[Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

[geni]

On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think you mean his petition? You're right in that he signed his petition
> as "Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder":
>
> http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard
>
> Jimmy's article in the Guardian ends with a glowing back-reference to SOPA:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/richard-o-dwyer-my-petition
>
> O'Dwyer is the human face of that battle, and if he's extradited and
> convicted, he will bear the human cost. That's why I've launched a petition
> on change.org to ask the home secretary to stop his extradition – and why I
> hope you will sign it. Together, we won the battle against Sopa and Pipa.
> Together, we can win this one too.

And if he thinks that the general internet population is going to care
about O'Dwyer he is in error but that a bit outside the remit of this
mailing list.


>
> It is not signed, at least not in the online version. However, there are
> innumerable newspaper articles with titles like "Wikipedia founder starts
> petition to stop extradition of Richard O'Dwyer".
>
> Far from being seen as apolitical, what we have is Jimmy Wales as Robin
> Hood and Wikipedia as his merry band of followers.

I'm failing to see exactly why we should be concerned if jimbo is
considered apolitical.


> And hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,

I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far
more than that.

> and what
> systemic copyright violation does to artists' communities. Read the
> Trichordist, for example:
>
> http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

Well they don't know the history of copyright law but in fairness they
are artists. They also haven't heard of Kowloon Walled City but in
fairness they don't appear very aware of the world outside the US. I'd
also take issue with their view of the free culture movement.

Their complaints about falling payments to artists are probably better
considered in the context of the web killing of the long tail.



> Or read the synopsis of Louis Theroux's BBC report on the effect of endemic
> copyright infringement on the porn industry:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18352421
>
> Short version: porn actresses are now living off prostitution, because they
> can no longer make enough money off films.

You think thats new?

In practice I suspect the problem is more the one the stock photo mob
have. There are already decades of stock photos in the archives so
making money from new stuff is tricky.

> It's a fallacy to claim that copyright infringement is incapable of
> destroying an entertainment industry.

It hasn't yet and your examples are poor. The cost of music production
is low enough that the collapse of copyright is unlikely to kill it.
Feature films would be a more obvious candidate.

-- 
geni