On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:36:43 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@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.