[Foundation-l] Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

[Brian]

I personally feel that the foundation should be proactive in developing
technologies that allow potential copyright violations (for example, edits
that were reverted because someone thought they were copyright violations)
to be removed from the database. It also seems to me that a lot of dangerous
interpretation of untested law is going on. This particular instance appears
to be a blatant violation of rights, and unless you are suggesting that we
should be the ones who test it in court, why not just go through the steps
of creating a procedure to remove this and all others like it?

I am still waiting for the fair use analysis of scientific journal
abstracts. I actually bothered to read their copyright claims before coming
here, and they require you to get explicit permission (via a third party)
before using the material, although using an abstract on the web is free
once you get that permission.

If the attitude is: we are going to push safe harbor to the untested limits,
I have nothing more to say, because there is nothing I can say.


On 8/12/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 8/12/07, Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512
> >>> In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, an OSP must:
> >>>
> >>>    - have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, the infringing
> >>>    activity
> >>>    - provide proper notification of its policies to its subscribers
> >>>    - set up an agent to deal with copyright complaints
> >>>
> >>> Reverting a copyright violation seems to violate the first point.
> >>>
> > Only if you have actual knowledge that the version is indeed a
> > copyright violation, which would require at the very least knowing
> > that the material is copyrighted, knowing that it is being used
> > without permission, and knowing that it is not fair use.
> >
> > <blockquote>Actual knowledge is not an opinion about infringement i.e.
> > "I think this is infringing" or "this is copied from another site,
> > therefore it is infringing".</blockquote> - [[OCILLA]]
> I strongly agree.  While there are reasons and times times when it is
> prudent to act on suspicion the important factor remains the need to
> have standing.  From that same chillingeffects site: "[OCILLA] protects
> online service providers (OSPs) from liability for information posted or
> transmitted by subscribers if they quickly remove or disable access to
> material identified *in a copyright holder's complaint."  *That last
> factor is especially important.  There is more to determining whether
> there has been copyright infringement than simply identifying two
> identical passages.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>