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

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:36:43 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Cite cases please.

I do elsewhere in the thread, later than the post you've replied to.

> >Enforcement has been previously limited to things like fan-fiction
> >since it's so difficult to prove if original text was derived or not,
> >but the history in wikipedia make it pretty easy to make a good
> >argument where previously it would have been near impossible.
>
> Your POV sounds too paranoid to be credible.  You seem to ignore the
> fact that it's the way the ideas are expressed that is copyright not the
> ideas themselves.  It's quite clear that as an initially copyvio passage
> is more frequently edited its resemblance to that text changes, and the
> degree of copyright violation diminishes.

It's an intentionally paranoid POV, that doesn't make it useless. I
wasn't calling for a sudden change in policy, but a discussion.

At the same time, it's important for me to be aggressive with this
position, because far too many people believe that copyright is still
strictly limited to a specific embodiment and never an idea itself. 
The matter is not that simple and hasn't been for a long time.