On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:25:43 -0500, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the
criminal charges
(copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( ) 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, 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...
Come on!!!! That's not a "huge bet", that's being ridiculous on the
face of it. Basically, if I write something and add it to another
text, does that make my text a copyright violation. NO. There's no
issue about 1, 10 or 100 changes, there's an issue about DIFFERENT
TEXTS!!!!!
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.
Or until people stop worrying about every little interpretation that
someone could make of the law.
If everyone takes the bet that the laws will change,
there will be
little direct incentive for anyone to go and change them.
So you want to go and petition to the House "Please change your
copyright laws, because there are people who might argue that they
could be explained in some way." They will write back "That's not how
they are intended" and we're back at square one.
Andre Engels