[WikiEN-l] Uploading images should be a privilige, not a right

[Anthony]

On 7/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > >1) It is ethically questionable. When we distribute someone's
> > >commercial work tagged as free content, we risk seriously letting the
> > >genie out of the bottle. It would do us no good to gain a napster-like
> > >reputation.
> > >
> > What makes it unethical?  Is it any more ethical to deprive people of
> > due process if they can make a reasonable legal case.  This is not a
> > matter of agreeing to every stupid argument that comes along.  This has
> > nothing to do with genies or Napster.
>
> There is nothing unethical about removing content from our site which
> is in clear violation. Submitters of content are not entitled to due
> process. Wikipedia is not a courtroom.
>
> It is, however, clearly unethical to distribute the copyrighted
> content of others without their authorization.
>
Even if you're not doing so intentionally?  Even if you're just
providing a place for people to communicate, and you tell them not to
upload copyrighted content, and you remove any copyrighted content
that you find?  In order to be ethical you have to lock down the
system so that copyright violations are impossible?  I don't think I
can agree with that.  In fact, I know I can't agree with that.

> > >In short, while being a nice legal fall-back, the safe harbor terms
> > >are not anything we want to rely on in terms of our copyright policy.
> > >
> > It's not merely a fall back, but a first step in arriving at a formal
> > decision.  When a properly composed notice is issued we must remove the
> > offending material.
>
> It seems to me that you've forgotten that one of the two primary goals
> of Wikipedia is to provide Free Content.  We have failed at that goal
> when our site contains a huge number of copyright violations waiting
> for their DMCA notice to come in...
>
> So while it is necessary that we remove content once properly noticed,
> it is not sufficient for us to wait for that to happen.

It's unclear to me what Ray Saintonge is suggesting, so I won't speak
for him.  But I would like to clarify that I personally do not believe
that Wikipedia should only take down content when a DMCA notice comes
in.  In fact, I think the standards for inclusion should be much
*more* restrictive than just what is allowed by law.

My response was to someone who was suggesting that locking down the
site so that people can't even upload free content without having
gained the privilege is necessary to "keep WP out of legal peril".  If
locking down the site helps Wikipedia create the best free
encyclopedia, then I'm all for it.  I haven't been convinced that it
would.  And arguments that not locking down the site would put WP into
legal peril are certainly not going to convince me otherwise.

Anthony