User:JamesDay/James explains law

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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 bindig 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[edit]

MartinHarper: 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.