User:JamesDay/James explains law
(Redirected from James explains law)
Temporary: needs vastly more work.
Based on a discussion on an IRC channel, presumably. Which one? Could the tables be replaced with :s, then threading introduced? Quite easy with an editor with regular expressions. I might have a go whilst at work.
- It was on #wikipedia. Seemed of sufficient general interest to be worth copying over here, with the permission of the participants. There are quite a lot of interesting legal questions related to the project.
- In this discussion I was trying to go over some of the interesting legal questions and issues affecting the project. Hopefully I hit a fair range of them.Jamesday 04:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
20h
edit| 20:04:23 | Jamesday | Alex was trying to create legally binding arbitration and a practical way to enforce GFDL. Unfortunately, the community probably doens't want legaly binding arbitration and enthusiasm for actually enforcing the GFDL seems quite limited as well:) |
| 20:05:17 | Jamesday | I've been contemplaing holding a poll on it, inluding for new contributors, to try to see what the views of the community on the GFDL really are. |
| 20:07:14 | Jamesday | Yup. I don't know but the lethargy about enforcement is suggestive |
| 20:07:22 | Jamesday | Though lethargy is normal so it's hard to tell:) |
| 20:08:00 | MartinHarper | You do get a fair few folks complaining that site X or site Y is ripping off Wikipedia. |
| 20:08:10 | MartinHarper | But that seems to be unrelated to whether they follow the GFDL. |
| 20:08:46 | MartinHarper | I'm quite enamoured by Alex's idea of declaring the whole she-bang effectively public domain. :) |
| 20:09:29 | Jamesday | Martin, he isn't |
| 20:09:46 | MartinHarper | Oh, have I misread? |
| 20:10:00 | Jamesday | Yes, I think so. |
| 20:12:01 | Jamesday | OK, what it comes down to is a key principle of US copyright law |
| 20:12:07 | Jamesday | You only get copyright for creativity |
| 20:12:21 | MartinHarper | Isn't that a worldwide principle? |
| 20:12:29 | Jamesday | No |
| 20:12:36 | Jamesday | database copyrights, for example, exist |
| 20:12:47 | Jamesday | so you can get a copyright on a database of public domain work |
| 20:13:03 | MartinHarper | hmm, interesting. OK, carry on. |
| 20:13:49 | Jamesday | Now, take a look at the edit history of en:Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act |
| 20:13:56 | Jamesday | starting with my effectively complete rewrite |
| 20:14:08 | Jamesday | Look at each of the different contributors and what they did |
| 20:14:11 | MartinHarper | 7 Oct? |
| 20:14:19 | Jamesday | What you will find is that only Alex and I have made large edits |
| 20:14:32 | Jamesday | Others have been minor wording changes or typos. |
| 20:14:49 | MartinHarper | Yes. |
| 20:15:00 | MartinHarper | That's because you two know what you're talking about. |
| 20:15:05 | Jamesday | Now, in copyright law, there's plenty of precedent that typo corrections and minor word changes do not count |
| 20:15:21 | Jamesday | (does anyone want me to point to this or explain it further?) |
| 20:15:34 | Jamesday | Hence, at the moment, ONLY Alex and I matter for copyright |
| 20:15:38 | MartinHarper | Yes, I'm aware of that. That's what allows me to take the Edited versions of my content on h2g2, |
| 20:15:48 | Jamesday | Only he and I can have it if you take a pure view of copyright law |
| 20:16:09 | Jamesday | Now, the question Alex is considering starts out as: |
| 20:16:16 | Jamesday | What happens if 200 other people edit it |
| 20:16:18 | MartinHarper | Wikipedia would still get a compilation copyright, though? |
| 20:16:28 | Jamesday | so all 200 have only smaall amounts of text, a couple or three words? |
| 20:16:38 | Jamesday | Martin, I'll get to that in a little while |
| 20:16:44 | MartinHarper | ok. |
| 20:17:03 | MartinHarper | So we have 200 edits, all of which are minor - no major new content. |
| 20:17:03 | Jamesday | At that point, every individual has an interest which is individually insignificant and not copyrightable |
| 20:17:13 | Jamesday | And what was there before also effectively rewritten |
| 20:17:20 | Jamesday | Nothing of what Alex and I did now intact |
| 20:17:31 | Jamesday | It's all been rewritten and even the two of us are now in the noise |
| 20:17:43 | MartinHarper | Won't the structure you created remain, in all likelihood? |
| 20:17:55 | MartinHarper | Stuff like that. |
| 20:17:59 | Jamesday | Structure is obvious IMO |
| 20:18:02 | Jamesday | So I don't think so |
| 20:18:10 | Jamesday | It's possibly arguable but it would be tough |
| 20:18:15 | Jamesday | At this point, who has copyright, and under what legal theory? |
| 20:18:21 | Jamesday | Which was the question Alex asked:) |
| 20:18:27 | Jamesday | And the answer is really tough |
| 20:18:30 | MartinHarper | Good question. |
| 20:18:32 | Jamesday | I don't know what the answer is. |
| 20:18:37 | Jamesday | Nor does Alex |
| 20:18:48 | Jamesday | That's because there are no precedents and it's a new situation |
| 20:19:05 | MartinHarper | There must have been *some* precedents. |
| 20:19:10 | Jamesday | Nope:) |
| 20:19:14 | FennecFoxen | not of this exact nature. |
| 20:19:19 | Jamesday | Now, how do we resolve it? |
| 20:19:23 | Jamesday | Well, in one way we can't. |
| 20:19:36 | Jamesday | But another way is to view the article as a joint work |
| 20:20:00 | Jamesday | At which point each contributor to the article has rights to it and they can act collectively |
| 20:20:08 | MartinHarper | joint work of 200+ people. |
| 20:20:11 | Jamesday | Right |
| 20:20:19 | Jamesday | And musical works provide some potential precedents |
| 20:20:38 | Jamesday | However, we're all like individuals in a choir and there is no conductor |
| 20:20:49 | somercet | 2.6 and Debian unstable here. :-) |
| 20:20:51 | Jamesday | So the conductor or orchestra can't have copyright.. |
| 20:21:07 | Jamesday | Except as a collection of the musicians/contributors |
| 20:21:08 | isam | Jamesday: I am not sure I get what you are talking about here.. are you talking about the copyright holder of articles contributed by 200+ individual ? |
| 20:21:13 | Jamesday | The music studio doesn't own the music |
| 20:21:17 | Jamesday | The musicians do |
| 20:21:23 | Jamesday | isam, yes |
| 20:21:30 | Jamesday | Where each edit is minor |
| 20:21:43 | MartinHarper | Where each *recent* edit is minor. |
| 20:21:48 | Jamesday | If there are only 2 contributors, it's easy - each is a major contributor and has rights. |
| 20:22:02 | Jamesday | Each edit still present in the article version being discussed, whatever that is |
| 20:22:18 | Jamesday | Now, The problem comes if we exapand that concept.. |
| 20:22:30 | Jamesday | Say we want to treat the whole Wikipedia as a collective work |
| 20:22:40 | Jamesday | And I want a non-GFDL fork |
| 20:22:42 | isam | Jamesday: it does not matter wether it is minor or Major .. all articles are under GFDL .. and to solve the owner issue, all content, contributions, work is copylefted to Wikipedia Foundation |
| 20:22:55 | Jamesday | isam, that's incorrect |
| 20:23:00 | MartinHarper | isam: not true. We don't assign copyright when we contribute. |
| 20:23:01 | isam | so that Wikipedia foundation can look after copyright violation issues |
| 20:23:02 | Jamesday | I'll explain later, if you'll be patient |
| 20:23:10 | Jamesday | Ah, Martin already did:) |
| 20:23:14 | Jamesday | But we can discuss more later |
| 20:23:30 | Jamesday | Now, for my non-GFDL fork... |
| 20:23:36 | Jamesday | all I need to do is create a single article |
| 20:23:37 | isam | I noticed that things are not assigned |
| 20:23:42 | isam | I found it strange that it is not |
| 20:23:45 | Jamesday | At that point I'm one of the contributors to the joint WIkipedia work |
| 20:23:53 | isam | it should be copylefted to wikipedia foundation |
| 20:23:58 | MartinHarper | Yes, that's clear enough. |
| 20:23:59 | Jamesday | And as Alex so nicely stated, joint contributors can't take infringement action against eachother |
| 20:24:09 | MartinHarper | .... Really!? |
| 20:24:11 | Jamesday | So the Wikipedia, if viewed as a single work, can't take GFDL enforcement action. |
| 20:24:13 | Jamesday | Ouch.:) |
| 20:24:21 | Jamesday | Martin, se his posts to Wikilegal-l |
| 20:24:28 | Jamesday | He cited a decision. |
| 20:24:48 | Jamesday | So, now you know why the whole wikipedia as a single work is a bad idea:) |
| 20:25:00 | MartinHarper | Ok, run that past me again. If I and Fred write something together, Fred cannot sue me, and I cannot sue Fred? |
| 20:25:06 | Jamesday | Right |
| 20:25:12 | Jamesday | If you do it as a deliberate joint work |
| 20:25:16 | Jamesday | (which we'll get to later) |
| 20:25:18 | MartinHarper | This is US law, right? |
| 20:25:27 | Jamesday | Right. Only thinking US, that's tough enough, thank you:) |
| 20:25:42 | Jamesday | The copyright status of the Wikipedia and the legal issues relating to it |
| 20:26:03 | Jamesday | If you don't do it as a deliberate joint work.. |
| 20:26:04 | MartinHarper | The reason being, if this is also true in the UK, I am all of a sudden in a position to contribute a shedload of stuff to Wikipedia. |
| 20:26:12 | MartinHarper | Well, a few articles. :) |
| 20:26:21 | MartinHarper | However, back on topic. |
| 20:26:27 | Jamesday | you then hit the problem is that the US courts have been extremely reluctant to accept non-explicit assignments of copyright |
| 20:26:53 | MartinHarper | They don't like implicit copyrights? |
| 20:27:01 | Jamesday | And I'm absolutely certain that I've personally not entered into an agreement to cooperatevely produce the article on "outer middle of nowhere":) |
| 20:27:12 | Jamesday | They don't like implicit ASSIGNMENT of copyright |
| 20:27:19 | AlexPlank | so i must become someone else |
| 20:27:20 | Jamesday | That is, me giving up my individual copyright |
| 20:27:25 | MartinHarper | But they're ok with implicit LICENSING? |
| 20:27:27 | Jamesday | and giving it to a cooperative project |
| 20:27:33 | Jamesday | Licensing is fine |
| 20:27:52 | Jamesday | There have been precedents in music, where groups and backing singers have fought and hte backing singers won |
| 20:28:00 | Jamesday | Even though not part of the group |
| 20:28:12 | TimStarling | have you seen |
| 20:28:21 | Jamesday | Sorry, their contribution wasn't insignificnat and agreeing to be backing singers didn't assign their copyright:) |
| 20:28:23 | MartinHarper | ... but the backing singers can't sue the group because it's a joint work? From what you said earlier... |
| 20:28:45 | Jamesday | The argument was that the backing singers weren't joint authors |
| 20:28:55 | Jamesday | The backing singers won, they were and they were entitled to a share of the profits |
| 20:29:07 | Jamesday | Their assignment wasn't valid |
| 20:29:30 | MartinHarper | Ok, so they couldn't sue the group for being in breach, but they could demand a share of profits? |
| 20:29:33 | Jamesday | So if you want to assign (ie, give away) your copyright, you had better be asked to do it explicitely |
| 20:29:55 | Jamesday | Which is why I do not agree with the view of Alex that the WIkipedia is a joint work today |
| 20:30:07 | Jamesday | Becuase no contributor has explicitly assigned their copyright |
| 20:30:18 | MartinHarper | Right, so there's been no implicit assigning of copyright to the Wikimedia foundation. |
20h30
edit| 20:30:25 | Jamesday | Now, you're aware that the GNU org requires an explicit assignment of copyright to it? |
| 20:30:29 | Jamesday | Now you know part of why:) |
| 20:30:42 | Jamesday | The other reason is, now the GNU is the exclusive rights holder |
| 20:30:47 | Jamesday | THe contributors no longer are |
| 20:30:47 | dannyisme | AdamBishop: His Tubal article was the epitome of crap |
| 20:30:54 | Jamesday | Which means that FSF can act on its own. |
| 20:30:56 | MartinHarper | Yeah, I've seen the GNU assignments - they say why somewhere on their website. |
| 20:30:57 | elian | Jamesday: how would such an explicit assignment work? |
| 20:31:30 | Jamesday | "I hereby irrevocably assign all of my copyright rights to whoever" |
| 20:31:36 | Jamesday | Only more formally |
| 20:31:40 | Jamesday | It has to be really explicit |
| 20:31:44 | MartinHarper | FSF requires it in writing, IIRC. |
| 20:31:48 | Jamesday | The vcurrent wiki agreement doesn't qualify IMO |
| 20:31:52 | Jamesday | (though Alex may disagree) |
| 20:31:57 | Jamesday | (I think I'd prevail in court) |
| 20:32:06 | Jamesday | (but he might be right - it's uncertain) |
| 20:32:06 | MartinHarper | "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will"? That's barely a license. |
| 20:32:26 | Jamesday | Right Martin, it is't. It's more like a social contract saying don't be upset when someoneo else does it. |
| 20:32:48 | Jamesday | OK, now do you see wheere he was coming from and some of the tough underlying issues? |
| 20:32:54 | Jamesday | Question time. Ask away |
| 20:32:59 | MartinHarper | Yeah, I think so. |
| 20:33:16 | MartinHarper | Ok, so suppose I want to make my non-GFDL fork, |
| 20:33:16 | Jamesday | (and why he and I can disagree and both be right or unknowably wrong, because we don't know the answer?:)) |
| 20:33:44 | MartinHarper | I add an article to Wikipedia, and become a "joint author" in some nebulous sense. |
| 20:33:56 | FennecFoxen | don't say that they came from Georgia, indicate that some people speculate that they came from Georgia. If in fact multiple do speculate, and they know anything about it. |
| 20:33:59 | MartinHarper | Now, other Wikipedians can't sue me for breach of copyright, because we're joint authors. |
| 20:34:16 | MartinHarper | What happens to my readers - can they be sued? |
| 20:34:25 | Jamesday | Absolutely not |
| 20:34:31 | MartinHarper | Ok, why not? |
| 20:34:33 | Jamesday | That's certain, no doudt at all |
| 20:34:41 | Jamesday | Because they are readers, not publishers |
| 20:34:58 | Jamesday | You can read anything, even if it is infringing. It's the deliberate publisher who's liable |
| 20:35:13 | MartinHarper | But if they republished my content, then they might be liable. They'd have to edit Wikipedia first. |
| 20:35:34 | Jamesday | (that word deliberate matters - if somethign wasn't intended to be published, it may be foudn NOT to have been published, so far as liability goes, and it may be that nobody is liable) |
| 20:36:09 | Jamesday | ANy more questions so far, before we move on to the next piece? |
| 20:36:23 | MartinHarper | yes... |
| 20:36:48 | MartinHarper | So if we have our article with 200+ contributors, the possibilities for effective copyright are: effective public domain, joint work, ... anything else? |
| 20:37:07 | Jamesday | Just how borad the scope of the joint work is |
| 20:37:27 | Jamesday | Oh, and do you see why I think "the Wikipeida' as oopposed to "the wikipediac ontributors" has no copyright? |
| 20:37:36 | Jamesday | If you do, please say why, so I'm sure you have it right:) |
| 20:37:54 | isam | MartinHarper: I don't seem to understand what the problem is as long as the contributors agree that their additions are under FDL |
| 20:37:55 | MartinHarper | Wikipedia hasn't made any direct contributions. |
| 20:37:57 | Jamesday | (or at least see one view, Alex differs in some ways here but he's best placed to explain why) |
| 20:38:10 | MartinHarper | And Wikipedia hasn't been assigned copyright. |
| 20:38:23 | Jamesday | martin, right on both counts. You get an A |
| 20:38:28 | MartinHarper | And allowing anyone to edit and anyone to create any article isn't a creative act. :) |
| 20:38:31 | MartinHarper | Hurrah! |
| 20:38:32 | somercet | Because without an explicit assignment of copyright, we contributors are the authors of a joint work |
| 20:38:33 | Jamesday | You got it:) |
| 20:38:55 | Jamesday | Now, note here that ALex and I disagree on tis poiint:) |
| 20:39:08 | Jamesday | He's tryig to work out HOW the GFDL can be enforced |
| 20:39:21 | MartinHarper | isam: we're exploring the possibilities. |
| 20:39:27 | Jamesday | and it's a really tough problem, so that's taken him in one direction while other considerations have taken mie in a different direction) |
| 20:39:42 | MartinHarper | Because you don't want the GFDL to be enforceable. |
| 20:39:47 | Jamesday | Not that |
| 20:40:02 | Jamesday | Becuase I don't want the Wikipedia bord to sometime be able to try to enforce the GFDL |
| 20:40:07 | Jamesday | more strictly than the Wikipedia does |
| 20:40:23 | Jamesday | and hence be able to ltake infringement action against all other users |
| 20:40:43 | Jamesday | that is, if it can enforce, it can lock it up, because the Wikipedia today arguably doesn't comply with teh GFDL, s o no forks can either |
| 20:41:00 | Jamesday | That I have grown from mildly supportive of the GFDL to thinking ti's in the way is a different issue |
| 20:41:07 | Jamesday | Same consequence, but the issues are different. |
| 20:41:19 | MartinHarper | So, you'd be fine if wikipedia contributors, en masse, decided to enforce the GFDL? |
| 20:41:27 | MartinHarper | I mean, it's not going to happen, obviously. |
| 20:41:29 | Jamesday | That is, even if I want to keep the work GFDL-free, I think it's a bad idea because it hands the board too much power. |
| 20:41:59 | Jamesday | My view is that if the board wants to enforce GFDL.. |
| 20:42:06 | Jamesday | it's not that hard to get 1,000 contributors to sign up... |
| 20:42:14 | Jamesday | and strip hafl of the articles out of any competitor |
| 20:42:21 | Jamesday | Effectively crippling them |
| 20:42:42 | MartinHarper | Yes. There are enough contributors who are loyal to Jimbo to do that. |
| 20:42:43 | Jamesday | So I don't think the board needs the copyright or irrevo=calble agency |
| 20:42:47 | Jamesday | Right |
| 20:42:53 | Jamesday | And I don't think Jimbo would abuse it |
| 20:43:11 | Jamesday | But I'm not so sure that those on teh board after he's hit by a bus and it's no 30 years after his death are so trustworthy |
| 20:43:28 | Jamesday | That is, it's not whether I trust Jimbo, it's whether I trust kunknown and unknowable people in the future:) |
| 20:43:39 | MartinHarper | I understand that logic perfectly. |
| 20:43:54 | Jamesday | Yes, just think of what happened to other projects and the logic is easy to follow:) |
| 20:44:31 | Jamesday | Martin, now when it comes to Wikipedia contributors en-mass, sure |
| 20:44:34 | Jamesday | That's their right |
| 20:44:45 | Jamesday | And mine - today, I'd sign up for it |
| 20:44:55 | Jamesday | The Wikipedia today isn't evil and trying to lock up a GFDL work |
| 20:45:00 | Jamesday | But I wouldn't do it irrevocably:) |
| 20:45:04 | * JamesF thinks it should all have been PDed, but hey :-) | |
| 20:45:14 | Jamesday | JamesF, there' s merit to that argument |
| 20:45:17 | Jamesday | And demerit |
| 20:45:23 | Jamesday | We can go there later if you like :) |
| 20:45:39 | Jamesday | (that is, I'm not sure that _I_ want PD) |
| 20:45:42 | * JamesF is happy to retroactively dual-relicence all his Wikipedia work to PD. | |
| 20:45:53 | Jamesday | Notice that my user page doe s not include PD as one o the licenses I grant:) |
| 20:46:05 | Jamesday | (not taht it's a license, but you get the idea) |
| 20:46:06 | MartinHarper | ok, so Alex wants irrevocable copyright compliance assignment. |
| 20:46:14 | Jamesday | Right Martin |
| 20:46:16 | MartinHarper | Because he can't get copyright assignment? |
| 20:46:17 | Jamesday | That agency agreement |
| 20:46:45 | Jamesday | I've gone through why I don't think it is necessary and why I think it's a bad idea already |
| 20:46:49 | Jamesday | He intent was good.. |
| 20:47:00 | Jamesday | but I think he missed the longer term picture and the risk |
| 20:47:06 | MartinHarper | So what's your solution then? |
| 20:47:20 | Jamesday | Revocable agency |
| 20:47:25 | JamesF | I can choose to licence the text that I placed on the Wikipedia (which I gave then Wikipedia, now Wikimedia an irrevocable licence under the GFDL) to any other licence as well. |
| 20:47:35 | Jamesday | With an expiration term |
| 20:47:51 | MartinHarper | And opt-in, not opt-out? |
| 20:47:56 | Jamesday | That way it can be enforced now on so much of the Wikipedia that we cripple true infringers |
| 20:48:09 | Jamesday | Martin, I favor opt in in general, but... |
| 20:48:16 | Jamesday | I'm not sure on this |
| 20:48:22 | MartinHarper | Oh, the expiration would date from the time of my last edit to Wikipedia? |
| 20:48:30 | Jamesday | Right Martin |
| 20:48:40 | Jamesday | So we default to safe: that is, to the board not getting absolute control |
| 20:49:11 | MartinHarper | The board maintains control only so long as most Wikipedia contributors don't opt-out. |
| 20:49:12 | Jamesday | Because by choice, I'd rather have it be unenforceable effectively PD than locked up proprietary |
| 20:49:21 | Jamesday | If I have to choose between those two risks, that is |
| 20:49:29 | Jamesday | Right Martin |
| 20:49:33 | Jamesday | So we poolice the board |
| 20:49:53 | MartinHarper | But it sounds like your aims could be met by not assigning copyright compliance at all. |
| 20:49:55 | Jamesday | They either be nice and true to the objectives or they lose the power to enforce their own agenda |
| 20:50:01 | Jamesday | Martin, yes... |
| 20:50:11 | Jamesday | but the problem then is administration |
| 20:50:26 | Jamesday | You do need to be able to send a list of 10,000 infringing articles to beat people over the head with:) |
| 20:50:37 | Jamesday | (or rather to Google so it removes the whole site:)) |
| 20:51:04 | Jamesday | So you need a list which you can use for a database search to get that list of infringements you're claiming |
| 20:51:34 | MartinHarper | Ok, so we use the board to help us enforce stuff, but keep it under tight rein. |
| 20:51:49 | MartinHarper | What's the advantage to using the board over a seperate body? |
| 20:52:10 | Jamesday | How else would you do it? |
| 20:52:14 | Jamesday | That is, why a different body? |
| 20:52:47 | MartinHarper | Well... if you use the board, then a malicious board could change the submission standards in the future and acquire control. |
| 20:53:14 | MartinHarper | If you use a seperate body, then if they do that they're in danger of triggering an attack from the second body. |
| 20:53:23 | Jamesday | Right, but who controls the other body and what stops it from doing the same? |
| 20:53:40 | MartinHarper | Well, the other body can't edit the submission standards. |
| 20:53:43 | Jamesday | OK |
| 20:54:03 | Jamesday | But the applicable standard is the submission standard at the time of the contract |
| 20:54:04 | MartinHarper | But it's convenient to use the board. I see that. |
| 20:54:15 | Jamesday | (and it does need watching and to be arranged so that everyone knows when it's changed) |
| 20:54:29 | Jamesday | Right, I don't think another body actualy gains much, if anything |
| 20:54:42 | MartinHarper | Ok, so let's move on a step. |
| 20:54:48 | Jamesday | Though a chat board completely independent of the WIkimedia board woudl be good |
| 20:54:59 | Jamesday | to facilitate ganging up on the board should that ever be necesary |
| 20:55:22 | Jamesday | Otherwise the board could just ban anyone who tries to irganise:) |
| 20:56:30 | MartinHarper | So why doesn't Alex like your idea? |
| 20:58:19 | MartinHarper | Menchi: that looks like a stunning example of missing the point entirely... :) |
| 20:58:43 | Jamesday | One reason is that I've yet to explain it to him in this way:) |
| 20:59:03 | Jamesday | And that also means I don't know whether he knows somethign I've missed |
| 20:59:35 | Jamesday | On to the next point.. |
| 20:59:39 | MartinHarper | ok. |
| 20:59:47 | Jamesday | In the online world we have the DMCA and CDA |
21h
edit| 21:00:02 | MartinHarper | CDA? |
| 21:00:12 | Jamesday | Communications decency act |
| 21:00:39 | Jamesday | Says "no user or rovider of an interactive service shall be treated of the publisher of the words of another" |
| 21:00:40 | Jamesday | or similar |
| 21:00:54 | Jamesday | Basically, sue the real author, not the phone company carrying the conversation |
| 21:01:01 | Jamesday | or the report who is just quoting what you said |
| 21:01:01 | MartinHarper | The "common carrier" thing |
| 21:01:04 | Jamesday | Right |
| 21:01:13 | Jamesday | And for about one year, that was NOT the case:) |
| 21:01:38 | MartinHarper | Mr. Godfrey sueing Demon Internet. |
| 21:01:38 | Jamesday | And congress reacted by putting that in the CDA:) |
| 21:01:42 | Jamesday | You go t it |
| 21:01:51 | Jamesday | And I for a short time had lots of really nasty legal liability |
| 21:02:02 | Jamesday | for anyting any jerk might post in a mesage on a message board I managed |
| 21:02:06 | Jamesday | It was an unpleasant year:) |
| 21:02:29 | Jamesday | Or, if not actual liability, the risk of big leagal bills |
| 21:02:53 | Jamesday | Life is much nicer today., Nice and clear |
| 21:03:05 | Jamesday | The poster is laible and I'm innocent unless I wrote it muyself |
| 21:03:19 | MartinHarper | Or you fail to take it down. |
| 21:03:22 | Jamesday | And enough decisions agreein ghta everyone can be happy that it's established law |
| 21:03:29 | Jamesday | Not necessary |
| 21:03:35 | Jamesday | I can leave it up and I'm still safe |
| 21:03:55 | Jamesday | See en:Online service provider law |
| 21:04:06 | Jamesday | The article I wrote in part because that is teh set of law I personally track |
| 21:04:17 | Jamesday | and of course it's why I came here knowing copyright law fairly well |
| 21:04:46 | Jamesday | Zeran v. AOL said that it didn't matter that AOL Customer Service told a complainant that something would be taken care of |
| 21:04:54 | Jamesday | and completely failed, repeatedly, to take care of it |
| 21:05:05 | Jamesday | AOL didn't write e it, AOL was safe |
| 21:05:22 | Jamesday | You can see why I and the Wikimedia Foundation like the CDA:) |
| 21:05:31 | MartinHarper | yep. :) |
| 21:05:45 | MartinHarper | But if Wikipedia is just a carrier, then it really can't own copyright. |
| 21:05:56 | Jamesday | Of course, only a fool would fail to remove obvious malicious libel |
| 21:06:02 | Jamesday | But big corps are sometimes fools:) |
| 21:06:08 | Jamesday | Right Martin:) |
| 21:06:25 | Jamesday | If it held copyright, it's the publisher of the works.. |
| 21:06:28 | Jamesday | and unh-oh.. |
| 21:06:42 | Jamesday | now it's publishing its own work, is it still rpotected byt the CDA? |
| 21:06:50 | MartinHarper | Ahh - it suddenly becomes massively liable. Ooh, that's nasty. |
| 21:06:53 | Jamesday | I think probably yes but there are strong arguments to be made that it isn't. |
| 21:07:11 | Jamesday | After all, it is an I want to eat and have my cake argument:) |
| 21:07:29 | MartinHarper | But it could be a "publisher" of 1.0 (or whatever) but a common carrier of the live version. |
| 21:07:30 | Jamesday | Isn't this fun? |
| 21:07:38 | Jamesday | Any wonder that Alex was having trouble?:) |
| 21:07:48 | Jamesday | And that's the next point:) |
| 21:07:54 | Jamesday | Guess what? ... |
| 21:08:02 | MartinHarper | ok, well finish this point properly first. :) |
| 21:08:04 | Jamesday | the CDA only applies to online speach./ |
| 21:08:23 | Jamesday | Martin, this actually is that same point:) |
| 21:08:32 | Jamesday | Online, WIkimedia Foundation is safe |
| 21:08:33 | MartinHarper | Yes. So you put something on a CD and you're suddenly in a world of pain. DMCA protection dissappears too. |
| 21:08:40 | Jamesday | What happens once it produces print wikipedia. |
| 21:08:48 | Jamesday | You get an A:) |
| 21:08:56 | Jamesday | We're then in untested law territory |
| 21:09:13 | Jamesday | And would have to argue that it's a republication of an online archive |
| 21:09:18 | Jamesday | and hope that the court agres |
| 21:09:24 | Jamesday | Next stop, print. |
| 21:09:37 | Jamesday | And SELECTION of what to include in print. |
| 21:09:48 | Jamesday | Suddenly you did creative work (well it'll be the contributors again) |
| 21:09:56 | MartinHarper | There's no way the courts will allow that as common carrier, is there? |
| 21:09:56 | Jamesday | And now you may have liability to go wwith copyright |
| 21:10:14 | Jamesday | Martin, I frankly don't know and I'm sure that Alex doesn't know with certainty either. |
| 21:10:23 | Jamesday | You though fair use was murky |
| 21:10:25 | Jamesday | this is worse. |
| 21:10:29 | MartinHarper | so, it's another unknown. |
| 21:10:33 | Jamesday | This is genuinely untested law |
| 21:10:50 | Jamesday | In the traditional print world... |
| 21:11:03 | Jamesday | it's normal for authors to make indemnification agreements with their publisher |
| 21:11:17 | Jamesday | so that it the publisher is sued, the publisher sues the author and recovers rom the aurhot |
| 21:11:24 | Jamesday | Same for images |
| 21:11:32 | Jamesday | And the whole chain of all work in cluded in teh publication |
| 21:11:43 | Jamesday | And now you know why Alex wanted an indmnification clause:) |
| 21:11:51 | MartinHarper | Yeah, I begin to see. |
| 21:11:58 | MartinHarper | But it still seems useless in practice. |
| 21:12:00 | Jamesday | Fun, isn't it?:) |
| 21:12:07 | Jamesday | Now, think of Linux |
| 21:12:11 | Jamesday | What's its status? |
| 21:12:23 | MartinHarper | GPL, unless SCO win. |
| 21:12:25 | Jamesday | People are using and bpulishing it |
| 21:12:36 | Jamesday | And it's just like the WIkipedia |
| 21:12:43 | Jamesday | with no assignment of copyright (I think!) |
| 21:12:49 | MartinHarper | No, Linux is more closely controlled than Wikipedia. |
| 21:12:52 | Jamesday | Right |
| 21:13:01 | Jamesday | But I don't think they have a different copyright model |
| 21:13:08 | Jamesday | though they definitely do have lots of code review |
| 21:13:14 | Jamesday | Far more strict process |
| 21:13:17 | MartinHarper | And it's more creative too. They don't have stuff like NPOV to dent creativity claims. |
| 21:13:32 | Jamesday | Right and Alex has a point with hsi message about that as well |
| 21:13:45 | Jamesday | We'll get on to that in a little while |
| 21:13:50 | MartinHarper | Ahh, one difference. |
| 21:14:04 | MartinHarper | In Linux, most stuff is identifiably the work of a few specified people. |
| 21:14:09 | Jamesday | Right |
| 21:14:25 | Jamesday | Recall our discussion about whethe the article or the whole encyclopedia is th ework |
| 21:14:34 | Jamesday | and the example of our OCILLA article: |
| 21:14:48 | Jamesday | That's oen model we can exploit |
| 21:14:58 | Jamesday | Not that it's well tested either:) |
| 21:15:01 | MartinHarper | So, is Linux as a whole the work, or are individual Linux articles the work. |
| 21:15:08 | MartinHarper | Linux files I mean. |
| 21:15:09 | Jamesday | But it is better tested in threats, if not cdecisions:) |
| 21:15:26 | Jamesday | I don't know and I don't think anyone knows |
| 21:15:42 | Jamesday | Components seems reasonable |
| 21:15:47 | Jamesday | maye sub-systems of components |
| 21:15:52 | Jamesday | Could even be source files |
| 21:15:56 | Jamesday | Or could be individual edits |
| 21:16:01 | Jamesday | It's genuinely unknown |
| 21:16:15 | MartinHarper | So, how do we use Linux as a model? |
| 21:16:26 | Jamesday | It has more precedents:) |
| 21:16:31 | Jamesday | and it is widely republished |
| 21:16:32 | MartinHarper | hehe. |
| 21:16:38 | Jamesday | So at least we're sort of running with the crowd |
| 21:16:40 | anthony | and uses a reasonable license |
| 21:16:48 | Jamesday | And there are advantages to that if you're trying to persuade a judge |
| 21:17:16 | MartinHarper | So Linux enforces its copyright via threats? |
| 21:17:19 | MartinHarper | We should do the same? :) |
| 21:17:33 | Jamesday | Note that I don't htink we should do that... but if we want GFDL, tha's one model |
| 21:17:44 | Jamesday | Anyway, on publication in print |
| 21:17:47 | MadCrosstalkHerd | is there some common law thing where someone can be liable for enabling other people to violate the law? |
| 21:17:51 | Jamesday | there is another solution besides indemnification |
| 21:17:53 | Jamesday | Insurance |
| 21:18:08 | MartinHarper | That would be one bold insurance company. |
| 21:18:20 | MartinHarper | You'd need a hell of a lot of due diligence. |
| 21:18:27 | Jamesday | Mad CrosstalkHeard, congratulations for asking an intereting question: only if there are no substantial non-infirnging uses |
| 21:18:41 | Jamesday | Or you'd need to take a business risk |
| 21:18:48 | Jamesday | Remember that it costs money to sue |
| 21:19:03 | Jamesday | And how much would the demonstrable losses be even in the worst infringement case? |
| 21:19:17 | Jamesday | We arent' useing the EB, so we can't get a big portion infringing:) |
| 21:19:31 | Jamesday | Just how big can the losses be? |
| 21:19:39 | Jamesday | And how big should the permium payment be? |
| 21:19:46 | Jamesday | Remember that people do insure satellite launches |
| 21:19:47 | MartinHarper | Do demonstrable losses matter? the RIAA was sueing for hundreds of thousands based on downloaded music. |
| 21:19:58 | Jamesday | with a 2-5% chance of a total loss on every launch:) |
| 21:20:14 | Jamesday | The RIAA is, with all due respect, full of c***p |
| 21:20:26 | JamesF | JamesDay And a large ROI for the other 95-98% :-) |
| 21:20:32 | Jamesday | Notice that htey haven' tmade it to court yet:) |
| 21:20:50 | Jamesday | JaemsF, of course - you have to make some money to be able to pay the premiiums:) |
| 21:21:04 | Jamesday | Want me to explain the IRAA think I just wrote?:) |
| 21:21:13 | MartinHarper | I think so. |
| 21:21:28 | Jamesday | Does the RIAA own the rights?:) |
| 21:21:35 | Jamesday | And the magi canswer is: |
| 21:21:38 | MartinHarper | No. The recording artists do. |
| 21:21:42 | Jamesday | the RIAA itself probably does' tknow:) |
| 21:21:47 | MartinHarper | really?? |
| 21:21:51 | Jamesday | Because the contracts were written long ago |
| 21:21:53 | Jamesday | and didn't cover it |
| 21:22:01 | Jamesday | And the courts have often ruled in favor of the artists:) |
| 21:22:06 | somercet | MartinHarper: have you read your CD cases lately? |
| 21:22:17 | anthony | RIAA is given permission to act on behalf of the labels |
| 21:22:21 | Jamesday | Guess what you should do to upset an RIAA lawyer if you receive a demand ffrom them?:) |
| 21:22:30 | MartinHarper | CD cases? They're the JPGs you download off the internet, right? |
| 21:22:32 | Jamesday | And the lagbels never got the rights from the artists:) |
| 21:22:37 | somercet | ;-) |
| 21:22:39 | anthony | of course they did |
| 21:22:42 | Jamesday | So they can't assign the online peer to peer distribution rights:) |
| 21:22:48 | anthony | it's a work for hire |
| 21:22:51 | Jamesday | anthony, another time |
| 21:22:55 | Jamesday | ROFLy |
| 21:22:58 | Jamesday | Not even close |
| 21:23:01 | Jamesday | But another time:) |
| 21:23:04 | anthony | k |
| 21:23:20 | anthony | you're saying for the song or the recording? |
| 21:23:21 | Jamesday | Completely different subject and WAY too distracting - this is already complex enough |
| 21:23:30 | Jamesday | Another time:) |
| 21:23:35 | MartinHarper | ok, but if the RIAA *do* have the rights, they're still sueing for huge amounts of money. |
| 21:23:37 | Jamesday | Martin, was that enough for you? |
| 21:23:42 | Jamesday | Yes, they are |
| 21:23:51 | Jamesday | And just what losses could they really prove? |
| 21:23:53 | Jamesday | It's tough |
| 21:24:02 | Jamesday | With 60 million people, what is the demonstrable loss? |
| 21:24:11 | MartinHarper | Exactly. So they must be sueing based on something more than demonstrable losses. |
| 21:24:11 | Jamesday | when you don't know how many have made each thing available |
| 21:24:15 | anthony | there are statutory damages |
| 21:24:23 | Jamesday | and you can be shown in court to have produced bogus loss figures? |
| 21:24:30 | Jamesday | anthony, yes, ther eare |
| 21:24:43 | Jamesday | And given the uncertaintly about ownership of rights. |
| 21:25:00 | Jamesday | lets just say that the RIAA is using lots of bluster and has really good reasons for not wanting to go to court. |
| 21:25:13 | MartinHarper | Ok, I'll accept that. |
| 21:25:15 | anthony | that's a nice conspiracy theory |
| 21:25:25 | MadCrosstalkHerd | how the hell do you even come up with damages for that? |
| 21:25:29 | Jamesday | anthony, see the Sony Decision and the Cable TV decision |
| 21:25:34 | Jamesday | both won fair use in teh Supreme Court |
| 21:25:39 | MartinHarper | So we think that if we print Wikipedia, the chances of being sued for significant damages are small-ish, and we can insure against them. |
| 21:25:39 | anthony | i've seen them |
| 21:25:45 | Jamesday | Upsetting lots of REALLY big publishers |
| 21:26:02 | Jamesday | The RIAA has a real chance of losing for all osrts of differen treasons |
| 21:26:09 | Jamesday | Right Martin |
| 21:26:16 | Jamesday | They aren't as low as they could |
| 21:26:19 | Jamesday | be |
| 21:26:29 | Jamesday | but how much does an indemnification clause discourage contributors? |
| 21:26:34 | anthony | Martin what's the most wikimedia can lose, a few thousand dollars? |
| 21:26:37 | Jamesday | More or less than the value of the clause? |
| 21:26:47 | anthony | they claim bankruptcy, and start a new wikimedia |
| 21:26:56 | Jamesday | Given that the money to publish is in a large part going to come from those contributors in the first place?:) |
| 21:27:00 | MartinHarper | anthony: I believe charities can't go bankrupt. |
| 21:27:03 | Jamesday | Anthony, tha't sone approach:) |
| 21:27:11 | anthony | sure they can |
| 21:27:24 | Jamesday | You establish wikimedia paper 1.0 as a registered harity and do GFDL relese:) |
| 21:27:28 | anthony | even if not, just abandon it then |
| 21:27:32 | anthony | and start a new one |
| 21:27:34 | MartinHarper | My understanding was that if a charity goes bankrupt, the board members are personally liable. |
| 21:27:40 | MartinHarper | Maybe just in the UK. |
| 21:27:49 | Jamesday | Martin, I don't know the answer |
| 21:27:59 | anthony | yeah I seriously doubt that's true here |
| 21:28:01 | Jamesday | But I have a feeling that you're right about UK - not certain, though |
| 21:28:04 | anthony | what would be the point of incorporating |
| 21:28:09 | Jamesday | Anthony, right |
| 21:28:21 | Jamesday | And bosses of major corps have been found not liable for their own screwups |
| 21:28:23 | anthony | no one would be a board member |
| 21:28:32 | anthony | hey, i'll be a board member, cause i'm broke already :) |
| 21:28:34 | Jamesday | and in Enron there's a real chance that the top people will not be convicted. |
| 21:28:55 | Jamesday | Even though tehre was gross mismanagement and lack of financial controlls |
| 21:29:08 | anthony | "charity" is just an irs designation in the US |
| 21:29:12 | Jamesday | Questions on what we have so far, uncertain and unknown as it is?:) |
| 21:29:33 | MartinHarper | Well, this means that *anyone* could publish Wikipedia 1.0, on the same insurance basis. |
| 21:29:43 | Jamesday | Right |
| 21:29:44 | MartinHarper | Whicb is good! :) |
| 21:29:47 | anthony | of course, i plan on publishing it myself |
| 21:29:48 | Jamesday | But remember trademark law:) |
21h30
edit| 21:30:01 | Jamesday | Wikipedia IS a trademark:) |
| 21:30:12 | Jamesday | Though maybe not registererd yet, I don't know. |
| 21:30:25 | MartinHarper | Very good point. |
| 21:30:27 | anthony | owned by jimbo? |
| 21:30:34 | Jamesday | Owned by.. |
| 21:30:34 | anthony | who started the term, jimbo? |
| 21:30:36 | Jamesday | I dont' know |
| 21:30:44 | MartinHarper | I believe it's been assigned to wikimedia. |
| 21:30:45 | anthony | i'd say it's probably public domain |
| 21:30:50 | Jamesday | Who uses it is what really matters anyway |
| 21:30:59 | anthony | unless jimbo invented it and used it before anyone elses |
| 21:31:02 | MartinHarper | I think I saw a wikien-l post to that effect. |
| 21:31:03 | Jamesday | My guess i sthat it is going to be wikimedia foundation |
| 21:31:10 | Jamesday | eventually even if not tod ay |
| 21:31:28 | anthony | wikimedia foundation wasn't in existence by the time the name was in wide use |
| 21:31:33 | Jamesday | But I haven't researched it and don't actually know, so don't hold me to that. |
| 21:31:37 | anthony | they can't take a trademark that's already public domain |
| 21:31:58 | anthony | no more than I could trademark "computer" |
| 21:32:08 | Jamesday | Another time:) |
| 21:32:12 | MartinHarper | hehe |
| 21:32:15 | MartinHarper | keep going. |
| 21:32:31 | Jamesday | Remember tradmark is about recognition it he eyes of the public and think back to when the foundation was established and who was tradig under the name |
| 21:32:37 | Jamesday | It's not as clear as it could be:) |
| 21:32:43 | Jamesday | But it's probably clear enough. IMO |
| 21:32:57 | Jamesday | Enough anyway to threaten unauthorised users:) |
| 21:33:02 | anthony | well anyway, so you can't use the name wikipedia |
| 21:33:05 | anthony | doesn't really matter |
| 21:33:06 | Jamesday | And thats' really good enough |
| 21:33:36 | Jamesday | Question time about what we've covered so far? |
| 21:33:51 | MartinHarper | I'm ok so far. |
Defending Fair Use
edit| 21:34:09 | Jamesday | OK, what do we cover next? |
| 21:34:38 | MartinHarper | You're giving the tour :) |
| 21:34:42 | Jamesday | Want to cover why Alex cirticised me for not going far enough in defending fair use iover at possible copyright infringements?:) |
| 21:35:05 | MartinHarper | I did see that. |
| 21:35:15 | Jamesday | Do you know why I didn't? |
| 21:35:15 | MartinHarper | Here's one from me. |
| 21:35:24 | MartinHarper | You were being tactful, IIRC. |
| 21:35:28 | Jamesday | Right |
| 21:35:39 | Jamesday | Recall that before I visited, if anythign was listed there it was deleted. |
| 21:35:40 | Jamesday | Always |
| 21:35:45 | Jamesday | Or so near that it didn' tmatter |
| 21:35:52 | Jamesday | I had and still have to move slowly |
| 21:35:58 | MartinHarper | Ok, so Wikipedians keep trying to demand a link back to the source Wikipedia article. |
| 21:36:06 | Jamesday | so people can learn and take the time to learn that I'm actually really writing with good basis |
| 21:36:20 | Jamesday | So even today I don't defend things I'm sure are fair use |
| 21:36:31 | Jamesday | because the commmunity won't yet accept it if I move too fast. |
| 21:36:39 | Jamesday | And that's part of why Alex was frustrated |
| 21:36:47 | Jamesday | And it's frustrating to see non-copyvios deleted |
| 21:36:59 | Jamesday | But this is a wiki and it moves at the speed of the community. |
| 21:37:05 | MartinHarper | As I think I've said, I'd accept clear copyright violations if they were marked as "clear copyright violation" on the image description page... |
| 21:37:07 | Jamesday | Howeer slow that is. |
| 21:37:38 | MartinHarper | The GFDL allows you to enforce a "link back" clause. Section 4J. |
| 21:37:47 | Jamesday | Anyway, I understand why Alex was unhappy, to at least some degree, and you know know why I've been changing my views |
| 21:37:56 | Jamesday | and also why I tend not to say that I think somethign is infringing.. |
| 21:38:06 | Jamesday | it's quite often because I don't think it is but don't want to go there yet:) |
| 21:38:13 | MartinHarper | Hehe. |
| 21:38:21 | MartinHarper | Baby steps. |
| 21:38:26 | Jamesday | But don't be surprised if eventually you see me contradicting my past writings, when the community seems ready fo rit:) |
| 21:38:43 | Jamesday | Online Service Provider Law is still censored by me:) |
| 21:38:54 | Jamesday | At themoment the ommunity probably acecepts all that is there. |
| 21:38:59 | Jamesday | But not wht i haven't put ther eyet:) |
| 21:39:31 | Jamesday | You might find it interesting to read the actual decisions, BTW |
| 21:39:46 | Jamesday | They are interesting if you want to understand why I come to certain decisions I come to about what is and isn't infringing. |
| 21:39:57 | Jamesday | Our articles are not complete when it comes to teh sbutleties |
| 21:40:30 | MartinHarper | I know too much about obscure law already, thanks. Or rather, I think I know... |
| 21:40:32 | Jamesday | Martin, with tagging, I'm not sure I"d go that far |
| 21:40:40 | Jamesday | But I'm happy to accept almost anyting online |
| 21:40:43 | Jamesday | because we realy are safe |
| 21:40:53 | Jamesday | we just need to help others comply with the law for wahtever purpose they have |
| 21:41:09 | MartinHarper | Eg, publishing. |
| 21:41:14 | Jamesday | remembering of course that libaility discussion we just ahd:) |
| 21:41:26 | Jamesday | and how they have to decide ontheir own because they would often own the liability:) |
| 21:41:46 | Jamesday | We can try to be helpful but they still own the risk, ultimately |
| 21:42:10 | MartinHarper | Unless they can claim to be common carriers... which they might be able to do, but they might not. |
| 21:42:20 | Jamesday | But UK fair use law is fair dealing law and far more restrictive |
| 21:42:33 | Jamesday | If there was A UK fork they would want to hide all of the fair use images |
| 21:42:42 | Jamesday | until they had been reviewed under fair dealing law |
| 21:42:46 | Jamesday | We can help with that. |
| 21:42:52 | Jamesday | Martin, maybe. |
| 21:42:59 | Jamesday | I think that there is merit |
| 21:43:05 | Jamesday | and the courts know that this is new territory |
| 21:43:19 | Jamesday | and may well be inclined to be kind and facilitate "the progress in teh arts":) |
| 21:43:28 | Jamesday | that enabling clause int eh constitution can be useful:) |
| 21:43:41 | Jamesday | For we are progress and can most certainly make that argument:) |
| 21:43:48 | MartinHarper | The benefits of being an encyclopedia. :) |
| 21:44:00 | Jamesday | And of clearly working for public good |
| 21:44:05 | MartinHarper | WikiSlutsMagazine doesn't get that option. |
| 21:44:23 | Jamesday | Sure it does |
| 21:44:32 | Jamesday | But there's tha unofficla law |
| 21:44:45 | Jamesday | If you're seen as being sociually good, the more socially good you are, the better your ods |
| 21:44:59 | Jamesday | Judges may not be as receptive to fair use by wikkislutsmagazine:) |
| 21:45:16 | Jamesday | It's the fifth fair use test:) |
| 21:45:21 | MartinHarper | LOL |
| 21:45:29 | Jamesday | The unwritten but very loudly speaking one, sometimes. |
| 21:45:52 | Jamesday | We do deal with infringement, for example |
| 21:45:56 | Jamesday | so we're trying to be good |
| 21:46:01 | Jamesday | we may fail, but we are trying |
| 21:46:18 | MartinHarper | Yeah, we're very trying |
| 21:46:24 | Jamesday | And the core objective of an easy to reuse encyclopedia is good fo rhumanity as a whole. |
| 21:46:28 | Jamesday | Lots of brownie points. |
| 21:46:44 | Jamesday | Less some for being GFDL rather than PD, btw |
| 21:46:51 | Jamesday | Some perceive GFDL as evil |
| 21:46:59 | Jamesday | ANd that hurts the brownie point score |
| 21:47:10 | Jamesday | If they make that case in court as an interested party |
| 21:47:31 | MartinHarper | Yes, I've heard some of the Microsoft folks arguing that. |
| 21:47:37 | Jamesday | Can argue that we're trying to hurt the print iundustry an dmay harm such wel-established business es as EB |
| 21:47:47 | Jamesday | but they won't prevail - we have the higher brownie point score:) |
| 21:47:56 | MartinHarper | They have more money :-P |
| 21:47:59 | Jamesday | Their arguments aren't without merit |
| 21:48:10 | Jamesday | Recall that the US gov can't hold copyright? |
| 21:48:23 | Jamesday | If the US gov uses GFDL as the core of too many projects.. |
| 21:48:28 | Jamesday | it potentially does lock them up |
| 21:48:33 | MadCrosstalkHerd | hurt the print industry? |
| 21:48:37 | MadCrosstalkHerd | huh? |
| 21:48:41 | Jamesday | It's not a completely invalid conern, even if it is Microsoft advacning the argument |
| 21:48:50 | MartinHarper | Ooh, that is quite nasty. |
| 21:48:57 | MartinHarper | GPL is incompatible with US govt use. |
| 21:48:59 | Jamesday | Consider how much we like US gov docs - they really do make life very esy:) |
| 21:49:02 | MartinHarper | hadn't seen that. |
| 21:49:12 | Jamesday | Martin, it's an interesting argument |
| 21:49:15 | Jamesday | niot use, of course |
| 21:49:25 | Jamesday | That's only incompatible with Microsoft profit:) |
| 21:49:25 | MartinHarper | Yes, only modifications. |
| 21:49:39 | Jamesday | But if you use GFDL works as the core of wondrous revolution 1.0 |
| 21:49:42 | MartinHarper | They'd have to subcontract out the modifications they wanted doing. |
| 21:49:48 | MadCrosstalkHerd | what's this about hurting the print industry? |
| 21:49:49 | Jamesday | How can other sderive from it even if it's a government work |
| 21:49:54 | Jamesday | That's very un-GFDL in concept |
| 21:50:07 | Jamesday | and also very GFDL in concept |
| 21:50:12 | Jamesday | :) |
| 21:50:12 | MartinHarper | MadCross - simple: a free competitor to Encyclopedia Brittanica means less profits for EB. |
| 21:50:31 | Jamesday | After all copylef t is about forcing GFDL:) |
| 21:50:32 | MartinHarper | Profits are good because you can bribe governments to do what you want. |
| 21:50:46 | Jamesday | But that's contrary to the produce for public domain objective of the US gov |
| 21:50:57 | MadCrosstalkHerd | I thought that only applied to legislators and executives |
| 21:51:00 | Jamesday | So Microsoft really doe sha ve a genuine argument, even if it is comeing from them. |
| 21:51:03 | MadCrosstalkHerd | not judges |
| 21:51:06 | MartinHarper | Hmm. |
| 21:51:28 | Jamesday | Of course, they are more worried about losing 100,000 WIdows XZ licenses |
| 21:51:31 | Jamesday | per state |
| 21:51:34 | Jamesday | at least for now |
| 21:51:57 | Jamesday | That would hurt OS revenues i teh shrot term and is not in any way contrary to the gov work PD argument |
| 21:52:06 | Jamesday | because they are just computers, not the products themselves |
| 21:52:13 | MartinHarper | Yes. |
| 21:52:18 | Jamesday | But that's a shame for Microsoft and good for everyone else:) |
| 21:52:37 | MartinHarper | And since the govt can't modify MS code anyway, even if they weren't able to modify Linux code - no loss. |
| 21:52:38 | Jamesday | It's using GPL in software where there realy is a good point. |
| 21:52:47 | MartinHarper | We're off-topic again... |
| 21:52:49 | Jamesday | But anyway, back to us. |
Link back
edit| 21:52:57 | Jamesday | Questions?:) |
| 21:53:20 | MartinHarper | I want to talk about this "link back" we keep asking people to give us. |
| 21:53:36 | Jamesday | OK. Do you want to talk or should I start the lecture?:) |
| 21:53:42 | MartinHarper | I'll start. :) |
| 21:54:00 | anthony | oo i'd love to hear this one |
| 21:54:03 | MartinHarper | My argument is that 4J of the GFDL allows us to force people to link back to us. |
| 21:54:11 | MartinHarper | However, we don't use section 4J. |
| 21:54:24 | anthony | only if that link is included in the document |
| 21:54:30 | MartinHarper | Thus, implicitly, we don't require a link back. |
| 21:54:45 | MartinHarper | Because if we wanted one, we should have included the network location in the document. |
| 21:55:11 | Jamesday | We could do that, of course:) |
| 21:55:31 | MartinHarper | I've been meaning to add it as a feature request for the last three months. :) |
| 21:55:38 | Jamesday | Sometimes the simple solutions really are the best:) |
| 21:55:46 | Jamesday | Not automatic, please, martin |
| 21:55:58 | MartinHarper | Hmm? |
| 21:56:00 | Jamesday | It's better done by contributors as part of their contributions |
| 21:56:11 | Jamesday | Otherwise it's less likely t be creative:) |
| 21:56:12 | anthony | it should probably be in the history section |
| 21:56:17 | anthony | which doesn't exist |
| 21:56:18 | MadCrosstalkHerd | putting in the network address? |
| 21:56:25 | MartinHarper | James - that is absolutely evil. |
| 21:56:31 | Jamesday | Me, evil?:) |
| 21:56:39 | Jamesday | I follow the maxims of war: |
| 21:56:41 | MartinHarper | What if I have a bot add the network locations? :) |
| 21:56:42 | MadCrosstalkHerd | why would anyone put the network address IN an article? |
| 21:56:45 | MadCrosstalkHerd | that makes no sense |
| 21:56:56 | MartinHarper | MadCross - to take advantage of section 4J. |
| 21:56:58 | Jamesday | evil is good and if you catch them sleeping with a rifle at 1 mile range, you made a good choice:) |
| 21:57:03 | MartinHarper | en:Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License |
| 21:57:12 | anthony | what if someone else takes them out? |
| 21:57:20 | Jamesday | Martin, that's automatic:) |
| 21:57:23 | Jamesday | not creative) |
| 21:57:29 | MartinHarper | anthony: They can't. that would break the GFDL. |
| 21:57:30 | Jamesday | I'd tear you apart in court:) |
| 21:57:38 | anthony | so Wikipedia would sue itself? |
| 21:57:39 | Jamesday | But it would be handy int eh database |
| 21:57:43 | Jamesday | as part of all saved edits |
| 21:57:52 | Jamesday | Becuase it make si ttougher for reusers not to comply |
| 21:57:57 | Jamesday | However, you're putting in the wrong thing |
| 21:58:01 | MartinHarper | anthony: No, I'd sue the person who removed the link. |
| 21:58:05 | Jamesday | We don't really want the GFDL |
| 21:58:16 | Jamesday | What we REALLY want is a link to the article inthe Wikipedia |
| 21:58:21 | Jamesday | Because that helps our google rank |
| 21:58:32 | Jamesday | and that in turn means were' more likely to stay around |
| 21:58:38 | MartinHarper | *nod* |
| 21:58:42 | Jamesday | and that in turn means that the work is more likely to be free |
| 21:58:44 | anthony | and once wikipedia publishes it without the link, any third party could then do the same |
| 21:58:49 | FennecFoxen | Is there a Wikipedia entry on the Grey Album yet, I wonder? :) |
| 21:58:56 | Jamesday | And that achieves the GFDL objective of it staying free forever |
| 21:59:07 | Jamesday | but with far less administrative overhead than the details of the GFDL |
| 21:59:20 | anthony | it also makes the encyclopedia non-free |
| 21:59:26 | Jamesday | And now you know part of the reason why evil me doen's t really like the GFDL somuch these days |
| 21:59:33 | anthony | which decreases the number of readers |
| 21:59:35 | Jamesday | Anthony, not at all |
| 21:59:47 | MadCrosstalkHerd | it's not because you actually understand much of it? |
| 21:59:48 | Jamesday | Do you relaly think it's more onerous to include a single link than the text of the GFDL? |
| 21:59:53 | Jamesday | It's a LOT easier for reusers! |
| 21:59:53 | anthony | if you're giving special power to one party that's not free |
| 22:00:05 | anthony | you have to include the text of the GFDL |
22h
edit| 22:00:11 | MartinHarper | anthony: if someone publishes a copyright violation on Wikipedia, that doesn't give you the right to violate copyright too. |
| 22:00:12 | Jamesday | Our objective is to make the content free |
| 22:00:19 | Jamesday | As expeditiously as popssible |
| 22:00:20 | anthony | linking doesn't matter |
| 22:00:21 | Jamesday | IMO |
| 22:00:30 | Jamesday | the tool is the GFDL but it's ONLY a tool |
| 22:00:35 | Jamesday | Keeping the work free is what matters |
| 22:00:38 | MadCrosstalkHerd | I'm confused |
| 22:01:01 | Jamesday | If that can best be done without the GFDL, I'm happy |
| 22:01:06 | anthony | if wikipedia publishes a copyright violation of wikipedia, then wikipedia can't sue for republishing that violation |
| 22:01:14 | Jamesday | Right:) |
| 22:01:19 | Jamesday | Sort of:) |
| 22:01:35 | Jamesday | Anyway, requiring a link rather than the GFDL is very good for all sorts of reasons |
| 22:01:40 | anthony | the only real solution is copyright assignment |
| 22:01:44 | MadCrosstalkHerd | but wikipedia can't sue for anything because wikipedia doesn't hold the copyrights...right? |
| 22:01:44 | Jamesday | It's easier for users because it's just a normal citation |
| 22:01:53 | Jamesday | and it helps traffic and keeps the repository around. |
| 22:01:57 | MartinHarper | Rachel Corrie - bwahaha - redistributors fear my l33t network location adding skills. :) |
| 22:02:18 | Jamesday | But of course, some people really like the GFDL |
| 22:02:30 | MartinHarper | They do? |
| 22:02:30 | Jamesday | So there's also the question of how to deal with the range of desires on that |
| 22:02:43 | anthony | people like parts of the gfdl |
| 22:02:44 | MartinHarper | Nobody likes the GFDL. Nobody informed, anyway. |
| 22:02:44 | Jamesday | First step, we can include the link to the article in the database saved versions |
| 22:02:53 | Jamesday | and that makes life tougher for people like anthony:) |
| 22:02:59 | anthony | I like the GFDL than forcing links |
| 22:03:03 | Jamesday | What a shame. How sad. Never mind:) |
| 22:03:14 | anthony | actually that makes life easier for me jamesday |
| 22:03:15 | MartinHarper | Some people like copyleft, but even they don't like the GFDL. |
| 22:03:16 | Jamesday | I'm not necessarily your ally Anthony:) |
| 22:03:21 | Jamesday | Right:) |
| 22:03:25 | Jamesday | I like free:) |
| 22:03:25 | FennecFoxen | MartinHarper: what are the issues with th GFDL? |
| 22:03:38 | anthony | I wish everything I needed was in the database |
| 22:03:43 | silsor | who is this person blanking pages on petrol companies? |
| 22:03:44 | Jamesday | But not PD free so much as free with a few resrtictions which help it to stay free. |
| 22:03:44 | anthony | rather than adding it by hand |
| 22:03:47 | MartinHarper | Fennec: 1) invariant sections are non-free |
| 22:03:59 | FennecFoxen | what is an invariant section? |
| 22:04:10 | MartinHarper | Fennec: 2) The "no technical restrictions on further copying" clause forbids me from locking my front door. |
| 22:04:22 | MartinHarper | Read en:Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License |
| 22:04:29 | Jamesday | Things like being required to include a copyright date so you know when the copyrihg texpires are good, because that makes it PD, eventually:) |
| 22:04:47 | Jamesday | And that fights lockup possibilities:) |
| 22:04:54 | MartinHarper | Fennec: 3) Having to include the whole of the GFDL and the whole of the history is very heavyweight. |
| 22:05:02 | MartinHarper | James: only after ~200 years. |
| 22:05:07 | FennecFoxen | Hmm. |
| 22:05:16 | MadCrosstalkHerd | I thought it was ~100 years... |
| 22:05:27 | MartinHarper | It'll increase over the next 100 years. |
| 22:05:28 | Jamesday | Martin, you're making a kind assumption:) |
| 22:05:34 | MartinHarper | Governments won't get any less corrupt. |
| 22:05:35 | Jamesday | I'm not even sure it'll be 200 years:) |
| 22:05:36 | anthony | copyright law will expire before the copyright on wikipedia does |
| 22:05:46 | anthony | well, at the same time |
| 22:06:00 | MartinHarper | The second problem is a beautiful one. I laughed out loud when I read about it. |
| 22:06:12 | Jamesday | There are real merits to the Founders' License over at whoever they are who I've forgotten |
| 22:06:24 | MartinHarper | Creative Commons. |
| 22:06:29 | Jamesday | Thanks |
| 22:06:33 | MartinHarper | It's a 14 year term, right? |
| 22:06:41 | Jamesday | I forget |
| 22:06:48 | Jamesday | but have a 14 year term on my user page |
| 22:06:56 | Jamesday | after which I say you can use any license you like:) |
| 22:07:13 | MartinHarper | Fennec: The second problem is a beautiful one. They tried to block DRM technology, and they may have ended up blocking doorlocks. |
| 22:07:30 | MartinHarper | And deleting articles on Wikipedia, come to that. |
| 22:07:53 | MartinHarper | "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" |
| 22:08:12 | MadCrosstalkHerd | doorlocks aren't that technical |
| 22:08:29 | MartinHarper | Locksmithing is high technology. |
| 22:08:37 | Jamesday | Recall that someone threatened to sue for "hold down the shift key"?:) |
| 22:08:38 | MartinHarper | More so a few centuries ago. |
| 22:08:54 | Jamesday | "technical measure" is really tough to define:) |
| 22:08:57 | MartinHarper | wha...? When? |
| 22:09:05 | Jamesday | Particularly when you go for security by obscurity |
| 22:09:15 | MartinHarper | I'm thinking reverting an article is a technical measure. |
| 22:09:20 | Jamesday | Martin, see the examples at the end of the DMCA article |
| 22:09:44 | Jamesday | It was a music system whihc useed Windows auto-run to load software which blocked copying |
| 22:09:46 | anthony | clearly no judge is going to accept that it's a restriction on door locks |
| 22:09:54 | Jamesday | hold down the shift key and the software didn't load so youo could copy |
| 22:10:04 | MartinHarper | Heehee |
| 22:10:09 | Jamesday | Hecne, hold down the shift key is a circumvention device and disclosing it is a crime:) |
| 22:10:23 | anthony | disclosing it is a crime? |
| 22:10:25 | MadCrosstalkHerd | anthony: sure, but it calls other applications of the clause into question, doesn't it? |
| 22:10:28 | anthony | nonsense |
| 22:10:33 | Jamesday | I agree:) |
| 22:10:34 | FennecFoxen | anthony: they decided that eventually |
| 22:10:43 | FennecFoxen | anthony: but there were genuine legal concerns |
| 22:10:44 | Jamesday | But the potential is there:) |
| 22:10:46 | FennecFoxen | which is pathetic |
| 22:10:53 | MartinHarper | anthony: the law is an ass. Something being nonsense is no barrier to it being ruled legal. |
| 22:11:02 | MartinHarper | Cf Amazon's "one click" patent. |
| 22:11:18 | anthony | judges are more reasonable than you're making them out to be, though |
| 22:12:02 | Jamesday | Consider this: |
| 22:12:02 | anthony | amazon won that case? |
| 22:12:06 | MadCrosstalkHerd | I would think that attempting to stop the spread of "hold down the shift key" is illegal |
| 22:12:13 | MartinHarper | They still have the patent. |
| 22:12:19 | Jamesday | REGEDIT4 |
| 22:12:19 | Jamesday | |
| 22:12:19 | Jamesday | HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{D27CDB6E-AE6D-11CF-96B8-444553540000} |
| 22:12:19 | Jamesday | "Description"="James Day: this prevents Macromedia Flash from running when flags are 00000400" |
| 22:12:19 | Jamesday | "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400 |
| 22:12:19 | Jamesday | |
| 22:12:43 | anthony | stop the spread of "hold down nthe shift key" is illegal? |
| 22:12:43 | Jamesday | now, that's a complete file which when double-clicked on will add that entyr to the registry |
| 22:12:48 | anthony | what law? |
| 22:12:52 | anthony | free speech? |
| 22:12:56 | MadCrosstalkHerd | "I would think" |
| 22:13:01 | Jamesday | Some program s use counters int he registry to enforce use limits, like 120 times only |
| 22:13:17 | Jamesday | What happens if I publish a file like the one above which changes tha tuse limit? |
| 22:13:24 | MadCrosstalkHerd | actually, "I would hope" |
| 22:13:27 | anthony | people greatly exaggerate the problems with the DMCA |
| 22:13:27 | Jamesday | You've just seen how easy it is: |
| 22:13:35 | Jamesday | Did I publish a circumvention device? |
| 22:13:37 | anthony | I mean, granted, it's not a good law |
| 22:13:43 | anthony | but c'mon |
| 22:13:48 | Jamesday | Anthony, I like it, mostly:) |
| 22:14:12 | anthony | james: well, i don't like copyright law, so I don't like it... |
| 22:15:24 | anthony | if you're gonna make copyright infringement illegal, might as well make cracking tools illegal too |
| 22:15:52 | anthony | so don't double click on it |
| 22:15:58 | Jamesday | But fair use is legal |
| 22:16:10 | Jamesday | and so are the rights acquired under the first purchase doctrine |
| 22:16:15 | anthony | and the DMCA contains exceptions for fair use |
| 22:16:19 | Jamesday | So you must have crackability to use those rights:) |
| 22:16:48 | Jamesday | And notice that Elcomsoft won:) |
| 22:17:14 | MartinHarper | James - I thought that defence was rejected. I guess it must have been overruled on appeal or something. |
| 22:17:18 | anthony | yeah elcomsoft won criminally, because of the mens rea requirement |
| 22:17:38 | Jamesday | Martin, not sure |
| 22:17:48 | Jamesday | I never did read the full arguments in the case |
Wrapping up
editMartinHarper: Alex756's posts to wikilegal-l are great. :)
Jamesday: Martin, like the way he indicates where he and I disagree but he doesn't write that I'm a fool? As I did the same here?:)
MartinHarper: Yep. :)
MartinHarper: I can see why Mav went crazy. It's pretty provocative stuff.
Jamesday: OK, end of copyright seminar. Would anyone volunteer to copyedit it so it can be posted on the wiki?
MartinHarper: James... my IRC client doesn't log the entire thing - if you mail me the log, I might have a go.