Hi all, I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that did cross my mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other links here?
Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as copyrighted as YouTube ? Consider links to IMDb for example, the content we link to, through that, is all copyrighted! Or just a good old "Official website"-link on an article about person X or organization Y, likely also "All rights reserved." YouTube atleast is partially (and soon more) under a CC-license. -- Krinkle Fred Bauder wrote: > There are practices which are beyond the pale, for example, linking > to a > pirated copy of the latest Harry Potter movie. Linking to the typical > YouTube video of unknown provenance is quite another matter; > although it > is quite true that in both cases there may be a technical copyright > violation. In the second case, there is usually no one complaining. > When > there are complaints YouTube takes the material down. The copyright > police demand proof of ownership and either expiration or release in > instances where such information is unavailable. That may be what is > required if we are to host the material, but might be unreasonable for > mere linking. > > Fred > >> I agree 100% with this. >> Some people on Wikimedia want to enforce copyright much beyond what >> is >> reasonable. >> This is hurt us, and is outside of our mission. >> >> Yann >> >> 2011/7/13 Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com>: >>> >>> Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree. >>> So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this >>> point. >>> The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something >>> which has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of >>> battle. >>> >>> We are arbiters of information content, should not be acting as the >>> police and judge over what is on YouTube. >>> We cannot know is something loaded is under copyright or not and >>> should >>> not be attempting to know. >>> It's none of our business. >>> Our business should be merely to decide what is useful for our >>> project. >>> >>> The links themselves, I repeat, are free. The point of contention >>> is >>> whether a link by itself IS a copyright violation. >>> And on the presumption that it MIGHT be (which is itself ridiculous) >>> our project suffers immense harm by a handful of ummmm persons. >>> >>> All that is beside the point, my point, which is that a link >>> cannot be >>> a copyright violation, and cannot be licensed. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ >> foundation-l >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l