--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)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