Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race. Sure, we'd like people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there really is no competition. Already most people I know IRL turn to
How about I fork Wikipedia. And while you suckas scramble to try to get permission from the probably dead photographer who took the Che Guevara-face photo MY fork has more pictures than playboy. Would your friends still prefer Wikipedia??
I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey them.
Be reasonable.
BL
I think a little courtesy would go a long way. If you have a fork you can make different rules especially with respect to images but please respect Wikipedia's rules too.
Fred
From: Bjorn Lindqvist bjrn.lindqvist@telia.com Reply-To: bjrn.lindqvist@telia.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:48:27 +0100 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] I don't care what Richard Stallman would say
Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race. Sure, we'd like people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there really is no competition. Already most people I know IRL turn to
How about I fork Wikipedia. And while you suckas scramble to try to get permission from the probably dead photographer who took the Che Guevara-face photo MY fork has more pictures than playboy. Would your friends still prefer Wikipedia??
I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey them.
Be reasonable.
BL _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey them.
Not obeying stupid laws doesn't get them changed; it bankrupts the violator from court costs and penalties.
Be reasonable.
It's easy to be "reasonable" when it's someone else you are driving into bankruptcy on your whim.
And not realizing that flagrant violations of the law will not result in widespread freedom, but rather the complete disappearance of Wikipedia is not reasonable, it is ... well, to use your word: stupid.
Sean Barrett wrote:
I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey them.
Not obeying stupid laws doesn't get them changed; it bankrupts the violator from court costs and penalties.
Civil disobedience can be perfectly acceptable, but I think we're still quite far from even needing to consider that as a tactic. There is nothing illegal about fair use, so what law is being broken? There are still a number of steps to be followed (like a take down notice) before court costs and penalties become a factor. This alarmism is just another version of copyright paranoia.
Be reasonable.
It's easy to be "reasonable" when it's someone else you are driving into bankruptcy on your whim.
And not realizing that flagrant violations of the law will not result in widespread freedom, but rather the complete disappearance of Wikipedia is not reasonable, it is ... well, to use your word: stupid.
Being "reasonable" does not include "flagrant" violations. Flagrant violations are not the problem. The problem illustrations all have a strong element of reasonable doubt attached to them. There is no need to use whatever interpretation of the law would give us a worst case scenario. If there is a reasonable interpretation of the law which favours us we should follow that.
.Ec
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 10:48:27AM +0100, Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race. Sure, we'd like people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there really is no competition. Already most people I know IRL turn to
How about I fork Wikipedia. And while you suckas scramble to try to get permission from the probably dead photographer who took the Che Guevara-face photo MY fork has more pictures than playboy. Would your friends still prefer Wikipedia??
I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey them.
Be reasonable.
There are people who want to use Wikipedia only online. Lots of them. And they may not care much about non-free images. But there are also people who want to use Wikipedia's content offline - in books, magazines, CDs, etc. Some may even want to print portions of the Wikipedia and sell them.
The problem is - these people can't legally do it if the Wikipedia contains such images.
These people wouldn't be able to use your fork.
Are you able to see the issue now ?
PS. I think that the latter group is far more important than the former.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org