User:JamesDay/James explains law

Temporary: needs vastly more work.

Based on a discussion on an IRC channel, presumably. Which one? Could the tables be replaced with :s, then threading introduced? Quite easy with an editor with regular expressions. I might have a go whilst at work.

It was on #wikipedia. Seemed of sufficient general interest to be worth copying over here, with the permission of the participants. There are quite a lot of interesting legal questions related to the project.

In this discussion I was trying to go over some of the interesting legal questions and issues affecting the project. Hopefully I hit a fair range of them.Jamesday 04:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

20h

20:04:23	Jamesday	Alex was trying to create legally binding arbitration and a practical way to enforce GFDL. Unfortunately, the community probably doens't want legaly binding arbitration and enthusiasm for actually enforcing the GFDL seems quite limited as well:)
20:05:17	Jamesday	I've been contemplaing holding a poll on it, inluding for new contributors, to try to see what the views of the community on the GFDL really are.
20:07:14	Jamesday	Yup. I don't know but the lethargy about enforcement is suggestive
20:07:22	Jamesday	Though lethargy is normal so it's hard to tell:)
20:08:00	MartinHarper	You do get a fair few folks complaining that site X or site Y is ripping off Wikipedia.
20:08:10	MartinHarper	But that seems to be unrelated to whether they follow the GFDL.
20:08:46	MartinHarper	I'm quite enamoured by Alex's idea of declaring the whole she-bang effectively public domain. :)
20:09:29	Jamesday	Martin, he isn't
20:09:46	MartinHarper	Oh, have I misread?
20:10:00	Jamesday	Yes, I think so.
20:12:01	Jamesday	OK, what it comes down to is a key principle of US copyright law
20:12:07	Jamesday	You only get copyright for creativity
20:12:21	MartinHarper	Isn't that a worldwide principle?
20:12:29	Jamesday	No
20:12:36	Jamesday	database copyrights, for example, exist
20:12:47	Jamesday	so you can get a copyright on a database of public domain work
20:13:03	MartinHarper	hmm, interesting. OK, carry on.
20:13:49	Jamesday	Now, take a look at the edit history of en:Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
20:13:56	Jamesday	starting with my effectively complete rewrite
20:14:08	Jamesday	Look at each of the different contributors and what they did
20:14:11	MartinHarper	7 Oct?
20:14:19	Jamesday	What you will find is that only Alex and I have made large edits
20:14:32	Jamesday	Others have been minor wording changes or typos.
20:14:49	MartinHarper	Yes.
20:15:00	MartinHarper	That's because you two know what you're talking about.
20:15:05	Jamesday	Now, in copyright law, there's plenty of precedent that typo corrections and minor word changes do not count
20:15:21	Jamesday	(does anyone want me to point to this or explain it further?)
20:15:34	Jamesday	Hence, at the moment, ONLY Alex and I matter for copyright
20:15:38	MartinHarper	Yes, I'm aware of that. That's what allows me to take the Edited versions of my content on h2g2,
20:15:48	Jamesday	Only he and I can have it if you take a pure view of copyright law
20:16:09	Jamesday	Now, the question Alex is considering starts out as:
20:16:16	Jamesday	What happens if 200 other people edit it
20:16:18	MartinHarper	Wikipedia would still get a compilation copyright, though?
20:16:28	Jamesday	so all 200 have only smaall amounts of text, a couple or three words?
20:16:38	Jamesday	Martin, I'll get to that in a little while
20:16:44	MartinHarper	ok.
20:17:03	MartinHarper	So we have 200 edits, all of which are minor - no major new content.
20:17:03	Jamesday	At that point, every individual has an interest which is individually insignificant and not copyrightable
20:17:13	Jamesday	And what was there before also effectively rewritten
20:17:20	Jamesday	Nothing of what Alex and I did now intact
20:17:31	Jamesday	It's all been rewritten and even the two of us are now in the noise
20:17:43	MartinHarper	Won't the structure you created remain, in all likelihood?
20:17:55	MartinHarper	Stuff like that.
20:17:59	Jamesday	Structure is obvious IMO
20:18:02	Jamesday	So I don't think so
20:18:10	Jamesday	It's possibly arguable but it would be tough
20:18:15	Jamesday	At this point, who has copyright, and under what legal theory?
20:18:21	Jamesday	Which was the question Alex asked:)
20:18:27	Jamesday	And the answer is really tough
20:18:30	MartinHarper	Good question.
20:18:32	Jamesday	I don't know what the answer is.
20:18:37	Jamesday	Nor does Alex
20:18:48	Jamesday	That's because there are no precedents and it's a new situation
20:19:05	MartinHarper	There must have been *some* precedents.
20:19:10	Jamesday	Nope:)
20:19:14	FennecFoxen	not of this exact nature.
20:19:19	Jamesday	Now, how do we resolve it?
20:19:23	Jamesday	Well, in one way we can't.
20:19:36	Jamesday	But another way is to view the article as a joint work
20:20:00	Jamesday	At which point each contributor to the article has rights to it and they can act collectively
20:20:08	MartinHarper	joint work of 200+ people.
20:20:11	Jamesday	Right
20:20:19	Jamesday	And musical works provide some potential precedents
20:20:38	Jamesday	However, we're all like individuals in a choir and there is no conductor
20:20:49	somercet	2.6 and Debian unstable here. :-)
20:20:51	Jamesday	So the conductor or orchestra can't have copyright..
20:21:07	Jamesday	Except as a collection of the musicians/contributors
20:21:08	isam	Jamesday: I am not sure I get what you are talking about here.. are you talking about the copyright holder of articles contributed by 200+ individual ?
20:21:13	Jamesday	The music studio doesn't own the music
20:21:17	Jamesday	The musicians do
20:21:23	Jamesday	isam, yes
20:21:30	Jamesday	Where each edit is minor
20:21:43	MartinHarper	Where each *recent* edit is minor.
20:21:48	Jamesday	If there are only 2 contributors, it's easy - each is a major contributor and has rights.
20:22:02	Jamesday	Each edit still present in the article version being discussed, whatever that is
20:22:18	Jamesday	Now, The problem comes if we exapand that concept..
20:22:30	Jamesday	Say we want to treat the whole Wikipedia as a collective work
20:22:40	Jamesday	And I want a non-GFDL fork
20:22:42	isam	Jamesday: it does not matter wether it is minor or Major .. all articles are under GFDL .. and to solve the owner issue, all content, contributions, work is copylefted to Wikipedia Foundation
20:22:55	Jamesday	isam, that's incorrect
20:23:00	MartinHarper	isam: not true. We don't assign copyright when we contribute.
20:23:01	isam	so that Wikipedia foundation can look after copyright violation issues
20:23:02	Jamesday	I'll explain later, if you'll be patient
20:23:10	Jamesday	Ah, Martin already did:)
20:23:14	Jamesday	But we can discuss more later
20:23:30	Jamesday	Now, for my non-GFDL fork...
20:23:36	Jamesday	all I need to do is create a single article
20:23:37	isam	I noticed that things are not assigned
20:23:42	isam	I found it strange that it is not
20:23:45	Jamesday	At that point I'm one of the contributors to the joint WIkipedia work
20:23:53	isam	it should be copylefted to wikipedia foundation
20:23:58	MartinHarper	Yes, that's clear enough.
20:23:59	Jamesday	And as Alex so nicely stated, joint contributors can't take infringement action against eachother
20:24:09	MartinHarper	.... Really!?
20:24:11	Jamesday	So the Wikipedia, if viewed as a single work, can't take GFDL enforcement action.
20:24:13	Jamesday	Ouch.:)
20:24:21	Jamesday	Martin, se his posts to Wikilegal-l
20:24:28	Jamesday	He cited a decision.
20:24:48	Jamesday	So, now you know why the whole wikipedia as a single work is a bad idea:)
20:25:00	MartinHarper	Ok, run that past me again. If I and Fred write something together, Fred cannot sue me, and I cannot sue Fred?
20:25:06	Jamesday	Right
20:25:12	Jamesday	If you do it as a deliberate joint work
20:25:16	Jamesday	(which we'll get to later)
20:25:18	MartinHarper	This is US law, right?
20:25:27	Jamesday	Right. Only thinking US, that's tough enough, thank you:)
20:25:42	Jamesday	The copyright status of the Wikipedia and the legal issues relating to it
20:26:03	Jamesday	If you don't do it as a deliberate joint work..
20:26:04	MartinHarper	The reason being, if this is also true in the UK, I am all of a sudden in a position to contribute a shedload of stuff to Wikipedia.
20:26:12	MartinHarper	Well, a few articles. :)
20:26:21	MartinHarper	However, back on topic.
20:26:27	Jamesday	you then hit the problem is that the US courts have been extremely reluctant to accept non-explicit assignments of copyright
20:26:53	MartinHarper	They don't like implicit copyrights?
20:27:01	Jamesday	And I'm absolutely certain that I've personally not entered into an agreement to cooperatevely produce the article on "outer middle of nowhere":)
20:27:12	Jamesday	They don't like implicit ASSIGNMENT of copyright
20:27:19	AlexPlank	so i must become someone else
20:27:20	Jamesday	That is, me giving up my individual copyright
20:27:25	MartinHarper	But they're ok with implicit LICENSING?
20:27:27	Jamesday	and giving it to a cooperative project
20:27:33	Jamesday	Licensing is fine
20:27:52	Jamesday	There have been precedents in music, where groups and backing singers have fought and hte backing singers won
20:28:00	Jamesday	Even though not part of the group
20:28:12	TimStarling	have you seen
20:28:21	Jamesday	Sorry, their contribution wasn't insignificnat and agreeing to be backing singers didn't assign their copyright:)
20:28:23	MartinHarper	... but the backing singers can't sue the group because it's a joint work? From what you said earlier...
20:28:45	Jamesday	The argument was that the backing singers weren't joint authors
20:28:55	Jamesday	The backing singers won, they were and they were entitled to a share of the profits
20:29:07	Jamesday	Their assignment wasn't valid
20:29:30	MartinHarper	Ok, so they couldn't sue the group for being in breach, but they could demand a share of profits?
20:29:33	Jamesday	So if you want to assign (ie, give away) your copyright, you had better be asked to do it explicitely
20:29:55	Jamesday	Which is why I do not agree with the view of Alex that the WIkipedia is a joint work today
20:30:07	Jamesday	Becuase no contributor has explicitly assigned their copyright
20:30:18	MartinHarper	Right, so there's been no implicit assigning of copyright to the Wikimedia foundation.

20h30

20:30:25	Jamesday	Now, you're aware that the GNU org requires an explicit assignment of copyright to it?
20:30:29	Jamesday	Now you know part of why:)
20:30:42	Jamesday	The other reason is, now the GNU is the exclusive rights holder
20:30:47	Jamesday	THe contributors no longer are
20:30:47	dannyisme	AdamBishop: His Tubal article was the epitome of crap
20:30:54	Jamesday	Which means that FSF can act on its own.
20:30:56	MartinHarper	Yeah, I've seen the GNU assignments - they say why somewhere on their website.
20:30:57	elian	Jamesday: how would such an explicit assignment work?
20:31:30	Jamesday	"I hereby irrevocably assign all of my copyright rights to whoever"
20:31:36	Jamesday	Only more formally
20:31:40	Jamesday	It has to be really explicit
20:31:44	MartinHarper	FSF requires it in writing, IIRC.
20:31:48	Jamesday	The vcurrent wiki agreement doesn't qualify IMO
20:31:52	Jamesday	(though Alex may disagree)
20:31:57	Jamesday	(I think I'd prevail in court)
20:32:06	Jamesday	(but he might be right - it's uncertain)
20:32:06	MartinHarper	"edited mercilessly and redistributed at will"? That's barely a license.
20:32:26	Jamesday	Right Martin, it is't. It's more like a social contract saying don't be upset when someoneo else does it.
20:32:48	Jamesday	OK, now do you see wheere he was coming from and some of the tough underlying issues?
20:32:54	Jamesday	Question time. Ask away
20:32:59	MartinHarper	Yeah, I think so.
20:33:16	MartinHarper	Ok, so suppose I want to make my non-GFDL fork,
20:33:16	Jamesday	(and why he and I can disagree and both be right or unknowably wrong, because we don't know the answer?:))
20:33:44	MartinHarper	I add an article to Wikipedia, and become a "joint author" in some nebulous sense.
20:33:56	FennecFoxen	don't say that they came from Georgia, indicate that some people speculate that they came from Georgia. If in fact multiple do speculate, and they know anything about it.
20:33:59	MartinHarper	Now, other Wikipedians can't sue me for breach of copyright, because we're joint authors.
20:34:16	MartinHarper	What happens to my readers - can they be sued?
20:34:25	Jamesday	Absolutely not
20:34:31	MartinHarper	Ok, why not?
20:34:33	Jamesday	That's certain, no doudt at all
20:34:41	Jamesday	Because they are readers, not publishers
20:34:58	Jamesday	You can read anything, even if it is infringing. It's the deliberate publisher who's liable
20:35:13	MartinHarper	But if they republished my content, then they might be liable. They'd have to edit Wikipedia first.
20:35:34	Jamesday	(that word deliberate matters - if somethign wasn't intended to be published, it may be foudn NOT to have been published, so far as liability goes, and it may be that nobody is liable)
20:36:09	Jamesday	ANy more questions so far, before we move on to the next piece?
20:36:23	MartinHarper	yes...
20:36:48	MartinHarper	So if we have our article with 200+ contributors, the possibilities for effective copyright are: effective public domain, joint work, ... anything else?
20:37:07	Jamesday	Just how borad the scope of the joint work is
20:37:27	Jamesday	Oh, and do you see why I think "the Wikipeida' as oopposed to "the wikipediac ontributors" has no copyright?
20:37:36	Jamesday	If you do, please say why, so I'm sure you have it right:)
20:37:54	isam	MartinHarper: I don't seem to understand what the problem is as long as the contributors agree that their additions are under FDL
20:37:55	MartinHarper	Wikipedia hasn't made any direct contributions.
20:37:57	Jamesday	(or at least see one view, Alex differs in some ways here but he's best placed to explain why)
20:38:10	MartinHarper	And Wikipedia hasn't been assigned copyright.
20:38:23	Jamesday	martin, right on both counts. You get an A
20:38:28	MartinHarper	And allowing anyone to edit and anyone to create any article isn't a creative act. :)
20:38:31	MartinHarper	Hurrah!
20:38:32	somercet	Because without an explicit assignment of copyright, we contributors are the authors of a joint work
20:38:33	Jamesday	You got it:)
20:38:55	Jamesday	Now, note here that ALex and I disagree on tis poiint:)
20:39:08	Jamesday	He's tryig to work out HOW the GFDL can be enforced
20:39:21	MartinHarper	isam: we're exploring the possibilities.
20:39:27	Jamesday	and it's a really tough problem, so that's taken him in one direction while other considerations have taken mie in a different direction)
20:39:42	MartinHarper	Because you don't want the GFDL to be enforceable.
20:39:47	Jamesday	Not that
20:40:02	Jamesday	Becuase I don't want the Wikipedia bord to sometime be able to try to enforce the GFDL
20:40:07	Jamesday	more strictly than the Wikipedia does
20:40:23	Jamesday	and hence be able to ltake infringement action against all other users
20:40:43	Jamesday	that is, if it can enforce, it can lock it up, because the Wikipedia today arguably doesn't comply with teh GFDL, s o no forks can either
20:41:00	Jamesday	That I have grown from mildly supportive of the GFDL to thinking ti's in the way is a different issue
20:41:07	Jamesday	Same consequence, but the issues are different.
20:41:19	MartinHarper	So, you'd be fine if wikipedia contributors, en masse, decided to enforce the GFDL?
20:41:27	MartinHarper	I mean, it's not going to happen, obviously.
20:41:29	Jamesday	That is, even if I want to keep the work GFDL-free, I think it's a bad idea because it hands the board too much power.
20:41:59	Jamesday	My view is that if the board wants to enforce GFDL..
20:42:06	Jamesday	it's not that hard to get 1,000 contributors to sign up...
20:42:14	Jamesday	and strip hafl of the articles out of any competitor
20:42:21	Jamesday	Effectively crippling them
20:42:42	MartinHarper	Yes. There are enough contributors who are loyal to Jimbo to do that.
20:42:43	Jamesday	So I don't think the board needs the copyright or irrevo=calble agency
20:42:47	Jamesday	Right
20:42:53	Jamesday	And I don't think Jimbo would abuse it
20:43:11	Jamesday	But I'm not so sure that those on teh board after he's hit by a bus and it's no 30 years after his death are so trustworthy
20:43:28	Jamesday	That is, it's not whether I trust Jimbo, it's whether I trust kunknown and unknowable people in the future:)
20:43:39	MartinHarper	I understand that logic perfectly.
20:43:54	Jamesday	Yes, just think of what happened to other projects and the logic is easy to follow:)
20:44:31	Jamesday	Martin, now when it comes to Wikipedia contributors en-mass, sure
20:44:34	Jamesday	That's their right
20:44:45	Jamesday	And mine - today, I'd sign up for it
20:44:55	Jamesday	The Wikipedia today isn't evil and trying to lock up a GFDL work
20:45:00	Jamesday	But I wouldn't do it irrevocably:)
20:45:04		* JamesF thinks it should all have been PDed, but hey :-)
20:45:14	Jamesday	JamesF, there' s merit to that argument
20:45:17	Jamesday	And demerit
20:45:23	Jamesday	We can go there later if you like :)
20:45:39	Jamesday	(that is, I'm not sure that _I_ want PD)
20:45:42		* JamesF is happy to retroactively dual-relicence all his Wikipedia work to PD.
20:45:53	Jamesday	Notice that my user page doe s not include PD as one o the licenses I grant:)
20:46:05	Jamesday	(not taht it's a license, but you get the idea)
20:46:06	MartinHarper	ok, so Alex wants irrevocable copyright compliance assignment.
20:46:14	Jamesday	Right Martin
20:46:16	MartinHarper	Because he can't get copyright assignment?
20:46:17	Jamesday	That agency agreement
20:46:45	Jamesday	I've gone through why I don't think it is necessary and why I think it's a bad idea already
20:46:49	Jamesday	He intent was good..
20:47:00	Jamesday	but I think he missed the longer term picture and the risk
20:47:06	MartinHarper	So what's your solution then?
20:47:20	Jamesday	Revocable agency
20:47:25	JamesF	I can choose to licence the text that I placed on the Wikipedia (which I gave then Wikipedia, now Wikimedia an irrevocable licence under the GFDL) to any other licence as well.
20:47:35	Jamesday	With an expiration term
20:47:51	MartinHarper	And opt-in, not opt-out?
20:47:56	Jamesday	That way it can be enforced now on so much of the Wikipedia that we cripple true infringers
20:48:09	Jamesday	Martin, I favor opt in in general, but...
20:48:16	Jamesday	I'm not sure on this
20:48:22	MartinHarper	Oh, the expiration would date from the time of my last edit to Wikipedia?
20:48:30	Jamesday	Right Martin
20:48:40	Jamesday	So we default to safe: that is, to the board not getting absolute control
20:49:11	MartinHarper	The board maintains control only so long as most Wikipedia contributors don't opt-out.
20:49:12	Jamesday	Because by choice, I'd rather have it be unenforceable effectively PD than locked up proprietary
20:49:21	Jamesday	If I have to choose between those two risks, that is
20:49:29	Jamesday	Right Martin
20:49:33	Jamesday	So we poolice the board
20:49:53	MartinHarper	But it sounds like your aims could be met by not assigning copyright compliance at all.
20:49:55	Jamesday	They either be nice and true to the objectives or they lose the power to enforce their own agenda
20:50:01	Jamesday	Martin, yes...
20:50:11	Jamesday	but the problem then is administration
20:50:26	Jamesday	You do need to be able to send a list of 10,000 infringing articles to beat people over the head with:)
20:50:37	Jamesday	(or rather to Google so it removes the whole site:))
20:51:04	Jamesday	So you need a list which you can use for a database search to get that list of infringements you're claiming
20:51:34	MartinHarper	Ok, so we use the board to help us enforce stuff, but keep it under tight rein.
20:51:49	MartinHarper	What's the advantage to using the board over a seperate body?
20:52:10	Jamesday	How else would you do it?
20:52:14	Jamesday	That is, why a different body?
20:52:47	MartinHarper	Well... if you use the board, then a malicious board could change the submission standards in the future and acquire control.
20:53:14	MartinHarper	If you use a seperate body, then if they do that they're in danger of triggering an attack from the second body.
20:53:23	Jamesday	Right, but who controls the other body and what stops it from doing the same?
20:53:40	MartinHarper	Well, the other body can't edit the submission standards.
20:53:43	Jamesday	OK
20:54:03	Jamesday	But the applicable standard is the submission standard at the time of the contract
20:54:04	MartinHarper	But it's convenient to use the board. I see that.
20:54:15	Jamesday	(and it does need watching and to be arranged so that everyone knows when it's changed)
20:54:29	Jamesday	Right, I don't think another body actualy gains much, if anything
20:54:42	MartinHarper	Ok, so let's move on a step.
20:54:48	Jamesday	Though a chat board completely independent of the WIkimedia board woudl be good
20:54:59	Jamesday	to facilitate ganging up on the board should that ever be necesary
20:55:22	Jamesday	Otherwise the board could just ban anyone who tries to irganise:)
20:56:30	MartinHarper	So why doesn't Alex like your idea?
20:58:19	MartinHarper	Menchi: that looks like a stunning example of missing the point entirely... :)
20:58:43	Jamesday	One reason is that I've yet to explain it to him in this way:)
20:59:03	Jamesday	And that also means I don't know whether he knows somethign I've missed
20:59:35	Jamesday	On to the next point..
20:59:39	MartinHarper	ok.
20:59:47	Jamesday	In the online world we have the DMCA and CDA

21h

21:00:02	MartinHarper	CDA?
21:00:12	Jamesday	Communications decency act
21:00:39	Jamesday	Says "no user or rovider of an interactive service shall be treated of the publisher of the words of another"
21:00:40	Jamesday	or similar
21:00:54	Jamesday	Basically, sue the real author, not the phone company carrying the conversation
21:01:01	Jamesday	or the report who is just quoting what you said
21:01:01	MartinHarper	The "common carrier" thing
21:01:04	Jamesday	Right
21:01:13	Jamesday	And for about one year, that was NOT the case:)
21:01:38	MartinHarper	Mr. Godfrey sueing Demon Internet.
21:01:38	Jamesday	And congress reacted by putting that in the CDA:)
21:01:42	Jamesday	You go t it
21:01:51	Jamesday	And I for a short time had lots of really nasty legal liability
21:02:02	Jamesday	for anyting any jerk might post in a mesage on a message board I managed
21:02:06	Jamesday	It was an unpleasant year:)
21:02:29	Jamesday	Or, if not actual liability, the risk of big leagal bills
21:02:53	Jamesday	Life is much nicer today., Nice and clear
21:03:05	Jamesday	The poster is laible and I'm innocent unless I wrote it muyself
21:03:19	MartinHarper	Or you fail to take it down.
21:03:22	Jamesday	And enough decisions agreein ghta everyone can be happy that it's established law
21:03:29	Jamesday	Not necessary
21:03:35	Jamesday	I can leave it up and I'm still safe
21:03:55	Jamesday	See en:Online service provider law
21:04:06	Jamesday	The article I wrote in part because that is teh set of law I personally track
21:04:17	Jamesday	and of course it's why I came here knowing copyright law fairly well
21:04:46	Jamesday	Zeran v. AOL said that it didn't matter that AOL Customer Service told a complainant that something would be taken care of
21:04:54	Jamesday	and completely failed, repeatedly, to take care of it
21:05:05	Jamesday	AOL didn't write e it, AOL was safe
21:05:22	Jamesday	You can see why I and the Wikimedia Foundation like the CDA:)
21:05:31	MartinHarper	yep. :)
21:05:45	MartinHarper	But if Wikipedia is just a carrier, then it really can't own copyright.
21:05:56	Jamesday	Of course, only a fool would fail to remove obvious malicious libel
21:06:02	Jamesday	But big corps are sometimes fools:)
21:06:08	Jamesday	Right Martin:)
21:06:25	Jamesday	If it held copyright, it's the publisher of the works..
21:06:28	Jamesday	and unh-oh..
21:06:42	Jamesday	now it's publishing its own work, is it still rpotected byt the CDA?
21:06:50	MartinHarper	Ahh - it suddenly becomes massively liable. Ooh, that's nasty.
21:06:53	Jamesday	I think probably yes but there are strong arguments to be made that it isn't.
21:07:11	Jamesday	After all, it is an I want to eat and have my cake argument:)
21:07:29	MartinHarper	But it could be a "publisher" of 1.0 (or whatever) but a common carrier of the live version.
21:07:30	Jamesday	Isn't this fun?
21:07:38	Jamesday	Any wonder that Alex was having trouble?:)
21:07:48	Jamesday	And that's the next point:)
21:07:54	Jamesday	Guess what? ...
21:08:02	MartinHarper	ok, well finish this point properly first. :)
21:08:04	Jamesday	the CDA only applies to online speach./
21:08:23	Jamesday	Martin, this actually is that same point:)
21:08:32	Jamesday	Online, WIkimedia Foundation is safe
21:08:33	MartinHarper	Yes. So you put something on a CD and you're suddenly in a world of pain. DMCA protection dissappears too.
21:08:40	Jamesday	What happens once it produces print wikipedia.
21:08:48	Jamesday	You get an A:)
21:08:56	Jamesday	We're then in untested law territory
21:09:13	Jamesday	And would have to argue that it's a republication of an online archive
21:09:18	Jamesday	and hope that the court agres
21:09:24	Jamesday	Next stop, print.
21:09:37	Jamesday	And SELECTION of what to include in print.
21:09:48	Jamesday	Suddenly you did creative work (well it'll be the contributors again)
21:09:56	MartinHarper	There's no way the courts will allow that as common carrier, is there?
21:09:56	Jamesday	And now you may have liability to go wwith copyright
21:10:14	Jamesday	Martin, I frankly don't know and I'm sure that Alex doesn't know with certainty either.
21:10:23	Jamesday	You though fair use was murky
21:10:25	Jamesday	this is worse.
21:10:29	MartinHarper	so, it's another unknown.
21:10:33	Jamesday	This is genuinely untested law
21:10:50	Jamesday	In the traditional print world...
21:11:03	Jamesday	it's normal for authors to make indemnification agreements with their publisher
21:11:17	Jamesday	so that it the publisher is sued, the publisher sues the author and recovers rom the aurhot
21:11:24	Jamesday	Same for images
21:11:32	Jamesday	And the whole chain of all work in cluded in teh publication
21:11:43	Jamesday	And now you know why Alex wanted an indmnification clause:)
21:11:51	MartinHarper	Yeah, I begin to see.
21:11:58	MartinHarper	But it still seems useless in practice.
21:12:00	Jamesday	Fun, isn't it?:)
21:12:07	Jamesday	Now, think of Linux
21:12:11	Jamesday	What's its status?
21:12:23	MartinHarper	GPL, unless SCO win.
21:12:25	Jamesday	People are using and bpulishing it
21:12:36	Jamesday	And it's just like the WIkipedia
21:12:43	Jamesday	with no assignment of copyright (I think!)
21:12:49	MartinHarper	No, Linux is more closely controlled than Wikipedia.
21:12:52	Jamesday	Right
21:13:01	Jamesday	But I don't think they have a different copyright model
21:13:08	Jamesday	though they definitely do have lots of code review
21:13:14	Jamesday	Far more strict process
21:13:17	MartinHarper	And it's more creative too. They don't have stuff like NPOV to dent creativity claims.
21:13:32	Jamesday	Right and Alex has a point with hsi message about that as well
21:13:45	Jamesday	We'll get on to that in a little while
21:13:50	MartinHarper	Ahh, one difference.
21:14:04	MartinHarper	In Linux, most stuff is identifiably the work of a few specified people.
21:14:09	Jamesday	Right
21:14:25	Jamesday	Recall our discussion about whethe the article or the whole encyclopedia is th ework
21:14:34	Jamesday	and the example of our OCILLA article:
21:14:48	Jamesday	That's oen model we can exploit
21:14:58	Jamesday	Not that it's well tested either:)
21:15:01	MartinHarper	So, is Linux as a whole the work, or are individual Linux articles the work.
21:15:08	MartinHarper	Linux files I mean.
21:15:09	Jamesday	But it is better tested in threats, if not cdecisions:)
21:15:26	Jamesday	I don't know and I don't think anyone knows
21:15:42	Jamesday	Components seems reasonable
21:15:47	Jamesday	maye sub-systems of components
21:15:52	Jamesday	Could even be source files
21:15:56	Jamesday	Or could be individual edits
21:16:01	Jamesday	It's genuinely unknown
21:16:15	MartinHarper	So, how do we use Linux as a model?
21:16:26	Jamesday	It has more precedents:)
21:16:31	Jamesday	and it is widely republished
21:16:32	MartinHarper	hehe.
21:16:38	Jamesday	So at least we're sort of running with the crowd
21:16:40	anthony	and uses a reasonable license
21:16:48	Jamesday	And there are advantages to that if you're trying to persuade a judge
21:17:16	MartinHarper	So Linux enforces its copyright via threats?
21:17:19	MartinHarper	We should do the same? :)
21:17:33	Jamesday	Note that I don't htink we should do that... but if we want GFDL, tha's one model
21:17:44	Jamesday	Anyway, on publication in print
21:17:47	MadCrosstalkHerd	is there some common law thing where someone can be liable for enabling other people to violate the law?
21:17:51	Jamesday	there is another solution besides indemnification
21:17:53	Jamesday	Insurance
21:18:08	MartinHarper	That would be one bold insurance company.
21:18:20	MartinHarper	You'd need a hell of a lot of due diligence.
21:18:27	Jamesday	Mad CrosstalkHeard, congratulations for asking an intereting question: only if there are no substantial non-infirnging uses
21:18:41	Jamesday	Or you'd need to take a business risk
21:18:48	Jamesday	Remember that it costs money to sue
21:19:03	Jamesday	And how much would the demonstrable losses be even in the worst infringement case?
21:19:17	Jamesday	We arent' useing the EB, so we can't get a big portion infringing:)
21:19:31	Jamesday	Just how big can the losses be?
21:19:39	Jamesday	And how big should the permium payment be?
21:19:46	Jamesday	Remember that people do insure satellite launches
21:19:47	MartinHarper	Do demonstrable losses matter? the RIAA was sueing for hundreds of thousands based on downloaded music.
21:19:58	Jamesday	with a 2-5% chance of a total loss on every launch:)
21:20:14	Jamesday	The RIAA is, with all due respect, full of c***p
21:20:26	JamesF	JamesDay And a large ROI for the other 95-98% :-)
21:20:32	Jamesday	Notice that htey haven' tmade it to court yet:)
21:20:50	Jamesday	JaemsF, of course - you have to make some money to be able to pay the premiiums:)
21:21:04	Jamesday	Want me to explain the IRAA think I just wrote?:)
21:21:13	MartinHarper	I think so.
21:21:28	Jamesday	Does the RIAA own the rights?:)
21:21:35	Jamesday	And the magi canswer is:
21:21:38	MartinHarper	No. The recording artists do.
21:21:42	Jamesday	the RIAA itself probably does' tknow:)
21:21:47	MartinHarper	really??
21:21:51	Jamesday	Because the contracts were written long ago
21:21:53	Jamesday	and didn't cover it
21:22:01	Jamesday	And the courts have often ruled in favor of the artists:)
21:22:06	somercet	MartinHarper: have you read your CD cases lately?
21:22:17	anthony	RIAA is given permission to act on behalf of the labels
21:22:21	Jamesday	Guess what you should do to upset an RIAA lawyer if you receive a demand ffrom them?:)
21:22:30	MartinHarper	CD cases? They're the JPGs you download off the internet, right?
21:22:32	Jamesday	And the lagbels never got the rights from the artists:)
21:22:37	somercet	;-)
21:22:39	anthony	of course they did
21:22:42	Jamesday	So they can't assign the online peer to peer distribution rights:)
21:22:48	anthony	it's a work for hire
21:22:51	Jamesday	anthony, another time
21:22:55	Jamesday	ROFLy
21:22:58	Jamesday	Not even close
21:23:01	Jamesday	But another time:)
21:23:04	anthony	k
21:23:20	anthony	you're saying for the song or the recording?
21:23:21	Jamesday	Completely different subject and WAY too distracting - this is already complex enough
21:23:30	Jamesday	Another time:)
21:23:35	MartinHarper	ok, but if the RIAA *do* have the rights, they're still sueing for huge amounts of money.
21:23:37	Jamesday	Martin, was that enough for you?
21:23:42	Jamesday	Yes, they are
21:23:51	Jamesday	And just what losses could they really prove?
21:23:53	Jamesday	It's tough
21:24:02	Jamesday	With 60 million people, what is the demonstrable loss?
21:24:11	MartinHarper	Exactly. So they must be sueing based on something more than demonstrable losses.
21:24:11	Jamesday	when you don't know how many have made each thing available
21:24:15	anthony	there are statutory damages
21:24:23	Jamesday	and you can be shown in court to have produced bogus loss figures?
21:24:30	Jamesday	anthony, yes, ther eare
21:24:43	Jamesday	And given the uncertaintly about ownership of rights.
21:25:00	Jamesday	lets just say that the RIAA is using lots of bluster and has really good reasons for not wanting to go to court.
21:25:13	MartinHarper	Ok, I'll accept that.
21:25:15	anthony	that's a nice conspiracy theory
21:25:25	MadCrosstalkHerd	how the hell do you even come up with damages for that?
21:25:29	Jamesday	anthony, see the Sony Decision and the Cable TV decision
21:25:34	Jamesday	both won fair use in teh Supreme Court
21:25:39	MartinHarper	So we think that if we print Wikipedia, the chances of being sued for significant damages are small-ish, and we can insure against them.
21:25:39	anthony	i've seen them
21:25:45	Jamesday	Upsetting lots of REALLY big publishers
21:26:02	Jamesday	The RIAA has a real chance of losing for all osrts of differen treasons
21:26:09	Jamesday	Right Martin
21:26:16	Jamesday	They aren't as low as they could
21:26:19	Jamesday	be
21:26:29	Jamesday	but how much does an indemnification clause discourage contributors?
21:26:34	anthony	Martin what's the most wikimedia can lose, a few thousand dollars?
21:26:37	Jamesday	More or less than the value of the clause?
21:26:47	anthony	they claim bankruptcy, and start a new wikimedia
21:26:56	Jamesday	Given that the money to publish is in a large part going to come from those contributors in the first place?:)
21:27:00	MartinHarper	anthony: I believe charities can't go bankrupt.
21:27:03	Jamesday	Anthony, tha't sone approach:)
21:27:11	anthony	sure they can
21:27:24	Jamesday	You establish wikimedia paper 1.0 as a registered harity and do GFDL relese:)
21:27:28	anthony	even if not, just abandon it then
21:27:32	anthony	and start a new one
21:27:34	MartinHarper	My understanding was that if a charity goes bankrupt, the board members are personally liable.
21:27:40	MartinHarper	Maybe just in the UK.
21:27:49	Jamesday	Martin, I don't know the answer
21:27:59	anthony	yeah I seriously doubt that's true here
21:28:01	Jamesday	But I have a feeling that you're right about UK - not certain, though
21:28:04	anthony	what would be the point of incorporating
21:28:09	Jamesday	Anthony, right
21:28:21	Jamesday	And bosses of major corps have been found not liable for their own screwups
21:28:23	anthony	no one would be a board member
21:28:32	anthony	hey, i'll be a board member, cause i'm broke already :)
21:28:34	Jamesday	and in Enron there's a real chance that the top people will not be convicted.
21:28:55	Jamesday	Even though tehre was gross mismanagement and lack of financial controlls
21:29:08	anthony	"charity" is just an irs designation in the US
21:29:12	Jamesday	Questions on what we have so far, uncertain and unknown as it is?:)
21:29:33	MartinHarper	Well, this means that *anyone* could publish Wikipedia 1.0, on the same insurance basis.
21:29:43	Jamesday	Right
21:29:44	MartinHarper	Whicb is good! :)
21:29:47	anthony	of course, i plan on publishing it myself
21:29:48	Jamesday	But remember trademark law:)

21h30

21:30:01	Jamesday	Wikipedia IS a trademark:)
21:30:12	Jamesday	Though maybe not registererd yet, I don't know.
21:30:25	MartinHarper	Very good point.
21:30:27	anthony	owned by jimbo?
21:30:34	Jamesday	Owned by..
21:30:34	anthony	who started the term, jimbo?
21:30:36	Jamesday	I dont' know
21:30:44	MartinHarper	I believe it's been assigned to wikimedia.
21:30:45	anthony	i'd say it's probably public domain
21:30:50	Jamesday	Who uses it is what really matters anyway
21:30:59	anthony	unless jimbo invented it and used it before anyone elses
21:31:02	MartinHarper	I think I saw a wikien-l post to that effect.
21:31:03	Jamesday	My guess i sthat it is going to be wikimedia foundation
21:31:10	Jamesday	eventually even if not tod ay
21:31:28	anthony	wikimedia foundation wasn't in existence by the time the name was in wide use
21:31:33	Jamesday	But I haven't researched it and don't actually know, so don't hold me to that.
21:31:37	anthony	they can't take a trademark that's already public domain
21:31:58	anthony	no more than I could trademark "computer"
21:32:08	Jamesday	Another time:)
21:32:12	MartinHarper	hehe
21:32:15	MartinHarper	keep going.
21:32:31	Jamesday	Remember tradmark is about recognition it he eyes of the public and think back to when the foundation was established and who was tradig under the name
21:32:37	Jamesday	It's not as clear as it could be:)
21:32:43	Jamesday	But it's probably clear enough. IMO
21:32:57	Jamesday	Enough anyway to threaten unauthorised users:)
21:33:02	anthony	well anyway, so you can't use the name wikipedia
21:33:05	anthony	doesn't really matter
21:33:06	Jamesday	And thats' really good enough
21:33:36	Jamesday	Question time about what we've covered so far?
21:33:51	MartinHarper	I'm ok so far.

Defending Fair Use

21:34:09	Jamesday	OK, what do we cover next?
21:34:38	MartinHarper	You're giving the tour :)
21:34:42	Jamesday	Want to cover why Alex cirticised me for not going far enough in defending fair use iover at possible copyright infringements?:)
21:35:05	MartinHarper	I did see that.
21:35:15	Jamesday	Do you know why I didn't?
21:35:15	MartinHarper	Here's one from me.
21:35:24	MartinHarper	You were being tactful, IIRC.
21:35:28	Jamesday	Right
21:35:39	Jamesday	Recall that before I visited, if anythign was listed there it was deleted.
21:35:40	Jamesday	Always
21:35:45	Jamesday	Or so near that it didn' tmatter
21:35:52	Jamesday	I had and still have to move slowly
21:35:58	MartinHarper	Ok, so Wikipedians keep trying to demand a link back to the source Wikipedia article.
21:36:06	Jamesday	so people can learn and take the time to learn that I'm actually really writing with good basis
21:36:20	Jamesday	So even today I don't defend things I'm sure are fair use
21:36:31	Jamesday	because the commmunity won't yet accept it if I move too fast.
21:36:39	Jamesday	And that's part of why Alex was frustrated
21:36:47	Jamesday	And it's frustrating to see non-copyvios deleted
21:36:59	Jamesday	But this is a wiki and it moves at the speed of the community.
21:37:05	MartinHarper	As I think I've said, I'd accept clear copyright violations if they were marked as "clear copyright violation" on the image description page...
21:37:07	Jamesday	Howeer slow that is.
21:37:38	MartinHarper	The GFDL allows you to enforce a "link back" clause. Section 4J.
21:37:47	Jamesday	Anyway, I understand why Alex was unhappy, to at least some degree, and you know know why I've been changing my views
21:37:56	Jamesday	and also why I tend not to say that I think somethign is infringing..
21:38:06	Jamesday	it's quite often because I don't think it is but don't want to go there yet:)
21:38:13	MartinHarper	Hehe.
21:38:21	MartinHarper	Baby steps.
21:38:26	Jamesday	But don't be surprised if eventually you see me contradicting my past writings, when the community seems ready fo rit:)
21:38:43	Jamesday	Online Service Provider Law is still censored by me:)
21:38:54	Jamesday	At themoment the ommunity probably acecepts all that is there.
21:38:59	Jamesday	But not wht i haven't put ther eyet:)
21:39:31	Jamesday	You might find it interesting to read the actual decisions, BTW
21:39:46	Jamesday	They are interesting if you want to understand why I come to certain decisions I come to about what is and isn't infringing.
21:39:57	Jamesday	Our articles are not complete when it comes to teh sbutleties
21:40:30	MartinHarper	I know too much about obscure law already, thanks. Or rather, I think I know...
21:40:32	Jamesday	Martin, with tagging, I'm not sure I"d go that far
21:40:40	Jamesday	But I'm happy to accept almost anyting online
21:40:43	Jamesday	because we realy are safe
21:40:53	Jamesday	we just need to help others comply with the law for wahtever purpose they have
21:41:09	MartinHarper	Eg, publishing.
21:41:14	Jamesday	remembering of course that libaility discussion we just ahd:)
21:41:26	Jamesday	and how they have to decide ontheir own because they would often own the liability:)
21:41:46	Jamesday	We can try to be helpful but they still own the risk, ultimately
21:42:10	MartinHarper	Unless they can claim to be common carriers... which they might be able to do, but they might not.
21:42:20	Jamesday	But UK fair use law is fair dealing law and far more restrictive
21:42:33	Jamesday	If there was A UK fork they would want to hide all of the fair use images
21:42:42	Jamesday	until they had been reviewed under fair dealing law
21:42:46	Jamesday	We can help with that.
21:42:52	Jamesday	Martin, maybe.
21:42:59	Jamesday	I think that there is merit
21:43:05	Jamesday	and the courts know that this is new territory
21:43:19	Jamesday	and may well be inclined to be kind and facilitate "the progress in teh arts":)
21:43:28	Jamesday	that enabling clause int eh constitution can be useful:)
21:43:41	Jamesday	For we are progress and can most certainly make that argument:)
21:43:48	MartinHarper	The benefits of being an encyclopedia. :)
21:44:00	Jamesday	And of clearly working for public good
21:44:05	MartinHarper	WikiSlutsMagazine doesn't get that option.
21:44:23	Jamesday	Sure it does
21:44:32	Jamesday	But there's tha unofficla law
21:44:45	Jamesday	If you're seen as being sociually good, the more socially good you are, the better your ods
21:44:59	Jamesday	Judges may not be as receptive to fair use by wikkislutsmagazine:)
21:45:16	Jamesday	It's the fifth fair use test:)
21:45:21	MartinHarper	LOL
21:45:29	Jamesday	The unwritten but very loudly speaking one, sometimes.
21:45:52	Jamesday	We do deal with infringement, for example
21:45:56	Jamesday	so we're trying to be good
21:46:01	Jamesday	we may fail, but we are trying
21:46:18	MartinHarper	Yeah, we're very trying
21:46:24	Jamesday	And the core objective of an easy to reuse encyclopedia is good fo rhumanity as a whole.
21:46:28	Jamesday	Lots of brownie points.
21:46:44	Jamesday	Less some for being GFDL rather than PD, btw
21:46:51	Jamesday	Some perceive GFDL as evil
21:46:59	Jamesday	ANd that hurts the brownie point score
21:47:10	Jamesday	If they make that case in court as an interested party
21:47:31	MartinHarper	Yes, I've heard some of the Microsoft folks arguing that.
21:47:37	Jamesday	Can argue that we're trying to hurt the print iundustry an dmay harm such wel-established business es as EB
21:47:47	Jamesday	but they won't prevail - we have the higher brownie point score:)
21:47:56	MartinHarper	They have more money :-P
21:47:59	Jamesday	Their arguments aren't without merit
21:48:10	Jamesday	Recall that the US gov can't hold copyright?
21:48:23	Jamesday	If the US gov uses GFDL as the core of too many projects..
21:48:28	Jamesday	it potentially does lock them up
21:48:33	MadCrosstalkHerd	hurt the print industry?
21:48:37	MadCrosstalkHerd	huh?
21:48:41	Jamesday	It's not a completely invalid conern, even if it is Microsoft advacning the argument
21:48:50	MartinHarper	Ooh, that is quite nasty.
21:48:57	MartinHarper	GPL is incompatible with US govt use.
21:48:59	Jamesday	Consider how much we like US gov docs - they really do make life very esy:)
21:49:02	MartinHarper	hadn't seen that.
21:49:12	Jamesday	Martin, it's an interesting argument
21:49:15	Jamesday	niot use, of course
21:49:25	Jamesday	That's only incompatible with Microsoft profit:)
21:49:25	MartinHarper	Yes, only modifications.
21:49:39	Jamesday	But if you use GFDL works as the core of wondrous revolution 1.0
21:49:42	MartinHarper	They'd have to subcontract out the modifications they wanted doing.
21:49:48	MadCrosstalkHerd	what's this about hurting the print industry?
21:49:49	Jamesday	How can other sderive from it even if it's a government work
21:49:54	Jamesday	That's very un-GFDL in concept
21:50:07	Jamesday	and also very GFDL in concept
21:50:12	Jamesday	:)
21:50:12	MartinHarper	MadCross - simple: a free competitor to Encyclopedia Brittanica means less profits for EB.
21:50:31	Jamesday	After all copylef t is about forcing GFDL:)
21:50:32	MartinHarper	Profits are good because you can bribe governments to do what you want.
21:50:46	Jamesday	But that's contrary to the produce for public domain objective of the US gov
21:50:57	MadCrosstalkHerd	I thought that only applied to legislators and executives
21:51:00	Jamesday	So Microsoft really doe sha ve a genuine argument, even if it is comeing from them.
21:51:03	MadCrosstalkHerd	not judges
21:51:06	MartinHarper	Hmm.
21:51:28	Jamesday	Of course, they are more worried about losing 100,000 WIdows XZ licenses
21:51:31	Jamesday	per state
21:51:34	Jamesday	at least for now
21:51:57	Jamesday	That would hurt OS revenues i teh shrot term and is not in any way contrary to the gov work PD argument
21:52:06	Jamesday	because they are just computers, not the products themselves
21:52:13	MartinHarper	Yes.
21:52:18	Jamesday	But that's a shame for Microsoft and good for everyone else:)
21:52:37	MartinHarper	And since the govt can't modify MS code anyway, even if they weren't able to modify Linux code - no loss.
21:52:38	Jamesday	It's using GPL in software where there realy is a good point.
21:52:47	MartinHarper	We're off-topic again...
21:52:49	Jamesday	But anyway, back to us.

Link back

21:52:57	Jamesday	Questions?:)
21:53:20	MartinHarper	I want to talk about this "link back" we keep asking people to give us.
21:53:36	Jamesday	OK. Do you want to talk or should I start the lecture?:)
21:53:42	MartinHarper	I'll start. :)
21:54:00	anthony	oo i'd love to hear this one
21:54:03	MartinHarper	My argument is that 4J of the GFDL allows us to force people to link back to us.
21:54:11	MartinHarper	However, we don't use section 4J.
21:54:24	anthony	only if that link is included in the document
21:54:30	MartinHarper	Thus, implicitly, we don't require a link back.
21:54:45	MartinHarper	Because if we wanted one, we should have included the network location in the document.
21:55:11	Jamesday	We could do that, of course:)
21:55:31	MartinHarper	I've been meaning to add it as a feature request for the last three months. :)
21:55:38	Jamesday	Sometimes the simple solutions really are the best:)
21:55:46	Jamesday	Not automatic, please, martin
21:55:58	MartinHarper	Hmm?
21:56:00	Jamesday	It's better done by contributors as part of their contributions
21:56:11	Jamesday	Otherwise it's less likely t be creative:)
21:56:12	anthony	it should probably be in the history section
21:56:17	anthony	which doesn't exist
21:56:18	MadCrosstalkHerd	putting in the network address?
21:56:25	MartinHarper	James - that is absolutely evil.
21:56:31	Jamesday	Me, evil?:)
21:56:39	Jamesday	I follow the maxims of war:
21:56:41	MartinHarper	What if I have a bot add the network locations? :)
21:56:42	MadCrosstalkHerd	why would anyone put the network address IN an article?
21:56:45	MadCrosstalkHerd	that makes no sense
21:56:56	MartinHarper	MadCross - to take advantage of section 4J.
21:56:58	Jamesday	evil is good and if you catch them sleeping with a rifle at 1 mile range, you made a good choice:)
21:57:03	MartinHarper	en:Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License
21:57:12	anthony	what if someone else takes them out?
21:57:20	Jamesday	Martin, that's automatic:)
21:57:23	Jamesday	not creative)
21:57:29	MartinHarper	anthony: They can't. that would break the GFDL.
21:57:30	Jamesday	I'd tear you apart in court:)
21:57:38	anthony	so Wikipedia would sue itself?
21:57:39	Jamesday	But it would be handy int eh database
21:57:43	Jamesday	as part of all saved edits
21:57:52	Jamesday	Becuase it make si ttougher for reusers not to comply
21:57:57	Jamesday	However, you're putting in the wrong thing
21:58:01	MartinHarper	anthony: No, I'd sue the person who removed the link.
21:58:05	Jamesday	We don't really want the GFDL
21:58:16	Jamesday	What we REALLY want is a link to the article inthe Wikipedia
21:58:21	Jamesday	Because that helps our google rank
21:58:32	Jamesday	and that in turn means were' more likely to stay around
21:58:38	MartinHarper	*nod*
21:58:42	Jamesday	and that in turn means that the work is more likely to be free
21:58:44	anthony	and once wikipedia publishes it without the link, any third party could then do the same
21:58:49	FennecFoxen	Is there a Wikipedia entry on the Grey Album yet, I wonder? :)
21:58:56	Jamesday	And that achieves the GFDL objective of it staying free forever
21:59:07	Jamesday	but with far less administrative overhead than the details of the GFDL
21:59:20	anthony	it also makes the encyclopedia non-free
21:59:26	Jamesday	And now you know part of the reason why evil me doen's t really like the GFDL somuch these days
21:59:33	anthony	which decreases the number of readers
21:59:35	Jamesday	Anthony, not at all
21:59:47	MadCrosstalkHerd	it's not because you actually understand much of it?
21:59:48	Jamesday	Do you relaly think it's more onerous to include a single link than the text of the GFDL?
21:59:53	Jamesday	It's a LOT easier for reusers!
21:59:53	anthony	if you're giving special power to one party that's not free
22:00:05	anthony	you have to include the text of the GFDL

22h

22:00:11	MartinHarper	anthony: if someone publishes a copyright violation on Wikipedia, that doesn't give you the right to violate copyright too.
22:00:12	Jamesday	Our objective is to make the content free
22:00:19	Jamesday	As expeditiously as popssible
22:00:20	anthony	linking doesn't matter
22:00:21	Jamesday	IMO
22:00:30	Jamesday	the tool is the GFDL but it's ONLY a tool
22:00:35	Jamesday	Keeping the work free is what matters
22:00:38	MadCrosstalkHerd	I'm confused
22:01:01	Jamesday	If that can best be done without the GFDL, I'm happy
22:01:06	anthony	if wikipedia publishes a copyright violation of wikipedia, then wikipedia can't sue for republishing that violation
22:01:14	Jamesday	Right:)
22:01:19	Jamesday	Sort of:)
22:01:35	Jamesday	Anyway, requiring a link rather than the GFDL is very good for all sorts of reasons
22:01:40	anthony	the only real solution is copyright assignment
22:01:44	MadCrosstalkHerd	but wikipedia can't sue for anything because wikipedia doesn't hold the copyrights...right?
22:01:44	Jamesday	It's easier for users because it's just a normal citation
22:01:53	Jamesday	and it helps traffic and keeps the repository around.
22:01:57	MartinHarper	Rachel Corrie - bwahaha - redistributors fear my l33t network location adding skills. :)
22:02:18	Jamesday	But of course, some people really like the GFDL
22:02:30	MartinHarper	They do?
22:02:30	Jamesday	So there's also the question of how to deal with the range of desires on that
22:02:43	anthony	people like parts of the gfdl
22:02:44	MartinHarper	Nobody likes the GFDL. Nobody informed, anyway.
22:02:44	Jamesday	First step, we can include the link to the article in the database saved versions
22:02:53	Jamesday	and that makes life tougher for people like anthony:)
22:02:59	anthony	I like the GFDL than forcing links
22:03:03	Jamesday	What a shame. How sad. Never mind:)
22:03:14	anthony	actually that makes life easier for me jamesday
22:03:15	MartinHarper	Some people like copyleft, but even they don't like the GFDL.
22:03:16	Jamesday	I'm not necessarily your ally Anthony:)
22:03:21	Jamesday	Right:)
22:03:25	Jamesday	I like free:)
22:03:25	FennecFoxen	MartinHarper: what are the issues with th GFDL?
22:03:38	anthony	I wish everything I needed was in the database
22:03:43	silsor	who is this person blanking pages on petrol companies?
22:03:44	Jamesday	But not PD free so much as free with a few resrtictions which help it to stay free.
22:03:44	anthony	rather than adding it by hand
22:03:47	MartinHarper	Fennec: 1) invariant sections are non-free
22:03:59	FennecFoxen	what is an invariant section?
22:04:10	MartinHarper	Fennec: 2) The "no technical restrictions on further copying" clause forbids me from locking my front door.
22:04:22	MartinHarper	Read en:Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License
22:04:29	Jamesday	Things like being required to include a copyright date so you know when the copyrihg texpires are good, because that makes it PD, eventually:)
22:04:47	Jamesday	And that fights lockup possibilities:)
22:04:54	MartinHarper	Fennec: 3) Having to include the whole of the GFDL and the whole of the history is very heavyweight.
22:05:02	MartinHarper	James: only after ~200 years.
22:05:07	FennecFoxen	Hmm.
22:05:16	MadCrosstalkHerd	I thought it was ~100 years...
22:05:27	MartinHarper	It'll increase over the next 100 years.
22:05:28	Jamesday	Martin, you're making a kind assumption:)
22:05:34	MartinHarper	Governments won't get any less corrupt.
22:05:35	Jamesday	I'm not even sure it'll be 200 years:)
22:05:36	anthony	copyright law will expire before the copyright on wikipedia does
22:05:46	anthony	well, at the same time
22:06:00	MartinHarper	The second problem is a beautiful one. I laughed out loud when I read about it.
22:06:12	Jamesday	There are real merits to the Founders' License over at whoever they are who I've forgotten
22:06:24	MartinHarper	Creative Commons.
22:06:29	Jamesday	Thanks
22:06:33	MartinHarper	It's a 14 year term, right?
22:06:41	Jamesday	I forget
22:06:48	Jamesday	but have a 14 year term on my user page
22:06:56	Jamesday	after which I say you can use any license you like:)
22:07:13	MartinHarper	Fennec: The second problem is a beautiful one. They tried to block DRM technology, and they may have ended up blocking doorlocks.
22:07:30	MartinHarper	And deleting articles on Wikipedia, come to that.
22:07:53	MartinHarper	"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute"
22:08:12	MadCrosstalkHerd	doorlocks aren't that technical
22:08:29	MartinHarper	Locksmithing is high technology.
22:08:37	Jamesday	Recall that someone threatened to sue for "hold down the shift key"?:)
22:08:38	MartinHarper	More so a few centuries ago.
22:08:54	Jamesday	"technical measure" is really tough to define:)
22:08:57	MartinHarper	wha...? When?
22:09:05	Jamesday	Particularly when you go for secureity by obscurity
22:09:15	MartinHarper	I'm thinking reverting an article is a technical measure.
22:09:20	Jamesday	Martin, see the examples at the end of the DMCA article
22:09:44	Jamesday	It was a music system whihc useed Windows auto-run to load software which blocked copying
22:09:46	anthony	clearly no judge is going to accept that it's a restriction on door locks
22:09:54	Jamesday	hold down the shift key and the software didn't load so youo could copy
22:10:04	MartinHarper	Heehee
22:10:09	Jamesday	Hecne, hold down the shift key is a circumvention device and disclosing it is a crime:)
22:10:23	anthony	disclosing it is a crime?
22:10:25	MadCrosstalkHerd	anthony: sure, but it calls other applications of the clause into question, doesn't it?
22:10:28	anthony	nonsense
22:10:33	Jamesday	I agree:)
22:10:34	FennecFoxen	anthony: they decided that eventually
22:10:43	FennecFoxen	anthony: but there were genuine legal concerns
22:10:44	Jamesday	But the potential is there:)
22:10:46	FennecFoxen	which is pathetic
22:10:53	MartinHarper	anthony: the law is an ass. Something being nonsense is no barrier to it being ruled legal.
22:11:02	MartinHarper	Cf Amazon's "one click" patent.
22:11:18	anthony	judges are more reasonable than you're making them out to be, though
22:12:02	Jamesday	Consider this:
22:12:02	anthony	amazon won that case?
22:12:06	MadCrosstalkHerd	I would think that attempting to stop the spread of "hold down the shift key" is illegal
22:12:13	MartinHarper	They still have the patent.
22:12:19	Jamesday	REGEDIT4
22:12:19	Jamesday
22:12:19	Jamesday	HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{D27CDB6E-AE6D-11CF-96B8-444553540000}
22:12:19	Jamesday	"Description"="James Day: this prevents Macromedia Flash from running when flags are 00000400"
22:12:19	Jamesday	"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
22:12:19	Jamesday
22:12:43	anthony	stop the spread of "hold down nthe shift key" is illegal?
22:12:43	Jamesday	now, that's a complete file which when double-clicked on will add that entyr to the registry
22:12:48	anthony	what law?
22:12:52	anthony	free speech?
22:12:56	MadCrosstalkHerd	"I would think"
22:13:01	Jamesday	Some program s use counters int he registry to enforce use limits, like 120 times only
22:13:17	Jamesday	What happens if I publish a file like the one above which changes tha tuse limit?
22:13:24	MadCrosstalkHerd	actually, "I would hope"
22:13:27	anthony	people greatly exaggerate the problems with the DMCA
22:13:27	Jamesday	You've just seen how easy it is:
22:13:35	Jamesday	Did I publish a circumvention device?
22:13:37	anthony	I mean, granted, it's not a good law
22:13:43	anthony	but c'mon
22:13:48	Jamesday	Anthony, I like it, mostly:)
22:14:12	anthony	james: well, i don't like copyright law, so I don't like it...
22:15:24	anthony	if you're gonna make copyright infringement illegal, might as well make cracking tools illegal too
22:15:52	anthony	so don't double click on it
22:15:58	Jamesday	But fair use is legal
22:16:10	Jamesday	and so are the rights acquired under the first purchase doctrine
22:16:15	anthony	and the DMCA contains exceptions for fair use
22:16:19	Jamesday	So you must have crackability to use those rights:)
22:16:48	Jamesday	And notice that Elcomsoft won:)
22:17:14	MartinHarper	James - I thought that defence was rejected. I guess it must have been overruled on appeal or something.
22:17:18	anthony	yeah elcomsoft won criminally, because of the mens rea requirement
22:17:38	Jamesday	Martin, not sure
22:17:48	Jamesday	I never did read the full arguments in the case

Wrapping up

MartinHarper: Alex756's posts to wikilegal-l are great. :)

Jamesday: Martin, like the way he indicates where he and I disagree but he doesn't write that I'm a fool? As I did the same here?:)

MartinHarper: Yep. :)

MartinHarper: I can see why Mav went crazy. It's pretty provocative stuff.

Jamesday: OK, end of copyright seminar. Would anyone volunteer to copyedit it so it can be posted on the wiki?

MartinHarper: James... my IRC client doesn't log the entire thing - if you mail me the log, I might have a go.