[WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma

[Durova]

These threads would be much shorter if the links provided actually got read
for the information they contain. ;)

The governing policy is linked from the opening post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works

Policy does not instruct editors to wait for a complaint, nor is it accurate
to assert that no copyright violation has occurred until a complaint occurs.

Yet in all probability actual complaint did occur, because right after
linking to the relevant policy the opening post also notes " Footnote 19 is
no longer even functional because the copyvio material has been removed from
YouTube." (that was as of 22 March 2008).

Now this is getting silly.  I'm not going to continually repost the details
of evidence already provided, simply to rebut false negative assertions that
get put forward with no evidence at all.  I supported Bluemarine's siteban
because it was merited by his conduct; afterward I mentored him--that's no
secret.  Nor is it partisanship.  Frivolous claims of bias are one of the
reasons I've stopped accepting new mentorships.  Which is sad for the people
who honestly want to turn over a new leaf.

-Durova

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 wjhonson at aol.com wrote:
> > ArbCom did not "uphold copyright violation" because there was no
> > copyright violation.  No person, holding copyright, ever complained
> > about anything.  What occurred was simply silence.  The owner of the
> > copyright has not now, nor ever had any problem with the audio being
> > hosted from the radio program.
>
> Was he merely silent about the issue, or did he say "I own the copyright,
> go
> ahead and host it"?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
http://durova.blogspot.com/