Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Ivan Martínez]

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 

> On 10 July 2013 21:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter  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,
> 
>



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[David Gerard]

On 10 July 2013 21:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

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/
() -- 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

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/ 
() -- 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Fred Bauder]

> On 10 July 2013 12:09, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
>> On 07/09/2013 11:36 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>> How
>>> is deliberate copyright infringement is not theft?
>
>> My previous message helpfully contained the definition of theft from
>> Canada's criminal code, which I expect is very near that of most or all
>> common law jurisdiction, at least.  If you had paid attention, you'd
>> have noticed that copyright violation doesn't even vaguely qualify.
>
>
> Indeed. Fred, at this point you're just insisting on derailing an
> important discussion.
>
> Now then. How do we deal with the problem at hand? (Which only a fool
> would think actually had anything to do with copyright concerns.)
>
>
> - d.

We could emphasize the illegitimate goals that Putin has in suppressing
information about his regime, but that seems unlikely to influence him or
his supporters. I guess the right of the Russian people to accurate
information should be emphasized.

Fred


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[David Gerard]

On 10 July 2013 12:09, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 07/09/2013 11:36 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:

>> How
>> is deliberate copyright infringement is not theft?

> My previous message helpfully contained the definition of theft from
> Canada's criminal code, which I expect is very near that of most or all
> common law jurisdiction, at least.  If you had paid attention, you'd
> have noticed that copyright violation doesn't even vaguely qualify.


Indeed. Fred, at this point you're just insisting on derailing an
important discussion.

Now then. How do we deal with the problem at hand? (Which only a fool
would think actually had anything to do with copyright concerns.)


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 07/09/2013 11:36 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> How
> is deliberate copyright infringement is not theft?

My previous message helpfully contained the definition of theft from
Canada's criminal code, which I expect is very near that of most or all
common law jurisdiction, at least.  If you had paid attention, you'd
have noticed that copyright violation doesn't even vaguely qualify.

Copyright infringement, deliberate or not, is not theft the same way
slapping someone isn't murder: that's simply not what theft /means/.

-- Marc


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Fred Bauder]

> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> I'm totally puzzled to see how this thread was turned on its head. Not
> the first time that this happens on this list, but it's still /the/ most
> perfect example on how to discuss crap instead of the actual point that
> I've seen in a long, long time.
>
> Though now I think of it, it's not the first time that a Russian
> Wikipedia-related thread gets hijacked and people end up discussing
> irrelevant shit and essentially wasting traffic.
>
> I'm really disappointed.
>
>   -- Tomasz
>

I suspect the Russian government will overreach in any event, but it
would help if Wikipedia did not have direct links to filesharing sites. I
know it seems remote that we could make a decision to not do that, but we
should. Then we will be in a much better position.

Fred



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

David Gerard wrote:


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?


I'm totally puzzled to see how this thread was turned on its head. Not 
the first time that this happens on this list, but it's still /the/ most 
perfect example on how to discuss crap instead of the actual point that 
I've seen in a long, long time.


Though now I think of it, it's not the first time that a Russian 
Wikipedia-related thread gets hijacked and people end up discussing 
irrelevant shit and essentially wasting traffic.


I'm really disappointed.

-- Tomasz

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Jul 10, 2013 8:59 AM, "David Gerard"  wrote:
>
> On 10 July 2013 07:51, Fred Bauder  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,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[David Gerard]

On 10 July 2013 07:51, Fred Bauder  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Fred Bauder]

>>
>> 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Phil Nash]

- Original Message - 
From: "Fred Bauder" 
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again


> >
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Fred Bauder" 
>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
>> 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>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Fred Bauder]

>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Fred Bauder" 
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> 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

[Phil Nash]

- Original Message - 
From: "Fred Bauder" 
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
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

[Fred Bauder]

> On 9 July 2013 23:46, Fred Bauder  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Risker]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Fred Bauder]

> 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Fred Bauder]

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:
> 
>
> 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,
> 



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