[WikiEN-l] Exposure of magic on Wikipedia

[Matt R]

--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered
> [[piracy]] then?

and

> But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for to
> start with.

What did you mean by "should"? Making information freely available is part of
why Wikipedia exists and why Wikipedia is a good thing. Sharing information is
not normally termed "piracy" when it does not transgress IP law.[1]

As far as I'm aware, the only general argument against exposure on Wikipedia is
an ethical one (presuming we otherwise have reliable sources, don't copy and
paste text etc.) But Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of magicians.

-- Matt

[1] And you might not wish to term it "piracy" even when it does transgress IP
law, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html