--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Ilya Schurov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, it's clear. Nobody is going to require editors to do
> copyvio
> investigation of third-party resources before linking them.
> It's a
> conflict resolution matter: e.g. one editor claim that some
> site
> violates copyright and therefore we shouldn't link there,
> while the
> other editor try to put this link into the article and
> argue that
> copyright issues are not important here. ArbCom believes
> that the site
> under consider indeed violates copyright. Should we
> consider this as an
> argument to remove such link, or just ignore it?
Do you acknowledge that what you are suggesting would be immoral? Or is one of
those situations were you believe the copyright claim is immoral itself and see
the legal situation as some technicality based on a corruption of government?
I know Russian copyright has a few areas that defy common sense.
Either way it would probably be best to follow to the rule of law, even when on
stupid corner cases. Because in the long run different groups will have a
different opinions on which cases qualify as stupid corner cases and always
following the law is easier for the entire community to accept without
fracturing.
But those are my personal thoughts. You probably won't get an actual straight
answer here.
Birgitte SB
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
