On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:22:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Ian Monroe wrote:
I don't think the AHD has some crystal ball to
divine the definitions
of words.
I can't say; I never use it. I do have 20 or 30 other books that I can
reference as required.
How are you not saying that a dictionary has no
place being
developed in a wiki-way?
I nver said that.
Personally, I sometimes write a new definition if
I have a spark of
inspiration, otherwise I modify the definitions that make sense to me
from Wordnet (I avoid Webster 1913 like the plague generally). When I
finish writing, I often will read dictionary.com's definitions to make
sure I got it right.
I prefer to avoid writing new definitions; I'm not so egotistical as to
believe that something pulled out of my imagination would be correct. I
frequently make use of the Webster 1913, and will often compare with
that and the OED. The big advantage of these works is their use of
quotes which are the single most important thing to be added to a word's
definition; they are the evidence that supports the definition.
A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the
language.... certainly not to create original definitions
"A dictionary's function is to report on the language, not to lead the
language" sounds like your quoting me in the protologism debate. Of
course I agree with that. But ok, whatever.
Information
isn't under copyright, expressions of
information are. I mean George Harrison got sued successfully for
having a song that followed a similar chord pattern as another (the
book /Copyrights and Copywrongs/ is excellent). Fair use ain't what
people think it is. And somehow I don't see the scope of fair use ever
extending, quite the opposite.
I can't comment on chord patterns, because I don't write music, but a
song is certainly much shorter than a general dictionary. Fair use (at
least under U.S. law) is guided by four criteria, one of which is
substantiality. Fair use is a right rather than an excuse; fair use is
not an infringement. (See 17 U.S.C.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code> § 107.) You need to
consider the detailed rulings in the leading cases. Whether fair us
will be legislatively extended or reduced doesn't matter, but I would
proceed under the assumption that the relevant clauses are stable. It
is really a question of interpretation, and the trend is to be a lot
less restrictive than what people think it is.
No, I don't need to consider the detailed rulings. To me, common sense
says you can't go around selling a dictionary with definitions from
another dictionary. I would even hope fair-use doesn't cover that.
If it is
possible to copy definitions in a fair-use manner, IANAL and
probably YANAL and we'd need to have someone write down what is
precisely OK to copy. Personally, I think we shouldn't even get close.
Whatever the case we would want to discourage newcomers from copying
from dictionaries, since I imagine it isn't obvious how to do it.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a precise interpretation. And don't
expect that the lawyers will throw you a bone just because you beg at
their table. Your ANAL allusion is a logically fallacious avoidance of
action. I'm sure that we can safely get a lot closer than you would
suggest.
Avoidance of action?
How is IANAL logically fallacious? It's a statement of fact.
Of course we want to discourage newcomers from copying
from copyright
dictionaries. The anonymous contributor that your mention *was* on the
wrong track, and his efforts (assuming that you did check their source)
were in need of repair. But we also haven't seen him in a week, and
don't know if he will ever come back. Maybe he found that even a
straightforward copying was too boring. Your technique for discouraging
newcomer actions by writing new rules will accomplish bugger-all. If he
is a short term anon, he probably won't get the message anyway; you
might just as well quietly fix the affected articles. If he's a
registered user a non-confrontational discussion on his user page will
be a lot more productive.
What is my new rule exactly? Aren't you the one making a new rule? Is
the current rule "stand by idly while folks pollute our supposedly
GFDL work"? All I'm trying to do is rephrase the statement at the
bottom of the edit box. Not trying to change the substance of what it
says (as is your apparent crusade, though I suspect its just being
contrary) - just make it more clear.
"Copyright
infringement would depend on a pattern of behaviour." What
do you consider copyright infringement? We should discourage the
wholesale copying of the AHD into Wiktionary shouldn't we? Thats what
I had in mind. Ex.
http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target…
While Ec thinks the current copyright statement its outright wrong, I
just think the current copyright statement is a bit confusing and
could be simplified.
??? I was quoting from the GNU-FDL. If you have a problem with that,
take it up with them
I was not referring to the GFDL which is why I said
"current copyright
statement" that "could be simplified" not the GFDL. From my reading
you were using the GFDL to indicate that the current copyright
statement is wrong. The statement makes no mention of a fair-use
reason to copy and paste entire entries, quite the opposite (in big
bold cap letters).
I actually hadn't really noticed Wikipedia's statement until
yesterday, the copyright part of it is good:
By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied
it from public domain resources — this does not include most web
pages.
DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
Just change it to "most web pages and dictionaries" and it would work
well on Wiktionary.