[Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
saintonge at telus.net
Sun Mar 7 00:16:32 UTC 2010
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 4 March 2010 19:41, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>> Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very
>> technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken down.
>> In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every month
>> and force the project offline.
>> That's the world you're advocating? No responsibility on the part of the
>> office to even make the slightest attempt to verify the claim?
> I think we're falling into the trap of constructing strawmen to fight here.
> I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that if someone wrote to
> the WMF claiming to hold the rights to the text of, oh, /Bleak House/,
> that we would then be obliged to take a copy of it down - because the
> claim itself is patently nonsensical and can be ignored.
> But the fact that we can ignore patently invalid demands - and I am
> quite sure we do, without a qualm - doesn't mean that we ought to feel
> we can or should start adjudicating on the reasonableness of any
> not-entirely-clear-cut case that turns up, such as this one...
A lot of this comes down to a question of choosing your battles. As
much as I disagree with the validity of these notices this should not be
WMF's fight. There is plenty of meat for individuals who want to take up
the cudgels; that's how they accept personal responsibility: by putting
their money where their mouths are instead of trying to pass the buck to
A takedown notice needs to show where the material was originally
published. TI would certainly not have published the keys themselves, so
quoting them cannot be a copyvio of their rights unless it can be proven
to be from stolen documents. As I understand it the hackers figured out
the keys for themselves instead of copying them from elsewhere, so if
there is any copyright it likely belongs to the hackers.
More information about the foundation-l