[Foundation-l] [announcement] new staff member in business development
saintonge at telus.net
Sun May 20 17:49:13 UTC 2007
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>Yeah, and since your contract agreement at $100 explicitely does not
>>allow you to resell the feed to a third party, you would engage into
>>illegal activity as well.
>That's a much more definite point. A datafeed involves a contractual
>agreement between the two parties, so you can impose whatever
>restrictions you like. A simple sale of a tangible item does not.
What the statutes say is only one part of the law; actual enforcement is
quite another. If Anthony buys for $100 and sells for $200 who is going
to feel inclined to go across the country to begin a legal action to
recover damages. The worst damage that can be done to him in practical
terms is to cut off his data feed. At that point he can perhaps restart
it with another name and account until that too is discovered.
Restrictions that are not easily enforceable are a waste of time. The
movie and recording industries are rapidly discovering that. Copyright
law has been looking more foolish every day. What made it work in the
past was the sheer impracticality of infringement. Industry could
expand the restrictiveness of re-use because there weren't enough people
to care about writing NPOV into copyright law.
What has changed is that people copying a DVD can produce a high quality
copy and don't see themselves as doing anything wrong. When copying was
from a vinyl record to tape it could be done at home but the quality was
often not there. The process was also slower and more tedious. Now
that the technical restrictions are gone, except for the artificial ones
like DRM gimmicks, few people see anything wrong in personal copying and
distributing copies to friends. Sure, it's a form of disrespect for the
law, but respect for law depends on a perception that the law is fair.
As Wikipedians we tend to see law mostly in terms of intellectual
property and libel law, but to those who focus on that limited range of
law I can only say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
For us it means that we should not base policy on unenforceable law.
>>Datafeed is one of the way we can make money. Which will allow us to pay
>>Which will allow us to provide all the financial information you are
>>If you count in "actual cost" uniquely the bandwidth cost, $100 could
>>make it. But running an organization uniquely counting as cost, the
>>bandwidth, is seriously being out of it.
>It's a matter of priorities. Is it more important to get as much free
>information as possible out there right now, or to be still able to
>get free information out in a year's time? Anthony seems to believe
>the former, you the latter. Both are valid points of view.
Yes. Without product there is no profit; without profit there is no
product. At some point along the way it takes more than altruism to
keep the horse running. We have yet to delve into the broader economic
and social impacts of such a project. We are assembling intellectual
capital, but we have yet to reconcile that with more traditional forms
More information about the foundation-l