Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: David Gerard, This list is not for your political advocacy. Now, stop trolling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact. Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Jeffrey, I don't know if you're deliberately trolling, or just ignorant, but either way your behavior is unacceptable. I've placed you on moderation until further notice. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: David Gerard, This list is not for your political advocacy. Now, stop trolling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact. Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Jeffrey, I don't know if you're deliberately trolling, or just ignorant, but either way your behavior is unacceptable. I've placed you on moderation until further notice. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Jeff, I would like to think that you have a modicum of respect for me. Please re-read your posts, you are being a dick. I understand that other wikis are causing a bit of stress, but this is entirely inappropriate. I will buy you a beer and tell you this eye to eye. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Andre Engels wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself). We can only go with the information we have. And the information in this case was the actual letter. That letter _nowhere_ specifies what law they are fighting for or against. Instead, it says that they are fighting against groups that promote Copyleft in order to undermine our Copyright. When _I_ read that, I get the impression that they are fighting against copyleft. Clearly, others have understood the same thing. Apparently to you the combination of having that understanding and being in favor of copyleft is enough for you to attack people and flame them to death. I find that worrysome. What none of the internet service providers want is a strong enforcement of copyright applied to the activities of their users. These companies profit directly from the activities of their thieving users. Much of their user activity (80-90%) and the visits to the site, clusters around copyright material. Discourage the uploading of copyright material by a 3 strikes policy or direct legal action against file sharers, and a large part of their income disappears. When service providers are lobbying to promote copyleft they are doing so in order muddy the copyright waters. The amount of copyleft material in the music world is, with the exception of promotional material, almost zero. When service providers start promoting free licenses to legislators they are doing so in order to undermine copyright within the online world. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Jeffrey Peters wrote: David Gerard, This list is not for your political advocacy. Now, stop trolling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact. Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? To be fair Lessig was focusing on 30 seconds of distorted background music in a home movie (which was a fair-use), and the remixing of music and video to create some mashup which has in itself some creative input. Lessig is really only concerned with the later issues and has often stood out against the straight copy. In particular he declined to speak up for Tenenbaum. “P2P filesharing is wrong and kid’s shouldn’t do it,” http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/labels-cite-academics-emails-in.html The problem with the mashups is that there is no clear way to license the different parts, to do so would probably be prohibitively expensive for the masher upper, and in some cases licenses may well be refused. Legislators are currently feeling the weight of this themselves as their campaigns are using mashups and being hit by DMCA takedown notices and lawsuits by the copyright owners. McCain, DeVore ... The licensing issue is the thing that needs sorting. A balance has to be struck between the masher upper and the legitimate claims of the creators of the works. Some have suggested that the service provider should be paying a fee for the content hosted. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
In a message dated 6/26/2010 2:33:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
When service providers are lobbying to promote copyleft they are doing
so in order muddy the copyright waters. The amount of copyleft material
in the music world is, with the exception of promotional material,
almost zero. When service providers start promoting free licenses to
legislators they are doing so in order to undermine copyright within the
online world.
{fact}
When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur
singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original videos
of that song/group. The amount of free content in music, in general is
rapidly approaching or perhaps past par with all professional music ever
created
to this day.
It's the proliferation of the ability for any person in the world to make a
spontaneous video that has now completely swamped all previous video
content.
When people start rapibly screaming that free licenses are just trying to
promote stealing, they just aren't getting it.
The *point* of free licensing is to promote sharing, which is mostly
personal content, regardless of what some music lobbying group is trying to
make-up.
Video sex chat rooms create more video every single day, than RCA ever
created in a week.
And that's going to accelerate. Same thing with music, same thing with
text. The amount of free is many times the amount of unfree.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/26/2010 2:33:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
When service providers are lobbying to promote copyleft they are doing
so in order muddy the copyright waters. The amount of copyleft material
in the music world is, with the exception of promotional material,
almost zero. When service providers start promoting free licenses to
legislators they are doing so in order to undermine copyright within the
online world.
{fact}
When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur
singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original
videos
of that song/group. The amount of free content in music, in general is
rapidly approaching or perhaps past par with all professional music ever
created
to this day.
Its not the 100s of bad renditions that are attracting the views and it
isn't the bad renditions that people are visiting the site to listen
too. Pay the ones that created the viewable ones or those that you can
listen too.
Complaining about someone sitting in their bedroom badly strumming or
singing a song is where copyright enforcement goes too far.
It's the proliferation of the ability for any person in the world to make a
spontaneous video that has now completely swamped all previous video
content.
At best they put a slideshow of photos from flickr with a song from
their favourite pop artist. Normally they have a photo of the album
cover or publicity shot of the artist which shows for the duration of
the song.
When people start rapibly screaming that free licenses are just trying to
promote stealing, they just aren't getting it.
The *point* of free licensing is to promote sharing, which is mostly
personal content, regardless of what some music lobbying group is trying to
make-up.
It isn't the free that is getting the views. There may be a huge amount
of free material on youtube but its the 1% that happens to be under
copyright that is getting the views and drawing the advertising revenue.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original videos of that song/group. The amount of free content in music, in general is rapidly approaching or perhaps past par with all professional music ever created to this day. A video of an amateur singer trying to sing a song is also a copyright violation - they are publishing the song, and do not own the copyright on either text or melody. They probably won't be prosecuted over it, but legally they are violating copyright. Copyright laws were mostly created in a time when situations were different. There used to be a group of content creators, and a general public. Copyright was mostly a right from one content creator to another - you should not publish the book, song, whatever that I own the copyright on. The public at large did not have the means to publish, so copyright laws might as well not apply to them. What they could do was so inconsequential (write over a chapter of a book, sing a song in presence of their coworkers) that nobody minded exceptions being made for them. In the last few decades this changed. Automatic copying became cheaper and simpler with photocopiers, tape recorders, video recorders becoming mass products. Still, their impact was relatively minor. Although copyright industry saw these things as very problematic, they were mostly used to make single or few copies. Few people would make hundreds of copies of a single work to send them out. Fewer still did so for money. Many more people had the ability to become content publishers, but most of them did not use it. Then came the internet, enabling every single one of us to make our work available on an unprecedented scale. And with that the borderline between public and content publishers really came down. And with that, copyright became applied to situations totally different from the ones for which it was created. It used to be clear that if you put a poem in a book that sold in the shops, part of the proceedings should go to the poet. It used to be clear that nobody had anything to do with it if you put that same poem in your diary. But now, people are making their diaries (blogs) available for everyone, without getting any kind of compensation for the effort. Large amounts of non-professional, non-commercial publishing to potentially huge audiences is a situation that copyright laws did not foresee. Unfortunately, instead of realizing that the effect of copyright laws, intended to protect the rights of one commercial publisher against another are draconian when applied to such a different situation, where the average citizen is the one being affected, the main reaction seems to be to make the laws even stricter. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy one language - one Wikipedia
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: The difference was that Wikipedia was not made for young people. If I run a social group for adults and there are issues with children who visit, I can blame it on their parents and say they should control them better. If I run a social group for children, I'm now a childcare provider and have a greater degree of responsibility. It is not [just] about blaming each other. It is about underestimating child capacities and playing with their trust. Child is perfectly able to recognize what is for adults and what is for children: everything not marked (marked in various ways) as for children is for adults. And they are able to treat differently those two types of phenomena. For adults is not safe, while for children is safe. Depending on circumstances, for children phenomena could be also boring to them, but safe. And if we want to make a project in which children will trust as safe, we have much higher responsibility than we have for creating any other project not marked as a project for children. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On 26 June 2010 11:53, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: The point of my post was, of course, that ASCAP are attempting to apply pressure to Congress to outlaw the licence most Wikimedia content is released under (by its creators). They want to stop the actual creators of content from releasing it under copyleft licences. I would hope you'd have something to say about that issue. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Austin, Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's call for political activism against that organization is completely unacceptable and harms projects like my own that have to deal with large institutions and the rest. If you want to claim that I should be moderated, then push that fringe political view as you just did, then there is something very wrong here. Your statements about the legality have been 100% wrong, to an embarrassing extent. These two combined represent a very major problem. The Foundation-l is for Foundation discussion, and not for pushing fringe views that would embarrass our projects. You do realize that, right? Moderators serve only as long as they enforce that, and are you going to demonstrate in the above that you will be doing 100% opposite of your job? Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima 1. My name is André, not Austin 2. The first one to call for moderation was you 3. If copyleft is embarassing wikiversity, then I propose you leave the Wikimedia Foundation, because it happens to be one of our principles 4. I did not abuse my moderator status, i donáf [pyojh[- n[ ¾»bnyttfg -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Austin, Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's call for political activism against that organization is completely unacceptable and harms projects like my own that have to deal with large institutions and the rest. If you want to claim that I should be moderated, then push that fringe political view as you just did, then there is something very wrong here. Your statements about the legality have been 100% wrong, to an embarrassing extent. These two combined represent a very major problem. The Foundation-l is for Foundation discussion, and not for pushing fringe views that would embarrass our projects. You do realize that, right? Moderators serve only as long as they enforce that, and are you going to demonstrate in the above that you will be doing 100% opposite of your job? Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima 1. My name is André, not Austin 2. The first one to call for moderation was you 3. If copyleft is embarassing wikiversity, then I propose you leave the Wikimedia Foundation, because it happens to be one of our principles 4. I did not abuse my moderator status, i donáf [pyojh[- n[ ¾»bnyttfg Hm, I suspect he meant to send that to me. Good reply though, Andre—I'm happy to let you field list administrator e-mails any day. Very simply, Jeffrey, I'll take you off moderation when you've demonstrated that you can contribute to a topic without acting like a jerk. I've got to say that you're not doing a very good job of it, so far. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
Andre, I think you and I are doomed to be forever confused with each other. Austin -- Forwarded message -- From: Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu Date: Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM Subject: Foundation-l To: adh...@gmail.com Dear Andre, I already removed my access from foundation-l and filed an official protest as the lead operator at Wikiversity against political advocacy, the promotion of piracy that undermines our credibility, and your inability to appropriately moderate. Your actions and behavior, as others on that list, are shameful. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Arthur Richards joins Wikimedia
Greetings, I'm very excited to welcome Arthur Richards to the Wikimedia Foundation as the backend developer for fundraising. Back in the fall 2005, after Hurricane Katrina, Arthur took a leave of absence from Oberlin College to work with a grassroots relief organization in New Orleans, Louisiana. After finding a lot of discarded computer equipment in trash piles during cleanup, he rescued, repaired and rebuilt a handful of machines to open up the Common Ground Community Tech Center in the Upper 9th Ward of New Orleans. Powered by Linux, a jury-rigged solar array and a back-up generator, the Tech Center provided a place for community members to check on loved ones, learn about computers and publish their own media to the web. After finishing school with a degree in History, Arthur headed to the Bay Area to begin a career in software development. There he worked for a few months as a content manager and developer for YouthNoise.org, a forum for young people to become civicly engaged. In 2007, Arthur left YouthNoise to try his hand at contracting. His first gig was with NetAcceleration, maintaining and providing new functionality for a proprietary content management system. Feeling a need to work with open source software and for social good, Arthur left NetAcceleration and co-founded Colingro Labs, a small web consulting company focused on non-profit, green and socially responsible clients where he fell in love with the Drupal content management system. Most recently, Arthur has been in Guadalajara, Mexico with Adapting to Scarcity, making a documentary on the effects of urban water usage on communities downstream from Guadalajara and offering digital storytelling workshops to youth in affected communities. Arthur will bring in some well needed drupal skills that will benefit our fundraising efforts with CiviCRM. He'll be working with our staff and the CiviCRM community to develop new features along with integrating our custom developments into the core distribution. He'll also be working extensively with our analytics team to better understand and present the various data sources that we have to both internal teams and the community at large. He'll be starting a three month contract on July 6th and will be working in the San Francisco office. Please join me in welcoming Arthur to the Wikimedia team! We'll be setting up his email as his start day gets closer but until then, you can reach him at awjricha...@gmail.com. -- Tomasz Finc Engineering Program Manager - Fundraising, Mobile, Offline ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy one language - one Wikipedia
Victor Vasiliev wrote: I may suggest two easy ways how it may be solved technically: * Introduction of a special namespace on a larger Wikipedia. * Introduction of s subdomain (e.g. simple.de.wikipedia.org) with shared admins (that should be simple with SUL). I believe there is no need for seperate set of admins for such project. Also note that such projects have tendency to become POV forks and community of both main and simple version have to control NPOV issues on the smaller project. Can you provide examples of specific articles on simple that are POV content forks of English Wikipedia articles? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy one language - one Wikipedia
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 June 2010 15:04, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote: - Scope and name: Maybe it would practically make no big difference whether the project is called simple or for kids. Poor readers and adult beginning readers (natives or not) tend to read texts that are meant for children anyway. It could make a difference in promoting, though. A scope question can also be whether certain kinds of explicit images are allowed. I strongly disagree. There is a big difference between simple language and simple concepts. Children need simple concepts (basically, you can't assume as much prior knowledge because they haven't had time to learn things that adults consider to be common knowledge). Adults that are just learning a language need simple language because they haven't learnt complicated vocabulary yet. I would put the accent in this concept most of all because there are not only adults but also students who has an intermediate level of knowledge of a foreign language. The problem of different linguistic registers (this is the technical name of the problem) is well known. An article about some legal issues can be easy for a no-technical reader, but can be judged weak for a lawyer. The trend is for a technical and exhaustive language but this will put Wikipedia in the condition to lose his own popular position in the preferences of readers. In Italian Wikipedia, for example, we have had long time ago a project with the aim to create a structure of any article of physics with a section for easy readers. The project has failed because the most difficult point for a physician is to explain a complicated concept with easy concepts (and not necessary with easy words). In any case my vision is a Wikipedia where there are three buttons for each articles: easy, intermediate, advanced and any person can select their level hiding the unnecessary sections and the technical words. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Austin, Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's call for political activism against that organization is completely unacceptable and harms projects like my own that have to deal with large institutions and the rest. If you want to claim that I should be moderated, then push that fringe political view as you just did, then there is something very wrong here. Your statements about the legality have been 100% wrong, to an embarrassing extent. These two combined represent a very major problem. The Foundation-l is for Foundation discussion, and not for pushing fringe views that would embarrass our projects. You do realize that, right? Moderators serve only as long as they enforce that, and are you going to demonstrate in the above that you will be doing 100% opposite of your job? Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima 1. My name is André, not Austin 2. The first one to call for moderation was you 3. If copyleft is embarassing wikiversity, then I propose you leave the Wikimedia Foundation, because it happens to be one of our principles 4. I did not abuse my moderator status, i donáf [pyojh[- n[ ¾»bnyttfg Hm, I suspect he meant to send that to me. Good reply though, Andre—I'm happy to let you field list administrator e-mails any day. I'm not sure whether I am though. This message plus the discussion that was the base of it has cost me 50 Euros in things I broke throwing them through my room, plus a severe loss of feeling of self-worth. I don't think that's worth it. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
David Gerard wrote: On 26 June 2010 11:53, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: The point of my post was, of course, that ASCAP are attempting to apply pressure to Congress to outlaw the licence most Wikimedia content is released under (by its creators). I don't suspect that is correct for one moment, and there is nothing to suggest such FUD in their letter. They are talking about THEIR copyright and that these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of *our* music. The music that is predominately listened to on the internet is not CC licensed you'll be hard pressed to find any CC licensed music that is in the top 40 of any chart or of any of the most popular downloads on a pirate site either. CC licensed music is not what is drawing eyeballs to youtube, and its not the background music that starts playing when you visit a MySpace page. Undoubtedly one can find plenty of startup groups distributing their music under a CC license and best of luck to them. But the majority of the music you hear isn't under a CC license, do CC licenses have any thing other than zero effect on the music market place? I suspect not. What CC licenses do in the music industry is give an excuse to justify downloading music from P2P networks. I recall Charles Nesson making just such a claim no more that a month a go Penalizing innocent infringers for downloading music blights creators of music who want to freely distribute their music. http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/05/peer-to-peer-defendant-seeks-supreme.html?showComment=1275013139245#c2634227307833538599 I doubt the local basement startup band actually needs to distribute 5MB songs over a p2p network. That the bandwidth used would hardly trouble their hosting site. Its such nonsense by Nesson and others at PK and the EFF that ASCAP want to counter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
David Gerard wrote: On 26 June 2010 17:33, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: I don't suspect that is correct for one moment, and there is nothing to suggest such FUD in their letter. They are talking about THEIR copyright and that these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of *our* music. No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when people distribute CC-licensed music too. Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. So why would you assume that they expect a fee when any music is distributed by an artist that isn't signed up to them? You're bending over backwards to miss the point here. I think you are letting your prejudices show. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:33 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: I doubt the local basement startup band actually needs to distribute 5MB songs over a p2p network. That the bandwidth used would hardly trouble their hosting site. Its such nonsense by Nesson and others at PK and the EFF that ASCAP want to counter. Nesson is a borderline drug-induced lunatic. He is also not affiliated with any of the organizations named in the ASCAP letter, as far as I know. Though the comment that you quoted isn't that outrageous. Penalizing ___innocent infringers___ for downloading music blights creators of music who want to freely distribute their music. (em mine). The concern isn't limited to P2P, it is also the risk of stigmatizing things which are available at no cost. It's a pretty real risk— outside of the world of zero marginal cost informational goods free is strong a sign of a hidden catch, so people tend to have the wrong intuitions. I've made a decent amount of money selling people my photographic and software works under licensing _more_ restrictive than the licenses they were already publicly available under simply because some manager was equating free with dangerous and paid with safe. This is a pretty uncontroversial argument. Slamming someone with a million dollar lawsuit for downloading something which they honestly and reasonably believed to be free would absolutely blight those who are willingly distributing their works at no cost. Now— the question of any of the actual existence of lawsuits against innocent infringers, is another matter entirely! But having to demonstrate that the infringement was something a reasonable person ought to have known about before prevailing these bits of million dollar litigation would probably not unduly burden artists enforcing their copyright. ... or at least thats a discussion worth having and isn't something which should be perceived as automatically dangerous to people who depend on strong copyright for their livelihood. On LWN I commented with a bit of criticism towards CC, PK, and the EFF because I don't think they've done enough to distance themselves from copyright abolitionist and crazy people like Nesson [http://lwn.net/Articles/393798/]. But it's a big step to go from saying that they could do more to distinguish their positions to saying that they are actually advocating these things. I don't think you can cite much in the way of evidence to support that position. On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when people distribute CC-licensed music too. Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. So why would you assume that they expect a fee when any music is distributed by an artist that isn't signed up to them? [snip] Yes. That isn't their official position, but their folks in the field take a position very much like that. You can't prove that you won't eventually play something by one of our artists, even by accident, so you _must_ pay up. I could bore you with my personal story of ASCAP extortion making my life unfun, but there are plenty of similar stories on the internet: http://blindman.15.forumer.com/a/ascap-closing-down-live-music-venues_post35872.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 17:50, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure whether I am though. This message plus the discussion that was the base of it has cost me 50 Euros in things I broke throwing them through my room, plus a severe loss of feeling of self-worth. I don't think that's worth it. By the way I'm sure there are several of us who agree in Jefrrey being very much off limits, offending, and doing it at the wrong place, which is usually shortened as being a troll. Wikipedia, wikimedia and the people around here are working with, based on and most definitely agree with open content and other free licenses, the whole project lives of and based on them, so starting a propaganda against it _HERE_ is definitely a very unwise and offending move. Without much thinking it's obvious that it will generate strong emotions, harsh attacks, and lots of ad hominem debates, and nothing, really nothing good will be created as a result. Not accepting the fact that people who create open content are going to fight against businesses who try to destroy open content is a clueless thing to do. Debating it is similarly clueless act. You do not start debate someone's existence with him. I (among others) strongly agree in Jeffrey being moderated until he realise that his propaganda really does not belong here. It is against almost everybody's world view around here, and offending a whole community with reasons we consider at best baseless is extremely counterproductive. And, as a sidenote, we're not pirates, robbers, murderers or rapers. [And other artifically emotion-filled buzzwords supporting the closed-content based businesses, pick your favourite.] We _create_ open content. We _create_ copyrighted materials (and license them for free). Jeffrey, among others, is using our products, our content. That is what Creative Commons is about. To protect our interests, business or other. And who are you, or anyone, to attack our interests based on our own content...? And as a different sidenote: if you hate it, stop using it. Try to live your life without using open source, open content. Go on. First, stop using this list, because it is run on open source software, running on open source servers. Then you may well unplug your internet connection, since good chance is that you connect to one of such servers. You mostly better stop using the web, since the servers are open source by large. Stop email. You may even have to avoid some mobile phones, Tv set top boxes, DVD players, music players, and so on. Oh and avoid Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia content, and mostly all wikis. Fortuinately you can eat and drink and breath. But avoid computers since they'll surely pollute your business-based pureness with open content filth. *smirk* -- byte-byte, grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy one language - one Wikipedia
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: In Italian Wikipedia, for example, we have had long time ago a project with the aim to create a structure of any article of physics with a section for easy readers. The project has failed because the most difficult point for a physician is to explain a complicated concept with easy concepts (and not necessary with easy words). Explaining without technical terms inside of the introduction is good idea, but it is not good idea to explain all aspects in simple language. For example, I see nothing problematic in the article Photosynthesis on en.wp [1] or with the Second law of thermodynamics [2], although I am not a biologist nor physicist. In the first case, it is hard to me to follow the article from the section Light reactions. In the second case, it is hard to me to follow the article from the section Available useful work. But, the fact that my knowledge about those phenomena is not so good doesn't mean that those articles should be dumb enough to explain to me all of the things. If I want to understand photosynthesis and the second law of thermodynamics, I should spend enough time in understanding other concepts. Wikipedia in English has everything needed for understanding those two concepts. So if someone is willing to understand photosynthesis or the second law of thermodynamics, he or she has choice: (1) to be content with introduction or (2) to learn everything needed to understand both of them. *Some* professions have ordinary language-like registers. Law is one of them. But, there should be an encyclopedic article (or more of them or book...) which describes that registry. Explaining not obvious phenomena is not possible without learning in layers. The fact that there are very complex and hard to understand science fields means exactly that: there are complex and hard to understand science fields. Some people doesn't like that fact, but it is the problem of that person, not the problem of scientists. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 17:50, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure whether I am though. This message plus the discussion that was the base of it has cost me 50 Euros in things I broke throwing them through my room, plus a severe loss of feeling of self-worth. I don't think that's worth it. By the way I'm sure there are several of us who agree in Jefrrey being very much off limits, offending, and doing it at the wrong place, which is usually shortened as being a troll. Wikipedia, wikimedia and the people around here are working with, based on and most definitely agree with open content and other free licenses, the whole project lives of and based on them, so starting a propaganda against it _HERE_ is definitely a very unwise and offending move. Without much thinking it's obvious that it will generate strong emotions, harsh attacks, and lots of ad hominem debates, and nothing, really nothing good will be created as a result. Not accepting the fact that people who create open content are going to fight against businesses who try to destroy open content is a clueless thing to do. Debating it is similarly clueless act. You do not start debate someone's existence with him. I (among others) strongly agree in Jeffrey being moderated until he realise that his propaganda really does not belong here. It is against almost everybody's world view around here, and offending a whole community with reasons we consider at best baseless is extremely counterproductive. And, as a sidenote, we're not pirates, robbers, murderers or rapers. [And other artifically emotion-filled buzzwords supporting the closed-content based businesses, pick your favourite.] We _create_ open content. We _create_ copyrighted materials (and license them for free). Jeffrey, among others, is using our products, our content. That is what Creative Commons is about. To protect our interests, business or other. And who are you, or anyone, to attack our interests based on our own content...? And as a different sidenote: if you hate it, stop using it. Try to live your life without using open source, open content. Go on. First, stop using this list, because it is run on open source software, running on open source servers. Then you may well unplug your internet connection, since good chance is that you connect to one of such servers. You mostly better stop using the web, since the servers are open source by large. Stop email. You may even have to avoid some mobile phones, Tv set top boxes, DVD players, music players, and so on. Oh and avoid Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia content, and mostly all wikis. Fortuinately you can eat and drink and breath. But avoid computers since they'll surely pollute your business-based pureness with open content filth. *smirk* I first checked is he a board member of WM AU. Fortunately, he is not. I am agreed with everything, except that there are some of us who politically support free usage of copyrighted material. And I didn't know that Lessig supports it. Thanks to Ottava, I am positively changing my position toward Lessig. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
-- Forwarded message -- From: Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu Date: Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM Subject: Foundation-l To: adh...@gmail.com I already removed my access from foundation-l and filed an official protest as the lead operator at Wikiversity against political advocacy, the promotion of piracy that undermines our credibility, and your inability to appropriately moderate. Your actions and behavior, as others on that list, are shameful. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima What precisely is a lead operator, and who appoints one into that position? It is a phrase that is new to me, Ottava Rima. AGK ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
Please, someone confirm for me that he was not put on moderation because of his views, but rather because of his behavior! -Rich Holton On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 17:50, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure whether I am though. This message plus the discussion that was the base of it has cost me 50 Euros in things I broke throwing them through my room, plus a severe loss of feeling of self-worth. I don't think that's worth it. By the way I'm sure there are several of us who agree in Jefrrey being very much off limits, offending, and doing it at the wrong place, which is usually shortened as being a troll. Wikipedia, wikimedia and the people around here are working with, based on and most definitely agree with open content and other free licenses, the whole project lives of and based on them, so starting a propaganda against it _HERE_ is definitely a very unwise and offending move. Without much thinking it's obvious that it will generate strong emotions, harsh attacks, and lots of ad hominem debates, and nothing, really nothing good will be created as a result. Not accepting the fact that people who create open content are going to fight against businesses who try to destroy open content is a clueless thing to do. Debating it is similarly clueless act. You do not start debate someone's existence with him. I (among others) strongly agree in Jeffrey being moderated until he realise that his propaganda really does not belong here. It is against almost everybody's world view around here, and offending a whole community with reasons we consider at best baseless is extremely counterproductive. And, as a sidenote, we're not pirates, robbers, murderers or rapers. [And other artifically emotion-filled buzzwords supporting the closed-content based businesses, pick your favourite.] We _create_ open content. We _create_ copyrighted materials (and license them for free). Jeffrey, among others, is using our products, our content. That is what Creative Commons is about. To protect our interests, business or other. And who are you, or anyone, to attack our interests based on our own content...? And as a different sidenote: if you hate it, stop using it. Try to live your life without using open source, open content. Go on. First, stop using this list, because it is run on open source software, running on open source servers. Then you may well unplug your internet connection, since good chance is that you connect to one of such servers. You mostly better stop using the web, since the servers are open source by large. Stop email. You may even have to avoid some mobile phones, Tv set top boxes, DVD players, music players, and so on. Oh and avoid Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia content, and mostly all wikis. Fortuinately you can eat and drink and breath. But avoid computers since they'll surely pollute your business-based pureness with open content filth. *smirk* I first checked is he a board member of WM AU. Fortunately, he is not. I am agreed with everything, except that there are some of us who politically support free usage of copyrighted material. And I didn't know that Lessig supports it. Thanks to Ottava, I am positively changing my position toward Lessig. ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 21:31, Rich Holton richhol...@gmail.com wrote: Please, someone confirm for me that he was not put on moderation because of his views, but rather because of his behavior! Definitely for his language. There are people with simlarly radical views unmoderated. :-) g ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: David Gerard wrote: No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when people distribute CC-licensed music too. Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. So why would you assume that they expect a fee when any music is distributed by an artist that isn't signed up to them? If that artist is a bad amateur singer trying to sing some good song which is licensed by them, they're supposed to get a fee, aren't they? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: Online distribution doesn't favor having a lot of middle men, certainly not a lot of _profitable_ middlemen... I've yet to see much evidence of that. Online distribution seems to love middle men as much as any other distribution, and obviously _profitable_ middlemen are the ones providing the greatest benefit. (According to Wikipedia, iTunes accounts for 70% of worldwide online digital music sales. That said, online distribution seems to love *different* middle men. That perhaps is more the problem ASCAP is having. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: David Gerard wrote: No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when people distribute CC-licensed music too. Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. So why would you assume that they expect a fee when any music is distributed by an artist that isn't signed up to them? If that artist is a bad amateur singer trying to sing some good song which is licensed by them, they're supposed to get a fee, aren't they? Hmm, looking around, it seems that would be someone else (most commonly Harry Fox Agency, http://www.harryfox.com/public/MechanicalLicenseslic.jsp). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Rich Holton richhol...@gmail.com wrote: Please, someone confirm for me that he was not put on moderation because of his views, but rather because of his behavior! Yes, and I think I said as much at the time. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 08:29:18PM +0100, AGK wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu Date: Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM Subject: Foundation-l To: adh...@gmail.com I already removed my access from foundation-l and filed an official protest as the lead operator at Wikiversity against political advocacy, the promotion of piracy that undermines our credibility, and your inability to appropriately moderate. Your actions and behavior, as others on that list, are shameful. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima What precisely is a lead operator, and who appoints one into that position? It is a phrase that is new to me, Ottava Rima. AGK Hmm, we had a similar issue with ru.wikibooks at one point, where some people thought they were in charge, and had to be removed. sincerely, Kim Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
