[WikiEN-l] YouTube links

[The Cunctator]

On 1/4/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/01/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > On 1/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > [[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.
>
> > By that same logic, we ought not link to any site hosted on a free
> > webspace provider like Yahoo!, since many of the sites hosted there
> > contain copyright violations. I think that would be an excessive
> > position that would deprive us from many useful external links.
> > Moreover, many videos which are "copyvio" by Wikipedia's standards may
> > well be found to be fair use by US legal standards.
> > Use common sense please.
>
>
> Indeed. I've had POVpushers remove links claiming "copyvio" when the
> link-remover is working for the organisation that has failed to sue
> over the last nine years of the page's presence because they knew damn
> well they'd lose if they tried.
>
> The question with anything in the external link is: Does it enhance
> encyclopedic value by being one of the few very best and most
> explanatory links on the specific subject of the article on the Web?
> If it's video of the event that's the actual subject, it's relevant
> for example.
>
> For another example, see [[FLV]] - I removed the link to Adobe's Flash
> page (arguably too generic to warrant inclusion in that particular
> article), and added links to two pages reverse-engineering FLV
> (because they're actually informative about the format)


YouTube already aggressively polices copyright violations on their site. I
think it is reasonable policy for us to not try to do their job for them.