--- koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote about attributions:
*but* he should know that, as a wiki, we currently can't guarantee that the citation will remain there permanently since anyone could remove it.
Axel responded:
I don't think that's a big concern: if somebody removes the
(required)
attribution, then that's a violation of copyright law and we would
have
to revert. It's the same as if somebody uploads copyrighted materials without permission: we are in violation and have to revert.
well, I think it's a big concern, because we have no guarantee that anyone will notice the removal, much less revert it.
kq
--- koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
--- koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote about attributions:
*but* he should know that, as a wiki, we currently can't guarantee that the citation will remain there permanently since anyone could remove it.
Axel responded:
I don't think that's a big concern: if somebody removes the (required) attribution, then that's a violation of copyright law and we would have to revert. It's the same as if somebody uploads copyrighted materials without permission: we are in violation and have to revert.
well, I think it's a big concern, because we have no guarantee that anyone will notice the removal, much less revert it.
Big or small, the concern that tomorrow somebody uploads copyrighted material and it goes unnoticed and is not reverted is precisely as big.
The reason I don't consider these two concerns as big is this: if the copyright holder ever complains, the copyright violations can always easily be fixed in no time.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
The reason I don't consider these two concerns as big is this: if the copyright holder ever complains, the copyright violations can always easily be fixed in no time.
Axel
The concern comes right after you have filed the answer to the complaint in federal court or right after someone has come after money damages or seeking to shut Wikipedia down?
Why would you assume that someone whose copyright is infringed is only looking to have the offending material removed.
bob
bob frasier wrote:
The reason I don't consider these two concerns as big is this: if the copyright holder ever complains, the copyright violations can always easily be fixed in no time.
Why would you assume that someone whose copyright is infringed is only looking to have the offending material removed.
And, suppose we make a printed copy, or one on CD-ROM? How to fix these?
bob frasier wrote:
The reason I don't consider these two concerns as big is this: if the copyright holder ever complains, the copyright violations can always easily be fixed in no time.
Axel
The concern comes right after you have filed the answer to the complaint in federal court or right after someone has come after money damages or seeking to shut Wikipedia down?
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.
But really, my preference is to apply common sense to the situation, and not allow copyright paranoia and far-fetched scenarios stiffle what we are trying to do.
Eclecticology
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 the situation, 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.
bob frasier wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
The reason I don't consider these two concerns as big is this: if the copyright holder ever complains, the copyright violations can always easily be fixed in no time.
The concern comes right after you have filed the answer to the complaint in federal court or right after someone has come after money damages or seeking to shut Wikipedia down?
One of the benefits in the US of the DMCA (unintended, I'm sure ^_^) is supposed to be that IPs have limited liability in this sort of case. As long as the IP responds quickly to a request to remove material, then they should be OK. And that's exactly what we would do, whether it's a matter of uploading infringing material or of removing required notices from material used with permission.
-- Toby
On 11/1/02 3:02 AM, "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
bob frasier wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
The reason I don't consider these two concerns as big is this: if the copyright holder ever complains, the copyright violations can always easily be fixed in no time.
The concern comes right after you have filed the answer to the complaint in federal court or right after someone has come after money damages or seeking to shut Wikipedia down?
One of the benefits in the US of the DMCA (unintended, I'm sure ^_^) is supposed to be that IPs have limited liability in this sort of case. As long as the IP responds quickly to a request to remove material, then they should be OK. And that's exactly what we would do, whether it's a matter of uploading infringing material or of removing required notices from material used with permission.
The provider has limited liability, but not the website editor(s), unless I'm mistaken.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 11/1/02 3:02 AM, "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
bob frasier wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
The reason I don't consider these two concerns as big is this: if the copyright holder ever complains, the copyright violations can always easily be fixed in no time.
The concern comes right after you have filed the answer to the complaint in federal court or right after someone has come after money damages or seeking to shut Wikipedia down?
One of the benefits in the US of the DMCA (unintended, I'm sure ^_^) is supposed to be that IPs have limited liability in this sort of case. As long as the IP responds quickly to a request to remove material, then they should be OK. And that's exactly what we would do, whether it's a matter of uploading infringing material or of removing required notices from material used with permission.
The provider has limited liability, but not the website editor(s), unless I'm mistaken.
And how does that fit in with the fact that at Wikipedia we are all editors? Eclecticology
The Cunctator wrote:
The provider has limited liability, but not the website editor(s), unless I'm mistaken.
An interesting point. Surely they won't try to make me personally responsible for the edits of anonymous user xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, yes? They'll say <We won't hold all N thousand registered users responsible, but we demand to know who added this infinging material! Otherwise, we'll have nobody in particular to sue, which is bad.>. Then we'll look at the history logs and say <This is their IP number.>. Voila! there's our scapegoat!
-- Toby
|From: koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com |Cc: |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:56:18 -0800 | |>--- koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote about attributions: |>> *but* he should know that, as a |>> wiki, we currently can't guarantee that the citation will remain |>> there permanently since anyone could remove it. | |Axel responded: |>I don't think that's a big concern: if somebody removes the |(required) |>attribution, then that's a violation of copyright law and we would |have |>to revert. It's the same as if somebody uploads copyrighted materials |>without permission: we are in violation and have to revert. | |well, I think it's a big concern, because we have no guarantee that |anyone will notice the removal, much less revert it. | |kq |
We have no guarantee that the entries will remain the same either. The bioastropedia is an excellent web site, but we aren't going to import their articles wholesale and leave them untouched forever, are we?
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org