[Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

[Krinkle]

Hi all,

I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that  
did cross my
mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other  
links here?

Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as  
copyrighted
as YouTube ?

Consider links to IMDb for example, the content we link to, through
that, is all copyrighted!

Or just a good old "Official website"-link on an article about person  
X or
organization Y, likely also "All rights reserved."

YouTube atleast is partially (and soon more) under a CC-license.

--
Krinkle


Fred Bauder wrote:

> There are practices which are beyond the pale, for example, linking  
> to a
> pirated copy of the latest Harry Potter movie. Linking to the typical
> YouTube video of unknown provenance is quite another matter;  
> although it
> is quite true that in both cases there may be a technical copyright
> violation. In the second case, there is usually no one complaining.  
> When
> there are complaints YouTube takes the material down. The copyright
> police demand proof of ownership and either expiration or release in
> instances where such information is unavailable. That may be what is
> required if we are to host the material, but might be unreasonable for
> mere linking.
>
> Fred
>
>> I agree 100% with this.
>> Some people on Wikimedia want to enforce copyright much beyond what  
>> is
>> reasonable.
>> This is hurt us, and is outside of our mission.
>>
>> Yann
>>
>> 2011/7/13 Wjhonson <wjhonson at aol.com>:
>>>
>>> Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree.
>>> So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this
>>> point.
>>> The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something
>>> which has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of  
>>> battle.
>>>
>>> We are arbiters of information content, should not be acting as the
>>> police and judge over what is on YouTube.
>>> We cannot know is something loaded is under copyright or not and  
>>> should
>>> not be attempting to know.
>>> It's none of our business.
>>> Our business should be merely to decide what is useful for our  
>>> project.
>>>
>>> The links themselves, I repeat, are free.  The point of contention  
>>> is
>>> whether a link by itself IS a copyright violation.
>>> And on the presumption that it MIGHT be (which is itself ridiculous)
>>> our project suffers immense harm by a handful of ummmm persons.
>>>
>>> All that is beside the point, my point, which is that a link  
>>> cannot be
>>> a copyright violation, and cannot be licensed.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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