[Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal position of audiorecordings of GFDLcontent?

[Brian McNeil]

Of course, and I meant Wikimania 2009 not '08.

Can someone tell me who would be a good couple of people from the WP
podcasts and front page management to talk to?


Brian McNeil

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pharos
Sent: 24 April 2008 03:36
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal position of
audiorecordings of GFDLcontent?

Fantastic idea.  Let's just remember to start modestly; otherwise it
might fizzle out like some of the video efforts.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Brian McNeil
<brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> Let's run with the idea that provoked these questions to foundation-l, and
>  to the FSF. The most apparent one to most people here is the Spoken
Articles
>  on Wikipedia. They're from GFDL material and looking at the license as it
>  stands, none of the people drafting it dreamt an encyclopedia - let alone
>  audio portions thereof - would ever exist and be covered by it. Perhaps
it
>  is fortuitous that this aspect has come up before the new license is in
>  place? Perhaps there is a wider scope to consider in drafting it?
>
>  That "wider scope" is what one of the contributors to this discussion has
>  highlighted as a seriously headache-forming area under current
constraints,
>  namely Radio. Trust me, dealing with a license that was drafted when
>  hard-cased floppy disks were cutting-edge technology is going to give
Mike
>  Godwin headaches, not just the average list contributor.
>
>  So, yes, as a few people on a few of the non-WP projects are aware, the
idea
>  that provoked these questions was indeed radio. A 24/7 MediaWiki Radio
>  service running Wikinews new pieces, spoken Wikipedia, music from
Commons,
>  Lectures workshops and tutorials from Wikiversity, Quote of the Day from
>  Wikiquote, and "Book of the Month" from Wikisource. As the discussion on
the
>  Communications Committee list saw this labelled, "WikiRadio 4" (See WP
>  article on BBC Radio 4").
>
>  What are people's thoughts on this? Kicking the idea about on Wikinews'
>  Water Cooler has made it look that filling a repeated six or eight-hour
>  schedule is achievable within a realistic timeframe. It does not conflict
>  with projects getting off the ground to do podcasts, but would mean
they'd
>  need advised to start working towards fitting to broadcast time
constraints
>  as a way of having an eye on the future. Could we aim for a radio station
>  for Wikimania 2008, with Spanish lessons broadcast in the preceding
>  weeks/months? Could we persuade Wikipedia people to add "doing a
recording"
>  to the composition of the daily main page?
>
>
>  Brian McNeil
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
>  [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni
>  Sent: 22 April 2008 19:37
>  To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>  Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal position of audio recordings of
>  GFDLcontent?
>
>  On 22/04/2008, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text? To the
>  >  satisfaction of, e.g., querulous Commons admins who deal with
>  >  licensing stupidities all the time? (Geni, I'm looking at you ;-) )
>
>  You can't but assuming you are dealing with more normal people there
>  are ways to do it.
>
>  >  Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is
>  >  onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are
>  >  (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the
>  >  license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use
>  >  elsewhere.
>
>  Not the problem you might think. Obviously it will limit the formats
>  you can use. 45s and 78s are going to be basically unusable and 33s
>  would be fairly borderline.
>
>  For CDs it is less of a problem. You have a single track dedicated to
>  the legal stuff and everything else just as normal. If you want to put
>  multiple articles onto a single CD then it would probably a be a good
>  idea to take the approach of merging them into a single document. If
>  you make a CD that is say a series of spoken versions of our US
>  president articles then you are going to run into problems with the
>  size of the article history but by using synthesised speech and
>  dumping the lot on a separate CD it should be doable.
>
>  In the end it's just another version of the old overhead problem that
>  means the GFDL is useless for postcards as well.
>
>  Invariant sections can of course case massive problems. If an
>  invariant section is an image you are basically stuffed.
>
>  >Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
>
>  No more than many EULAs
>
>
>  >This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
>
>  Still runs into issues when faced with large numbers of authors. "keep
>  intact all copyright notices for the Work" has the same problem with
>  invariant sections as the GFDL.
>
>  --
>  geni
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l