[WikiEN-l] YouTube links

[Gregory Maxwell]

The huge amount of copyright violations on youtube is only one factor.
Per WP:EL we avoid external links to content which would belong inside
an ideal Wikipedia.

Many of the non-copyright violating informative videos should be
inside wikipedia. It is worth out time to get free licensed releases
of this materal so that we can assure that the content will remain
perpetually free for all purposes and that articles will not be
stripped of this useful information by powers outside of our control.

Wikipedia is not a web directory... We didn't get where we are by
simply linking to content elsewhere. Every non-copyright-violating
youtube video is a chance to expand our community of contributors.


On 1/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> A group of editors set off to remove links to YouTube, requiring that
> before they went back in we clarified the copyright status and
> encyclopaedic merit of the links. This met with some resistance. There
> appear to be two camps now, which might be summed up as follows:
>
> * those who believe that YouTube links should go in unless you can
> prove they are violating copyright
>
> * those who believe that YouTube links should stay out unless you can
> prove they are ''not'' infringing copyright
>
> Guess which group I'm in. The argument rages at [[Wikipedia:External
> links/Identifying copyrights in links]], [[Wikipedia talk:External
> links/YouTube]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de
> Mimsy-Porpington]] and various other places. It's been moved out of
> [[WP:EL]]/[[WT:EL]].  Latest from Berberio is this revert:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AExternal_links%2FIdentifying_copyrights_in_links&diff=98267778&oldid=98264236
> with the summary: "Puts too much Burdon. For instance, we can assume
> that the YouTube link on Adam Buxton's article is okay, since it's to
> his own user account on youtube, no need for further licencing
> information."  This case is already covered higher up, since we know
> it was uploaded by the copyright holder, so is not actually relevant
> to the clause under discussion.
>
> So the default-in version is:
> * Does it have a clear statement that the content is hosted with
> permission of the copyright holder or could it be rationally assumed
> to be hosted with permission of the copyright holder? For example, it
> is published with a user account known to be the copyright holders, or
> published on their own website.
>
> and the default-out version is:
> * Does it have a clear statement that the content is hosted with
> permission of the copyright holder or can it be established to be
> hosted with permission of the copyright holder?
>
> The problem I have is that assumptions are not really good enough if
> push comes to shove.  [[WP:COPYRIGHT]] makes it clear that
> ''knowingly'' linking to infringing material is contributory
> infringement (also that linking to copyvios makes us look bad). Given
> that many YouTube vids are copyvios, we can be argued to *nkow* that
> violation is likely, and looking the other way and whistling
> innocently does not seem to me to be exercising due diligence.  I
> don't think it's excesive to require people to clarify copyright
> before adding, but there is this committed group who are insistent
> that the default should be the other way round. More input required, I
> think.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>