[Wikipedia-l] Re: no need to remove the article nor the chapter

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron]

>
>>> But when do we say someone can claim that? When they are next to each
>>> other? When they are in the same article? When they are both in
>>> Wikipedia? When they are both on the Internet?
>>>
>> Don't troll.
>>
>> Someone can claim for the copyright when they are in the same article.
>> That's enough for us to worry and to define a precise policy.
>
> Right.  We're not worrying about some ignorant policy compiler in the
> sky.... The concern is convincing a court of law (i.e. a human or a
> few humans) in a climate where increasingly copyright is being
> regarded as a very expansive, and infectious, natural right.

There are still plenty of limits to copyright. A French Appeal Court 
just ruled that copying movies on Internet was not copyright 
infringement when it was made for private purposes.

I am confident in Courts and Judges.

>
> You couldn't convince a court that the entirety of wikipedia was
> derived from some text in a Nintendo article,  but given a substantial
> enough copyvio contribution you could easily argue  that most of the
> after-the-fact edits were derived and thus the article is tainted.

Every addition is work in itself, only the article is a derivative 
work. Supressing the original copyvio text results in a nice FDL text. 
Then doing every additions once again is only adding new works.

The only limit is that these addition must not be derivated from some 
parts of the copyvio text.

But as far as I know, there is no such thing as "tainting" of copyvio.
>
> So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the criminal charges
> (copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( )

It always was (in France at least).

> and make the
> argument in court, arguing fine points that have never been tested
> before (how many generations of changes and replacements are needed to
> untaint derived text,

"tainting" is not a legal concept... law only know about original work 
and derivative work...

> is any number sufficient), in a court which is
> likely unfavorable due to the political climate, and potential lose
> years of contributions if we lose the battle. Basically taking a huge
> bet that wikipedia will be large enough to generate a large enough
> public out-cry on the matter to influence the political situation...

It's not a huge bed at all, it's the normal way to do.

>
> The copyright climate today is a huge burden on our increasingly
> information drive society, we can pay the price every edit, or we can
> roll the dice and pay it all at once, but it will be paid unless the
> laws are changed.

I don't agree. You should take for granted what copyfight activists can 
say (and I can tell since I am a copyfight activist myself...) 
Copyright law exist and we should use it. What you say is that you 
don't understand copyright law and so, you would prefer to find a 
solution that would not rely on its exceptions because you don't 
understand how they apply.

Fine, but if I were an anti-copyright activist, in 5 years from now I 
would just say that these exceptions do not apply anymore since nobody 
is using it...

>
> If everyone takes the bet that the laws will change, there will be
> little direct incentive for anyone to go and change them.

There is no need to change the law. Not on its core principles at 
least.