Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
Hi, I posted a report in the Spanish daily ElDiario.es about this theme. http://www.eldiario.es/turing/Wikipedia-SOPA-Duma_0_152934722.html Best regards. 2013/7/10 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com On 10 July 2013 21:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: I do not see any reaction whatsoever from Wikimedia.ru , but from our WLM experience you probably remember that they are ... hmm ... not the fastest to react, and usually only do it after other people start complaining that they do not. WMRU are aware - I asked about this on the comcom list and they noted it was actually a serious issue - but I would expect they don't do anything until they're quite sure the community is moving in that direction, for probably-sensible reasons. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Atentamente: Iván Martínez Presidente Wikimedia México A.C. wikimedia.mx Imagina un mundo en donde cada persona del planeta pueda tener acceso libre a la suma total del conocimiento humano. Eso es lo que estamos haciendo http://es.wikipedia.org. * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
If you post a creative work on a website the purpose which is to share files you have assumed the rights of the owner, one of which is to determine the conditions which must be met to view or listen to the work. The owner can give his work away to the world but not third parties. Fred What are you saying has been stolen here? The work itself, the copy of it, or the copyright in the work? There are serious problems in trying to bend the law of theft to any of them. It is easiest to analyze if the work has never been published. Distributing it then is a taking of intellectual property regardless of whether the original is physically taken or only a copy. The theft is of the possible gain lost. Actually, rather like claim jumping. It is not the ore that is lost but the right to mine it and profit from it. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
On 10 July 2013 07:51, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It is easiest to analyze if the work has never been published. Distributing it then is a taking of intellectual property regardless of whether the original is physically taken or only a copy. The theft is of the possible gain lost. Actually, rather like claim jumping. It is not the ore that is lost but the right to mine it and profit from it. Fred, what's your actual point and suggested course of action with this thread, and what does it have to do with the original starting point? - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
On Jul 10, 2013 8:59 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 July 2013 07:51, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It is easiest to analyze if the work has never been published. Distributing it then is a taking of intellectual property regardless of whether the original is physically taken or only a copy. The theft is of the possible gain lost. Actually, rather like claim jumping. It is not the ore that is lost but the right to mine it and profit from it. Fred, what's your actual point and suggested course of action with this thread, and what does it have to do with the original starting point? - d. +1. Could we abandon the discussion whether or not copyright violation is theft or not ASAP, and get this thread back to what we can do about the possible shutdown of Russian Wikipedia? The copyright status could be interesting for a different thread and/or meta. The discussion copyvio vs theft may be nice for irc or Usenet or something. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
Hi again, so I spent some time looking into the problem and wrote a short summary at http://twkozlowski.net/russian-wikipedia-under-threat-again/ (shameless promotion mode=off /) -- if anyone cares about what's happening outside of the US, that is. As described in the summary, there are plans for a massive strike on the Russian Internet (Runet) on August 1, with the bill being described as the Russian equivalent of SOPA. It also looks to me like there is some public opposition against the bill (a petition to the President of Russia already has over 130,000 signatures with just 100,000 being required), so the situation is developing quite interestingly. -- Tomasz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
On 10.07.2013 20:45, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote: Hi again, so I spent some time looking into the problem and wrote a short summary at http://twkozlowski.net/russian-wikipedia-under-threat-again/ (shameless promotion mode=off /) -- if anyone cares about what's happening outside of the US, that is. As described in the summary, there are plans for a massive strike on the Russian Internet (Runet) on August 1, with the bill being described as the Russian equivalent of SOPA. It also looks to me like there is some public opposition against the bill (a petition to the President of Russia already has over 130,000 signatures with just 100,000 being required), so the situation is developing quite interestingly. -- Tomasz Hi Tomasz, my understanding is that just today Russian Wikipedia Community started an RFC on the issue http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9E%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8B/%D0%9E_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B5_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2_%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0 I do not see any reaction whatsoever from Wikimedia.ru , but from our WLM experience you probably remember that they are ... hmm ... not the fastest to react, and usually only do it after other people start complaining that they do not. Since I am not involved with the Russian Wikipedia for over two years, I could have missed some important developments. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
On 10 July 2013 21:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: I do not see any reaction whatsoever from Wikimedia.ru , but from our WLM experience you probably remember that they are ... hmm ... not the fastest to react, and usually only do it after other people start complaining that they do not. WMRU are aware - I asked about this on the comcom list and they noted it was actually a serious issue - but I would expect they don't do anything until they're quite sure the community is moving in that direction, for probably-sensible reasons. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
Hi there, two months after the smoking cannabis controversy, the Russian Wikipedia is in trouble again, this time over an anti-piracy legislation that will come into force on August 1 and which might result in Wikipedia as a whole -- not just a few articles -- being blacklisted in the country. The Russian parliament introduced anti-drug and anti-child pornography legislation last year, and it's already successfully used to censor encyclopaedic articles, so I guess it's time for more radical steps now; the new law might lead to banning websites that just /link/ to sites which hold content copyrighted by others. RIA Novosti has more information on the subject: http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130709/182150416/Russian-Wikipedia-Faces-Ban-Due-to-Anti-Piracy-Law--Director.html I'm CC-ing the advocacy advisors mailing list because this lies within their area of expertise; when responding to this e-mail, please make sure to include both lists. -- Tomasz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
I don't get it. I was able to use a Wikipedia link to find a place to download The Searchers, a John Ford film starring John Wayne in about 30 seconds. How is that not theft that we are facilitating? Fred Hi there, two months after the smoking cannabis controversy, the Russian Wikipedia is in trouble again, this time over an anti-piracy legislation that will come into force on August 1 and which might result in Wikipedia as a whole -- not just a few articles -- being blacklisted in the country. The Russian parliament introduced anti-drug and anti-child pornography legislation last year, and it's already successfully used to censor encyclopaedic articles, so I guess it's time for more radical steps now; the new law might lead to banning websites that just /link/ to sites which hold content copyrighted by others. RIA Novosti has more information on the subject: http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130709/182150416/Russian-Wikipedia-Faces-Ban-Due-to-Anti-Piracy-Law--Director.html I'm CC-ing the advocacy advisors mailing list because this lies within their area of expertise; when responding to this e-mail, please make sure to include both lists. -- Tomasz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
On 07/09/2013 08:37 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: How is that not theft that we are facilitating? Because theft, is to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it. In some jurisdiction, linking to sites that play fast and loose with Copyright /may/, in certain circumstances, be facilitating copyright infringement. It certainly isn't theft. (I am not saying the latter is okay -- but that calling copyright infringement theft is inflammatory rhetoric and intellectually dishonest, at best). -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
On 07/09/2013 08:37 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: How is that not theft that we are facilitating? Because theft, is to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it. In some jurisdiction, linking to sites that play fast and loose with Copyright /may/, in certain circumstances, be facilitating copyright infringement. It certainly isn't theft. (I am not saying the latter is okay -- but that calling copyright infringement theft is inflammatory rhetoric and intellectually dishonest, at best). -- Marc Interesting notion that plain talk is inflammatory and dishonest. How is deliberate copyright infringement is not theft? Why are we the pirates' little helpers? Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
Well, not wanting to wade into that pirates' little helpers snarkiness, but it takes 30 seconds from anywhere on the web to find a copyright violation. Maybe a bit longer if you have a slow connection. Risker On 9 July 2013 23:36, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On 07/09/2013 08:37 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: How is that not theft that we are facilitating? Because theft, is to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it. In some jurisdiction, linking to sites that play fast and loose with Copyright /may/, in certain circumstances, be facilitating copyright infringement. It certainly isn't theft. (I am not saying the latter is okay -- but that calling copyright infringement theft is inflammatory rhetoric and intellectually dishonest, at best). -- Marc Interesting notion that plain talk is inflammatory and dishonest. How is deliberate copyright infringement is not theft? Why are we the pirates' little helpers? Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
On 9 July 2013 23:46, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Well, not wanting to wade into that pirates' little helpers snarkiness, but it takes 30 seconds from anywhere on the web to find a copyright violation. Maybe a bit longer if you have a slow connection. Risker True enough, but why are we one of the ways? Fred I've not had that experience on English Wikipedia, although I've never tried it on other projects. Now, I can easily take just about any link anywhere on the web and find a copyvio within 2-3 clicks, and I'm pretty sure that would be true for links on Wikipedia too. I suppose we could always ban external links, but I think it would be counterproductive for our projects and mission, and it wouldn't solve anyone's copyright issues. But please don't conflate links directly from Wikipedia to copyright violations (which is, I believe, expressly forbidden on all of our projects) and being able to get to copyright violations from links in Wikipedia. The only way to prevent the latter is to ban all external links. Risker I guess I view sites which host entertainment, as opposed to material which contains knowledge, as different. So music or a movie seems different from a newspaper article or a passage from a book which, at least in my mind, seems more like fair use, but not, of course, how fair use is actually defined by the courts. So The Searchers, which is not entirely void of information, however distorted, seems very different from a copied newspaper article which might also imagine Monument Valley was in Texas. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
- Original Message - From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:36 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again On 07/09/2013 08:37 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: How is that not theft that we are facilitating? Because theft, is to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it. In some jurisdiction, linking to sites that play fast and loose with Copyright /may/, in certain circumstances, be facilitating copyright infringement. It certainly isn't theft. (I am not saying the latter is okay -- but that calling copyright infringement theft is inflammatory rhetoric and intellectually dishonest, at best). -- Marc Interesting notion that plain talk is inflammatory and dishonest. How is deliberate copyright infringement is not theft? Why are we the pirates' little helpers? Fred I'm tired of having this argument in uk.legal, and I don't want to go through it all again here. The essence of theft is that property belonging to another is appropriated, i.e. the rights of the owner have been assumed by someone else. In the case of a copyright, however many illicit copies are made, the copyright remains intact and it would be illogical to say otherwise, because then there would come a number of copies beyond which the copyright would cease to exist, which is not the case. And that's without arguing the point of whether it is possible to form an intention to permanently deprive the owner of his copyright when doing so is in fact and in law impossible. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
- Original Message - From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:36 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again On 07/09/2013 08:37 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: How is that not theft that we are facilitating? Because theft, is to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it. In some jurisdiction, linking to sites that play fast and loose with Copyright /may/, in certain circumstances, be facilitating copyright infringement. It certainly isn't theft. (I am not saying the latter is okay -- but that calling copyright infringement theft is inflammatory rhetoric and intellectually dishonest, at best). -- Marc Interesting notion that plain talk is inflammatory and dishonest. How is deliberate copyright infringement is not theft? Why are we the pirates' little helpers? Fred I'm tired of having this argument in uk.legal, and I don't want to go through it all again here. The essence of theft is that property belonging to another is appropriated, i.e. the rights of the owner have been assumed by someone else. In the case of a copyright, however many illicit copies are made, the copyright remains intact and it would be illogical to say otherwise, because then there would come a number of copies beyond which the copyright would cease to exist, which is not the case. And that's without arguing the point of whether it is possible to form an intention to permanently deprive the owner of his copyright when doing so is in fact and in law impossible. If you post a creative work on a website the purpose which is to share files you have assumed the rights of the owner, one of which is to determine the conditions which must be met to view or listen to the work. The owner can give his work away to the world but not third parties. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
- Original Message - From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again - Original Message - From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:36 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again On 07/09/2013 08:37 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: How is that not theft that we are facilitating? Because theft, is to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it. In some jurisdiction, linking to sites that play fast and loose with Copyright /may/, in certain circumstances, be facilitating copyright infringement. It certainly isn't theft. (I am not saying the latter is okay -- but that calling copyright infringement theft is inflammatory rhetoric and intellectually dishonest, at best). -- Marc Interesting notion that plain talk is inflammatory and dishonest. How is deliberate copyright infringement is not theft? Why are we the pirates' little helpers? Fred I'm tired of having this argument in uk.legal, and I don't want to go through it all again here. The essence of theft is that property belonging to another is appropriated, i.e. the rights of the owner have been assumed by someone else. In the case of a copyright, however many illicit copies are made, the copyright remains intact and it would be illogical to say otherwise, because then there would come a number of copies beyond which the copyright would cease to exist, which is not the case. And that's without arguing the point of whether it is possible to form an intention to permanently deprive the owner of his copyright when doing so is in fact and in law impossible. If you post a creative work on a website the purpose which is to share files you have assumed the rights of the owner, one of which is to determine the conditions which must be met to view or listen to the work. The owner can give his work away to the world but not third parties. Fred What are you saying has been stolen here? The work itself, the copy of it, or the copyright in the work? There are serious problems in trying to bend the law of theft to any of them. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
