On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:36:43 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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.