 -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 05:28 pm, you wrote:
Correction: We didn't arrive at a consensus on the Dutch Wikipedia. I think that a small fragment should be fair-use. Also under Dutch law (which is basically the same as current USA/international law as I explained here earlier). On the Dutch Wikipedia we decided to 'disallow' such audio fragments for now because there was little need for it yet and we didn't want to pursue the matter further at this stage.
Greetings, Jaap
Unless I am mistaken, the Dutch Wikipedia is hosted in the United States along with the other Wikipedias. Therefore US law is the only one that counts.
Nice point!
But you can make any policies you wish for your own 'pedia so long as it doesn't break US law (which I do believe is a lot more permissive in this case).
Well your argument at least illustrates that our BUMA/STEMRA would have a hard case against a site in the USA breaking (perhaps) Dutch law.
The international consequences of the internet are still quite debatable anyway.
Like Lee, I wouldn't mind challenging the BUMA/STEMRA on this. I even proposed sending an email to BUMA/STEMRA asking for their opinion.
But I agree with 'our leader' Giskard that there is no hurry...
Greetings, Jaap
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Unless I am mistaken, the Dutch Wikipedia is hosted in the United States along with the other Wikipedias. Therefore US law is the only one that counts. But you can make any policies you wish for your own 'pedia so long as it doesn't break US law (which I do believe is a lot more permissive in this case).
Yes, now the Dutch Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. But it does not seems to my good policy to include illigal content . I I hope the Wikipedias can stay together and hosted by Bomis but you can never be sure. If we must look for i new host (in Europ) there must not even a hint of copyright violation. It is better to save than sorry like the say...... -- giskart
At 2002-09-11 07:47 +0200, Giskart wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Unless I am mistaken, the Dutch Wikipedia is hosted in the United States along with the other Wikipedias. Therefore US law is the only one that counts. But you can make any policies you wish for your own 'pedia so long as it doesn't break US law (which I do believe is a lot more permissive in this case).
Yes, now the Dutch Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. But it does not seems to my good policy to include illigal content . I I hope the Wikipedias can stay together and hosted by Bomis but you can never be sure. If we must look for i new host (in Europ) there must not even a hint of copyright violation. It is better to save than sorry like the say...... -- giskart
I don't think we should be so chicken. I don't know much about the Belgian situation, but here in the Netherlands I might not object to betting a couple of $10000 on a law suit.
I'm in contact with circles who are fighting like minded battles. When my friends don't win (and I try to help them win), we could always hire the lawyer from the other side. ;-)
Anyway, don't worry your pretty little head too much about legal matters...
Greetings, Jaap
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org