[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy

[Fred Bauder]

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud at waterwiki.info]
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 05:42 PM
To: 'Todd Allen'
Subject: Re:  [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen at gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 05:30 PM
>To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info, 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
>
>On 5/3/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> I would not assume that a money judgment could not be obtained from anyone who publishes the code. Thus I have been quite aggressive about removing it. We could have done more.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Andrew Lau [mailto:netsnipe at gmail.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:07 AM
>> >To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
>> >
>> >Hi everyone,
>> >
>> >Today I was approached by a journalist (who is a colleague of a friend
>> >of mine from Uni) at IDG regarding our position on the publication of
>> >the HD-DVD decryption key.
>> >
>> >As far as I know:
>> >* the [[WP:OFFICE]] has so far refused to intervene in the matter and
>> >* the departure of Brad Patrick means we currently have no general counsel
>> >* the Foundation has recieved no DMCA take down notices regarding the matter
>> >
>> >For the last 24 hours, we've been censoring the HD-DVD key from
>> >articles, talk pages, user pages and signatures and relying on
>> >draconian measures such as full protection of [[HD-DVD]] and blocks
>> >with the justification that we were awaiting official guidance.
>> >
>> >Now that the desperately needed legal advice is apparently not
>> >forthcoming, it may eventually appear to outsiders that we are
>> >paranoid of what the AACS/MPAA may do to us instead of only being
>> >cautious. I am starting to feel uncomfortable that many administrators
>> >such as myself may be acting unilaterally over the matter based upon
>> >our own personal (mis)interpretations of the DMCA instead of enforcing
>> >an official stance or community consensus.
>> >
>> >So how exactly should we respond to the press regarding this?
>> >
>> >Yours sincerely,
>> >Andrew Lau (Netsnipe)
>> >
>> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >From: mitchell_bingemann at idg.com.au <mitchell_bingemann at idg.com.au>
>> >Date: May 3, 2007 10:27 AM
>> >Subject: Re: Fwd: HD-DVD controversy
>> >To: netsnipe at gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> >Hi Andrew,
>> >
>> >I'm a colleague of Liz's and was following the whole HD-DVD debacle.
>> >Just hoping for a Wikipedia update on the whole thing, where do you
>> >guys stand on it now? Cheeers,
>> >
>> >Mitchell Bingemann
>> >Journalist
>> >IDG Online
>> >(02) 9902 2711
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >WikiEN-l mailing list
>> >WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>Fred, why do you presume it could? In theory, maybe, but we're
>certainly not the richest target (Youtube/Google, anyone?), we're far
>from doing the least to stop it being posted gratuitously (Youtube
>again, not to mention Slashdot and hundreds of thousands of others
>-deliberately- publishing it), we're not revealing anything (it's
>already out there, it can no longer, in any reasonable way, be
>considered a trade secret), we're publishing it for educational
>purposes (rather than just for grins or in an undisguised
>flip-em-the-finger attempt), and we're a PR nightmare (You think suing
>dead grandmas and soldiers about to leave for Iraq for having some
>mp3's got some bad press? You ain't seen nothing yet...). Overall,
>even if they decided to go after -someone- (which would be petty and
>vindictive at this point anyway, and hopefully one could expect a
>judge to recognize that), we're pretty far down the list of "tempting
>targets". (We'd also make a pretty sympathetic defendant, and they
>don't like sympathetic defendants, especially when the case in
>question is something of a "test case").
>
>Now, is that to say it -couldn't- happen? Of course not. But there
>might be a time to say "Well, look, this particular numeral does have
>an educational and cultural value. We have an interest in publishing
>it, because we intend to create an educational resource. If someone
>wants to fight over this, that just might be a fight worth having."
>It's not -impossible- that the AP would come after us for use of a
>fair-use photo either, but in that case, we've made a conscious
>decision that if a truly iconic photo or image cannot have an article
>on it without the image itself, we'll use it, and see if anyone
>challenges it. So why not do the same with the number? Put it into the
>relevant articles (only the -very- relevant ones, of course, not
>anywhere some spammer might conceivably be able to wedge it), if we
>get a C&D, take it down temporarily and talk to the EFF/ACLU.
>
>There's something wrong, Fred, when an educational resource is scared
>to publish (or even mention in discussion besides oblique references
>to "that key" or "the number") a -numeral-. (And despite the fancy hex
>coding, I could easily convert that into decimal, and it would just
>look like any other number in the world. It really is just a number.)
>Now, you'll tell me that's not necessarily Wikipedia's battle, and
>I'll tell you you're right. But must we be pushed around so easily
>(and without anyone even having to do any pushing, just the hint they
>might!), when there is a good case for use of this numeral in some
>articles? We already have a DeCSS image on that article, no one's come
>after us yet.
>
>-- 
>Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
>

I have enough experience that I don't know what courts or aggrieved parties will do. I would avoid finding out. A fully comprehensive article can be written about this affair without using the code.

Fred