Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:

> This is a valid assumption, but it is *just an assumption.*


By this I mean a point of view reading of the context on their side.  It's
not correct, in my perspective.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Keegan Peterzell]

The foundation of the IB suit seems to be that they feel without their
present community, they cannot sustain their content and product.  They
feel that their website is being stolen, and stolen by a conspiracy with
the WMF involved.  This is a valid assumption, but it is *just an
assumption.  *I do not expect IB to understand what they purchased when
they bought the wiki, because it didn't need explaining at the time.  The
IB WikiTravel site remains a wiki.  It is free to edit, it is free to
maintain, and free to build.

Not every wiki is capable of a perfect storm to build a huge and successful
wiki, but any wiki is capable of a small, modest and functioning community
to drive it.  Most important is that the popularity of a wiki shouldn't
trump its content.  The atmosphere is what keeps people on any website, and
the situation on WikiTravel has been, and will be, up to IB's choice of
staffing the site to help the community, and its software development.  Not
unlike the principles behind the Wikimedia Foundation.  If IB can make the
place a nice wiki post-fork, they can build a new community.  It's a
website, there's nothing out of the realm of possibility.

The fact that they do not see this is evident, though.  It's about the
money in the here and the now.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[FT2]

It would probably be hard to sustain a claim of deceit.  As best I can
tell, long before any wider discussion, all roles were clear or known.  The
email cited by IB clearly itself attempts to ensure roles and principals
are not mistaken.

The test of deceit would be whether persons who are or have considered
changing where they write, testify that *they only made that decision* due
to being misled as to who was affiliated with or representing whom, *and
that* knowing that now, they would wish not to change hosts.

But even that doesn't help IB because the easy answer is, Wikitravel is not
discontinued by their action, so a person wishing to continue editing there
is freely able to do so. The only people who will leave are precisely those
members of the public who - knowing all the facts now known - *still* wish
to do so.  In which case they either were not deceived or any purported
deceit has not changed their course of action.

Individual authors, not IB, have a course of action.  IB the legal entity
was not deceived as to representatives nor was any misrepresentation
directed at IB.   Indeed, I doubt that any purported misrepresentation is
capable of having affected IB in a legal sense.  (Tautologically so: -
those who might feel they were misled will stay anyway now they know "the
truth", those leaving regardless clearly either did not feel misled or else
were unaffected by any claimed misrepresentation as they wish to leave even
knowing "the truth", IB has the ability to communicate to all affected any
alleged misrepresentations so they can enjoy this choice)

FT2



On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Thomas Morton <
morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 12 September 2012 12:34, FT2  wrote:
> > The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend
> to
> > be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to
> > be), but that's not alleged here.  "Who was involved with whom" and
> > relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it.
> > (It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining "I wouldn't
> > have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really
> represented")
> >
> >
>
> As to your second point; they explicitly make this allegation in the
> filing.
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Morton]

On 12 September 2012 12:34, FT2  wrote:

> *@Tom:*  Case law is all about analogous situations so these matter very
> much.
> The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to
> be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to
> be), but that's not alleged here.  "Who was involved with whom" and
> relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it.
> (It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining "I wouldn't
> have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really represented")
>
>
Sure; but it's not a metaphor. It's a cited precedent.

My apologies if your supermarket analogy was a true precedent rather than a
metaphor.

As to your second point; they explicitly make this allegation in the filing.

Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[FT2]

*@Nemo:  *IB haven't claimed an IB insider broke their contract with IB in
any of this.
Agree "+1" as well :)

*@Tom:*  Case law is all about analogous situations so these matter very
much.
The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to
be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to
be), but that's not alleged here.  "Who was involved with whom" and
relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it.
(It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining "I wouldn't
have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really represented")

FT2

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:

> FT2, 12/09/2012 13:09:
>
>> 2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty.
>>
>> Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was
>> involved.
>>
>
> Nobody except IB of course.
>
>
>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Thomas Morton <
morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform
> for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the
> better place... that would be a problem.
>
> This is what IB appear to be alleging.
>
> All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not really utile
> in advancing the discussion. We can all think up varying metaphors to
> support our points - fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
>
> Tom
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Morton]

On 12 September 2012 12:29, Deryck Chan  wrote:

> On 12 September 2012 12:27, Thomas Morton  >wrote:
>
> > [...] fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
> >
> > Tom
> >
>
> Oh they do. That's precisely what case law is. Inaccurate metaphors are the
> reason that courts worldwide have a ridiculous view on what constitutes a
> copyright violation.
>
>
Ouch, no case law is not metaphors.

You won't see a court asking for metaphorical submissions to demonstrate
guilt (or innocence).

Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Deryck Chan]

On 12 September 2012 12:27, Thomas Morton wrote:

> [...] fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
>
> Tom
>

Oh they do. That's precisely what case law is. Inaccurate metaphors are the
reason that courts worldwide have a ridiculous view on what constitutes a
copyright violation.

Deryck
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Morton]

Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform
for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the
better place... that would be a problem.

This is what IB appear to be alleging.

All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not really utile
in advancing the discussion. We can all think up varying metaphors to
support our points - fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)

Tom

On 12 September 2012 12:09, FT2  wrote:

> To tackle both these at once:
>
> *@Deryck Chan, three trivial rebuttals: *
>
>1. WT's "mission" is stated clearly, "*Wikitravel is a project to create
>a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide".*  I
>don't see any of the parties that are proposing or wishing to fork, not
>endorsing that goal thoroughly. They are merely stating they wish to
> pursue
>that goal on a different website, under different hosting behavior.
>2. The TOU you cite state that WT is a "built in collaboration by
>Wikitravellers from around the globe", not a site "built in
> collaboration
>with IB". The consensus policy speaks to collaboration between members
> of
>the public writing, and its pages show that the community did not
> consider
>IB to have a heightened right to declare itself "the community" or "the
>party obtaining mandatory agreement" in that collaboration. The initial
>legal agreement (I gather) says as much.  There is no evidence that
> WT'ers
>were not willing to collaborate with WT'ers, as the policy states.
> Rather,
>WT'ers did not like the hosting service IB provided, or felt they could
>obtain better, which is completely separate.
>3. At the worst to use your own logic against itself, the departing
>WTers did indeed use the service while they felt able to follow the TOU
> you
>cite.  When they realised they did not feel like collaborating, they
> did as
>it required - indeed demanded or asked they do - namely departed. And
> used
>their right to reinstate their CC content at the new host of their
>choosing, following discussion. Others had done so previously, and
>individuals had departed not en masse due to IB before. No WTer is
> forced
>to leave, or impeded in freewill.
>
>
> *@Nemo:*
> In fact AFAIK, this is legal
> too.
>
>
>1. If a supermarket, for example, unreliably stocks Hallal food,
>garnering numerous complains over the years, and a person who shops at a
>competitor contacts or is contacted by members of the local Muslim
>community, or puts members of the community in touch with that other
>vendor, on the basis they provide a wider range of Hallal food of the
> types
>complained about, and at a better price, and as a result a number of
> local
>community members agree in social discussions that many of them feel
> like
>switching to shop at the other store. This is completely normal and
> legal,
>and happens every day.
>2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty.
>Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was
> involved.
>
>
> FT2
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Deryck Chan  >wrote:
>
> > One possibility lies within their terms of use:
> > "If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals
> but
> > refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach
> > consensusor make
> > concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this
> > Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we
> > reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal
> --
> > to prevent you from disrupting our work together."
> >
> > The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals)
> > does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a
> > travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the
> > fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on
> > Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that
> > they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which
> is
> > a form of breach of contract.
> >
> >
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the "members
> > of the public" are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone
> > with a "Pub X" cap in front of "Pub X" stopped all passing people and
> > regulars that "Pub X" was renovating and to go to the new location "Pub
> Xb"
> > across the street instead. Or that a clerk of "Y bookshop" used the list
> of
> > all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them saying to
> > send their next mail orders to the new postal address of "Yb bookshop".
> > Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say...
> >
> __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

FT2, 12/09/2012 13:09:

2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty.
Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved.


Nobody except IB of course.

Deryck Chan, 12/09/2012 12:42:
> I'm glad that WMF has decided to file a counter-suit and help James and
> Ryan defend their cases.

+1

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[FT2]

To tackle both these at once:

*@Deryck Chan, three trivial rebuttals: *

   1. WT's "mission" is stated clearly, "*Wikitravel is a project to create
   a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide".*  I
   don't see any of the parties that are proposing or wishing to fork, not
   endorsing that goal thoroughly. They are merely stating they wish to pursue
   that goal on a different website, under different hosting behavior.
   2. The TOU you cite state that WT is a "built in collaboration by
   Wikitravellers from around the globe", not a site "built in collaboration
   with IB". The consensus policy speaks to collaboration between members of
   the public writing, and its pages show that the community did not consider
   IB to have a heightened right to declare itself "the community" or "the
   party obtaining mandatory agreement" in that collaboration. The initial
   legal agreement (I gather) says as much.  There is no evidence that WT'ers
   were not willing to collaborate with WT'ers, as the policy states. Rather,
   WT'ers did not like the hosting service IB provided, or felt they could
   obtain better, which is completely separate.
   3. At the worst to use your own logic against itself, the departing
   WTers did indeed use the service while they felt able to follow the TOU you
   cite.  When they realised they did not feel like collaborating, they did as
   it required - indeed demanded or asked they do - namely departed. And used
   their right to reinstate their CC content at the new host of their
   choosing, following discussion. Others had done so previously, and
   individuals had departed not en masse due to IB before. No WTer is forced
   to leave, or impeded in freewill.


*@Nemo:*
In fact AFAIK, this is legal
too.


   1. If a supermarket, for example, unreliably stocks Hallal food,
   garnering numerous complains over the years, and a person who shops at a
   competitor contacts or is contacted by members of the local Muslim
   community, or puts members of the community in touch with that other
   vendor, on the basis they provide a wider range of Hallal food of the types
   complained about, and at a better price, and as a result a number of local
   community members agree in social discussions that many of them feel like
   switching to shop at the other store. This is completely normal and legal,
   and happens every day.
   2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty.
   Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved.


FT2


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Deryck Chan wrote:

> One possibility lies within their terms of use:
> "If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals but
> refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach
> consensusor make
> concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this
> Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we
> reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal --
> to prevent you from disrupting our work together."
>
> The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals)
> does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a
> travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the
> fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on
> Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that
> they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which is
> a form of breach of contract.
>
>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
>
> Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the "members
> of the public" are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone
> with a "Pub X" cap in front of "Pub X" stopped all passing people and
> regulars that "Pub X" was renovating and to go to the new location "Pub Xb"
> across the street instead. Or that a clerk of "Y bookshop" used the list of
> all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them saying to
> send their next mail orders to the new postal address of "Yb bookshop".
> Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say...
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Dalton]

On 12 September 2012 08:45, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party
> to it?

That's what tortuous interference is all about. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

FT2, 12/09/2012 11:13:

1) Does IB believe there is a legal basis that members of the public (in
the absence of contractual obligation) cannot consider where they and their
fellow hobbyists want to engage in a hobbyisyt activity, be it drinking
beer, discussing philosophy, playing cards, or writing online information?  
[...]
In short, IB's problem is it conceived WT's content, and the community
writing WT, and the WT site/brand, as its possessions, but the first two
are not.


Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the "members 
of the public" are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone 
with a "Pub X" cap in front of "Pub X" stopped all passing people and 
regulars that "Pub X" was renovating and to go to the new location "Pub 
Xb" across the street instead. Or that a clerk of "Y bookshop" used the 
list of all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them 
saying to send their next mail orders to the new postal address of "Yb 
bookshop".

Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say...

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Deryck Chan]

One possibility lies within their terms of use:
"If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals but
refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach
consensusor make
concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this
Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we
reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal --
to prevent you from disrupting our work together."

The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals)
does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a
travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the
fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on
Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that
they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which is
a form of breach of contract.

I'm glad that WMF has decided to file a counter-suit and help James and
Ryan defend their cases.
Deryck

On 12 September 2012 10:13, FT2  wrote:

> The more interesting legal line:
>
> 1) Does IB believe there is a legal basis that members of the public (in
> the absence of contractual obligation) cannot consider where they and their
> fellow hobbyists want to engage in a hobbyisyt activity, be it drinking
> beer, discussing philosophy, playing cards, or writing online information?
>
> 2) Does IB believe it is tortious to discuss or offer a service to members
> of the public, or for a member of the public to suggest to other
> potentially interested members of the public, that a different venue or
> provider of services might please them more than their present one?
>
> 3) Is IB aware of any litigation based upon that very novel theory? For
> example,
>
>
>
>- In the commercial world, does case law suggest it is tortious for
>Apple to either target PC users, or suggest PC users might prefer a
> Mac, or
>a store to state they price compare and are cheaper than another store,
> or
>a conference centre to state it has facilities better suited than a
>competitor for the needs of an inquirer and their peers?
>- In the social world does case law suggest it is tortious for a member
>of a tennis-playing peer group to suggest that in light of changed
> rules at
>the current venue a different venue might be better, or to propose to
>explore moving the tennis club to play at that venue?
>- Can you sue users of your bar (absent a contract) to force them to
>continue using your bar if you hear them planning to shoot pool
> elsewhere?
>
> This would be very odd, and novel.
>
>
> In short, IB's problem is it conceived WT's content, and the community
> writing WT, and the WT site/brand, as its possessions, but the first two
> are not.
>
> FT2
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Ray Saintonge 
> wrote:
>
> > On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> >
> >> No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email
> in
> >> question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some
> >> case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter.
> >>
> >> Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel
> >> site
> >> wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they
> >> believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it
> >> via
> >> lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...).
> >>
> >>
> >>  I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued.
> >
> > Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of
> > the legal points that will be clarified.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has
> > "tortuously" caused injury. (Para 1).
> >
> > Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a
> > party to it?
> >
> > Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to Travelwiki
> > may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY licence.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >
> > __**_
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[FT2]

The more interesting legal line:

1) Does IB believe there is a legal basis that members of the public (in
the absence of contractual obligation) cannot consider where they and their
fellow hobbyists want to engage in a hobbyisyt activity, be it drinking
beer, discussing philosophy, playing cards, or writing online information?

2) Does IB believe it is tortious to discuss or offer a service to members
of the public, or for a member of the public to suggest to other
potentially interested members of the public, that a different venue or
provider of services might please them more than their present one?

3) Is IB aware of any litigation based upon that very novel theory? For
example,



   - In the commercial world, does case law suggest it is tortious for
   Apple to either target PC users, or suggest PC users might prefer a Mac, or
   a store to state they price compare and are cheaper than another store, or
   a conference centre to state it has facilities better suited than a
   competitor for the needs of an inquirer and their peers?
   - In the social world does case law suggest it is tortious for a member
   of a tennis-playing peer group to suggest that in light of changed rules at
   the current venue a different venue might be better, or to propose to
   explore moving the tennis club to play at that venue?
   - Can you sue users of your bar (absent a contract) to force them to
   continue using your bar if you hear them planning to shoot pool elsewhere?

This would be very odd, and novel.


In short, IB's problem is it conceived WT's content, and the community
writing WT, and the WT site/brand, as its possessions, but the first two
are not.

FT2




On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>> No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in
>> question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some
>> case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter.
>>
>> Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel
>> site
>> wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they
>> believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it
>> via
>> lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...).
>>
>>
>>  I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued.
>
> Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of
> the legal points that will be clarified.
>
> It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has
> "tortuously" caused injury. (Para 1).
>
> Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a
> party to it?
>
> Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to Travelwiki
> may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY licence.
>
> Ray
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Ray Saintonge]

On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:

No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in
question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some
case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter.

Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel site
wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they
believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it via
lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...).



I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued.

Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of 
the legal points that will be clarified.


It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has 
"tortuously" caused injury. (Para 1).


Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a 
party to it?


Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to 
Travelwiki may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY 
licence.


Ray

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Morton]

On 11 September 2012 12:16, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On 11 September 2012 09:41, Thomas Morton 
> wrote:
> > Reading through it now I have had time, and with my legal cap on..
> >
> > IB probably have a strong enough case to win some of their claims (which
> is
> > how civil suits often work).
> >
> > The behaviour they describe,* if true*, is disappointing (on a personal
> > note) to see. I don't want to see our guys sued over it - but even so..
> not
> > pleasant to see our lot acting like this.
>
> Which claims in particular? I haven't read through their allegations
> thoroughly, but on a quick read through they are mostly complaining
> about people conspiring against IB. Since what they were planning on
> doing (forking the project) wasn't illegal, it can't be a conspiracy.
>
>
The particular thing that stands out is the allegation that Ryan emailed
Wikitravel members in a way that implied he represented Wikitravel, and
telling them the site was migrating to the WMF. (#29 onwards)

Of course; the argument hinges on the wording of the email and whether the
intent was to mislead the community.

Also; count IV is interesting. IB seem to be contending that the two (and
perhaps others) conspired to fork the community by undermining IB's
business (i.e. Wikitravel). Obviously the content is freely licensed, but
the community carries no license! What they would have to prove is that
e.g. the email intentionally tried to redirect the WT community to a forked
version by confusing people as to the official status of WT. (you can
commit a civil conspiracy if your ultimate aim is legal, but the way you go
about reaching it is illegal etc.).

No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in
question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some
case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter.

Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel site
wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they
believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it via
lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...).

Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Dalton]

On 11 September 2012 09:41, Thomas Morton  wrote:
> Reading through it now I have had time, and with my legal cap on..
>
> IB probably have a strong enough case to win some of their claims (which is
> how civil suits often work).
>
> The behaviour they describe,* if true*, is disappointing (on a personal
> note) to see. I don't want to see our guys sued over it - but even so.. not
> pleasant to see our lot acting like this.

Which claims in particular? I haven't read through their allegations
thoroughly, but on a quick read through they are mostly complaining
about people conspiring against IB. Since what they were planning on
doing (forking the project) wasn't illegal, it can't be a conspiracy.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Morton]

Reading through it now I have had time, and with my legal cap on..

IB probably have a strong enough case to win some of their claims (which is
how civil suits often work).

The behaviour they describe,* if true*, is disappointing (on a personal
note) to see. I don't want to see our guys sued over it - but even so.. not
pleasant to see our lot acting like this.

Tom

On 7 September 2012 16:50, Nathan  wrote:

> Reading through the IB filing, they aren't even bothering to structure
> a good case. It's all blather and no substance (claiming, for
> instance, that the defendants have been unjustly enriched by
> establishing a website with a name confusingly similar to WikiTravel;
> when of course no such site exists, and there is no possible way for
> the named defendants to have been enriched at all, unjustly or
> otherwise).
>
> I can see why the WMF described it as a transparent attempt at
> intimidation. The conduct IB is trying to deter has primarily
> consisted of criticizing IB and encouraging the development of an
> alternative; viewed from that angle, and since there is no actual
> underlying business conduct, I wonder if the complaint falls afoul of
> California's strong anti-SLAPP statute. I suppose you'd have to find
> some way of arguing that criticizing IB is in the public interest.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:26 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> >
> http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf
> >
> > It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
> >
> >
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_William_Ryan_Holliday.pdf
> >
> > Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
> >
> >
> > My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
> > attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
> >
> >
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa/
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:26:06PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
> attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:

Your blog post somehow made its way to slashdot. 

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/07/1853238/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa

(Haven't spotted at HN or Reddit yet.)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Nathan]

Reading through the IB filing, they aren't even bothering to structure
a good case. It's all blather and no substance (claiming, for
instance, that the defendants have been unjustly enriched by
establishing a website with a name confusingly similar to WikiTravel;
when of course no such site exists, and there is no possible way for
the named defendants to have been enriched at all, unjustly or
otherwise).

I can see why the WMF described it as a transparent attempt at
intimidation. The conduct IB is trying to deter has primarily
consisted of criticizing IB and encouraging the development of an
alternative; viewed from that angle, and since there is no actual
underlying business conduct, I wonder if the complaint falls afoul of
California's strong anti-SLAPP statute. I suppose you'd have to find
some way of arguing that criticizing IB is in the public interest.


On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:26 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf
>
> It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_William_Ryan_Holliday.pdf
>
> Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
>
>
> My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
> attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
>
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa/
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Richard Symonds]

Good luck to everyone concerned from the UK Chapter! James in particular
has been doing some very interesting things in the UK recently, which we're
very grateful for.

As to the trademark infringement, I think it stems not from "Wikivoyage",
but instead from James' alleged use of the phrase "Wiki Travel Guide"...

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*



On 7 September 2012 14:39, Theo10011  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard  wrote:
> > > On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay  wrote:
> >
> > >> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
> > >> suit<
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf
> > >
> >
> > > I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking
> > > the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.
> >
> >
> > Internet Brands have themselves put up their suit against James and Ryan:
> >
> >
> >
> http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf
> >
> > It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
> >
> >
> >
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_William_Ryan_Holliday.pdf
> >
> > Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
> >
> >
> > My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
> > attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
> >
> >
> >
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa/
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
>
> IB's primary complaints stems from alleging Trademark infringement, and
> unfair practices originating from such an infringement along with Civil
> conspiracy.
>
> I'm not sure why its alleging Trademark infringement against a volunteer,
> perhaps through James' affiliation with Wikimedia Canada - which they might
> consider to be an extension of WMF, and it should be pointed out and
> clarified at some point. James' wouldn't be the legal owner of the fork
> either way. In order, for it to have any basis, it would have to be
> directed to the owner of the domain name, which would be WMF. But that's a
> much harder battle, so this seems like intimidation.
>
> The matter of forking and licensing issue aside, the issue of trademark
> infringement seems separate and straightforward. The complaint related to
> the Lanham Act, etc.-
>
> 43. Defendants’ unauthorized use of a mark confusingly similar to
> Internet Brands’ Wikitravel trade name and trademarks for an identical and
> related
> website is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the
> source,
> business affiliation, connection or association of Defendants and their
> website.
>
> It would be a tall order to make that claim against WMF. It might even come
> down to the "Wiki-" prefix.
>
> Looking at the recent history of Wiki- prefixes (Wikileaks come to mind),
> in addition to it making its way to the general lexicon. Is there a
> sustainable long-term legal strategy when it comes to other party alleging
> trademark or ownership of a "Wiki-" related domain in future? It hasn't
> required much legal attention up till now but this seems to crop up year
> after year.
>
> Regards
> Theo
>
> P.S. Good Luck James. I'm sure you've been told already, this
> complaint doesn't have much merit.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Theo10011]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard  wrote:
> > On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay  wrote:
>
> >> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
> >> suit<
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf
> >
>
> > I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking
> > the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.
>
>
> Internet Brands have themselves put up their suit against James and Ryan:
>
>
> http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf
>
> It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_William_Ryan_Holliday.pdf
>
> Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
>
>
> My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
> attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
>
>
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa/
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

IB's primary complaints stems from alleging Trademark infringement, and
unfair practices originating from such an infringement along with Civil
conspiracy.

I'm not sure why its alleging Trademark infringement against a volunteer,
perhaps through James' affiliation with Wikimedia Canada - which they might
consider to be an extension of WMF, and it should be pointed out and
clarified at some point. James' wouldn't be the legal owner of the fork
either way. In order, for it to have any basis, it would have to be
directed to the owner of the domain name, which would be WMF. But that's a
much harder battle, so this seems like intimidation.

The matter of forking and licensing issue aside, the issue of trademark
infringement seems separate and straightforward. The complaint related to
the Lanham Act, etc.-

43. Defendants’ unauthorized use of a mark confusingly similar to
Internet Brands’ Wikitravel trade name and trademarks for an identical and
related
website is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the
source,
business affiliation, connection or association of Defendants and their
website.

It would be a tall order to make that claim against WMF. It might even come
down to the "Wiki-" prefix.

Looking at the recent history of Wiki- prefixes (Wikileaks come to mind),
in addition to it making its way to the general lexicon. Is there a
sustainable long-term legal strategy when it comes to other party alleging
trademark or ownership of a "Wiki-" related domain in future? It hasn't
required much legal attention up till now but this seems to crop up year
after year.

Regards
Theo

P.S. Good Luck James. I'm sure you've been told already, this
complaint doesn't have much merit.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[David Gerard]

On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay  wrote:

>> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
>> suit

> I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking
> the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.


Internet Brands have themselves put up their suit against James and Ryan:

http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf

It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_William_Ryan_Holliday.pdf

Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.


My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa/


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Nathan]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, "Nathan"  wrote:
>> Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
>> there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
>> entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
>> Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary
>> barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content
>> rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.
>
> Even if they have lost safe harbor protections, is there anything illegal
> about the content? What do they need Section 230 protection from?

Maybe not if you're referring to a current snapshot of the project,
but of course that may not always be the case. Even the failure to
effectively address vandalism seems like it could put the organization
at risk, if they've lost the protection afforded to service providers.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Dalton]

On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, "Nathan"  wrote:
> Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
> there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
> entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
> Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary
> barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content
> rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.

Even if they have lost safe harbor protections, is there anything illegal
about the content? What do they need Section 230 protection from?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Nathan]

The Wikitravel site seems to be declining in a hurry, even from what
was evidently a sad state just several months ago. The main remaining
administrator, an employee who goes by IBobi (IB as in Internet
Brands), has limited his actions almost exclusively to arguing with
other community members and censoring any mention of Wikimedia or
Wikivoyage. He has even resorted to removing criticism of Internet
Brands or its Wikitravel management, whether or not that criticism
mentions forking directly or indirectly, calling it either "vandalism"
or claiming to be editing others comments "to conform with policy."

Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary
barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content
rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Deryck Chan]

In contrast to Tom's opinion, I believe that WMF has done the right thing -
write the blog post in a way so as to create the biggest PR impact within
the limits of factual accuracy; and link to the PDF and discussions for the
sake of transparency.

On 6 September 2012 15:12, Thomas Morton wrote:

> Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.
>
> So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is
> basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement
> dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.
>
> Tom
>
> On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> > > mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
> > admins
> > > having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded
> with
> > > Wiki Travel content.
> > > It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public
> statements.
> > > It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> > > underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> > > approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> > > certainly be an "aha" moment).
> >
> >
> > It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
> > it, before asserting bad faith?
> >
> > The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
> > Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
> > they're soft-pedaling this.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Richard Symonds]

Makes interesting reading. Is there anywhere that we can read the IB vs
"the volunteers" documents? Or are they not publicly viewable?

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*



On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton 
> wrote:
>
> > Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> > mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
> admins
> > having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
> > Wiki Travel content.
> > It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
> > It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> > underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> > approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> > certainly be an "aha" moment).
>
>
> It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
> it, before asserting bad faith?
>
> The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
> Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
> they're soft-pedaling this.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Morton]

Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.

So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is
basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement
dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.

Tom

On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton 
> wrote:
>
> > Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> > mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
> admins
> > having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
> > Wiki Travel content.
> > It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
> > It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> > underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> > approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> > certainly be an "aha" moment).
>
>
> It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
> it, before asserting bad faith?
>
> The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
> Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
> they're soft-pedaling this.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[David Gerard]

On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton  wrote:

> Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel admins
> having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
> Wiki Travel content.
> It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
> It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> certainly be an "aha" moment).


It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
it, before asserting bad faith?

The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
they're soft-pedaling this.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Morton]

Just to note:

Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel admins
having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
Wiki Travel content.

It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
certainly be an "aha" moment).

If we can't defend the right to fork publicly, then we are hypocrites.

Tom

On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay  wrote:

> A few moments ago we posted this to the Wikimedia Foundation Blog, it is
> self explanatory.
>
> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a 
> suit
>  in
> San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that
> Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the
> creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in
> response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers. Over the summer,
> in response to requests generated by our volunteers, the Wikimedia
> community conducted a lengthy Request For 
> Comment (RFC)
> process to facilitate public debate and discussion regarding the benefits
> and challenges of creating a new, Wikimedia Foundation-hosted travel guide
> project. The community extended the RFC at the Wikimedia Foundation Board’s
> request to allow for greater community input, and to encourage input from
> Internet Brands. Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
> desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
> supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
> of this new project.
>
> Unfortunately, Internet Brands (owner of the travel website Wikitravel)
> has decided to disrupt this process by engaging in litigation against two
> Wikitravel volunteers who are also Wikimedia community members. On August
> 29, Internet Brands sued two volunteer administrators, one based in Los
> Angeles and one in Canada, asserting a variety of claims. The intent of the
> action is clear – intimidate other community volunteers from exercising
> their rights to freely discuss the establishment of a new community focused
> on the creation of a new, not-for-profit travel guide under the Creative
> Commons licenses.
>
> While the suit filed by Internet Brands does not directly name the
> Wikimedia Foundation as a defendant, we believe that we are the real
> target. We feel our only recourse is to file this suit in order to get
> everything on the table and deal head on with Internet Brand’s actions over
> the past few months in trying to impede the creation of this new travel
> project.
>
> Our community and potential new community members are key to the success
> of all of our projects. We will steadfastly and proudly defend our
> community’s right to free speech, and we will support these volunteer
> community members in their legal defense. We do not feel it is appropriate
> for Internet Brands, a large corporation with hundreds of millions of
> dollars in assets, to seek to intimidate two individuals.
>
> This new, proposed project would allow all travel content to be freely
> used and disseminated by anyone for any purpose as long as the content is
> given proper attribution and is offered with the same free-to-use license.
> Internet Brands appears to be attempting to thwart the creation of a new,
> non-commercial travel wiki in a misguided effort to protect its for-profit
> Wikitravel site.
>
> The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance and the Wikimedia Foundation
> will not sit idly by and allow a commercial actor like Internet Brands to
> engage in threats, intimidation and litigation to prevent the organic
> expression of community interest in favor of a new travel project, one that
> is not driven by commercial interests.
>
> The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
> around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
> license  or in the public
> domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. We are devoted to
> creating and nurturing free knowledge projects supported by volunteers. Our
> actions today represent the full stride of our commitment to protect the
> Wikimedia movement against the efforts of for-profit entities like Internet
> Brands to prevent communities and volunteers from making their own
> decisions about where and how freely-usable content may be shared.
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-relief-in-response-to-legal-threats-from-internet-brands/
>
> Kelly Kay, Deputy Gen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[David Gerard]

On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay  wrote:

> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
> suit
> in
> San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that
> Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the
> creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in
> response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers.


I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking
the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thehelpfulone]

On 6 September 2012 08:18, James Heilman  wrote:

> The community has unofficially summarized the RfC here
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide#Summary_of_arguments
> But yes the final summary and decision was to be left to the WMF.
>
>
Just to follow up on this, the Board has now published a statement on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide&diff=4099910&oldid=4099573#Board_statement
.

-- 
Thehelpfulone
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[James Heilman]

The community has unofficially summarized the RfC here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide#Summary_of_arguments
But yes the final summary and decision was to be left to the WMF.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thehelpfulone]

On 6 Sep 2012, at 07:38, "Federico Leva (Nemo)"  wrote:

>> Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
>> desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
>> supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
>> of this new project.
> 
> Is this a valid announcement from the WMF board before the official decision?
> By the way there's not been any proper closure/conclusion to the RfC, that's 
> been left too the board too.

Nemo is correct in this matter, whilst the RFC has been closed to discussion, 
there has not been an official outcome. I believe it was intended that the 
Board would decide and make a statement/resolution to state their findings.

Thehelpfulone
Sent from my iPhone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
of this new project.


Is this a valid announcement from the WMF board before the official 
decision?
By the way there's not been any proper closure/conclusion to the RfC, 
that's been left too the board too.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Kim Bruning]

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:09:29AM +, Max Harmony wrote:
> Would it be inappropriate for community members to express their
> displeasure with the actions of Internet Brands, perhaps by mass or
> organised boycott? 

The latter is pretty much already happening by default. 

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Max Harmony]

Would it be inappropriate for community members to express their
displeasure with the actions of Internet Brands, perhaps by mass or
organised boycott? I expect Wikimedia Foundation itself cannot
encourage any sort of action, but can the actions of editors have
negative repercussions on the Foundation (beyond the obvious)?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l