Comments on: Violating Copyright for the “good of the project” http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/ It's only a website... it's only a website... Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:12:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Gaylene Heidebrink http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-2443 Gaylene Heidebrink Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:00:01 +0000 http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-2443 Good share dude Thanks Good share dude Thanks

]]> By: Anonymous http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1773 Anonymous Sat, 24 May 2008 16:26:46 +0000 http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1773 The only one here with a cavalier attitude towards copyrights is the author. If you choose to make a career out of being a musician, and find yourself penniless the minute your copyrights expire, that is because you cannot manage the money you have already received. I oppose "death + 70 years" copyright terms not because of what I feel creative people deserve, but because I feel any competent person doesn't *need* copyright terms anywhere near that long. The only one here with a cavalier attitude towards copyrights is the author. If you choose to make a career out of being a musician, and find yourself penniless the minute your copyrights expire, that is because you cannot manage the money you have already received. I oppose “death + 70 years” copyright terms not because of what I feel creative people deserve, but because I feel any competent person doesn’t *need* copyright terms anywhere near that long.

]]> By: Kato http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1577 Kato Mon, 04 Feb 2008 06:54:23 +0000 http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1577 See this article in the Register which also deals with Lessing, and the copyright issue http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/01/lessig_free_culture_end/ See this article in the Register which also deals with Lessing, and the copyright issue

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/01/lessig_free_culture_end/

]]> By: RealAardvark http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1563 RealAardvark Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:20:12 +0000 http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1563 Harald K could do with a couple of remedial courses in grammar and critical thinking, respectively. "You ... a ... people ... you ... you ... he?" Who he? I <i>think</i> I understand what this is trying to get at, although to be honest it does make my head hurt. If I'm correct, the penultimate paragraph represents both an ad-hominem and a straw-man attack. Plus mis-representation by exaggeration. FieryAngel merely suggests mistrust of Lessing (Lessig? Must check in Wikipedia), and indeed claims to be reserving further judgement until finishing the book. To equate "does not seem to understand that [Copyright Law] has changed" with "has completely misunderstood" is to mis-represent. FieryAngel is making the case that "This problem is" <i>endemic and fundamental</i> "to Wikipedia." "This problem" may also apply to the current post (though I beg to differ), but I'm afraid this is not reasoning; this is an ad hominem attack. Finally, the straw-man: "this can't be a valid criticism of Wikipedia, because other people do it." (I paraphrase.) Well, yes it can. And, in general, no they don't. And, where they do, they generally don't get so much uncritical admiration as does Wikipedia, which makes them less dangerous. Your point about Copyright Law is well-taken, though. Internationally, and even over time, it's a mess. This is sort of because of the "Law" thing; although I'd personally take the "mess" over piracy. (Particularly given FieryAngel's suggested options of requesting fair use or specific rights.) Harald K could do with a couple of remedial courses in grammar and critical thinking, respectively. “You … a … people … you … you … he?”

Who he?

I think I understand what this is trying to get at, although to be honest it does make my head hurt. If I’m correct, the penultimate paragraph represents both an ad-hominem and a straw-man attack. Plus mis-representation by exaggeration.

FieryAngel merely suggests mistrust of Lessing (Lessig? Must check in Wikipedia), and indeed claims to be reserving further judgement until finishing the book. To equate “does not seem to understand that [Copyright Law] has changed” with “has completely misunderstood” is to mis-represent.

FieryAngel is making the case that “This problem is” endemic and fundamental “to Wikipedia.” “This problem” may also apply to the current post (though I beg to differ), but I’m afraid this is not reasoning; this is an ad hominem attack.

Finally, the straw-man: “this can’t be a valid criticism of Wikipedia, because other people do it.” (I paraphrase.)

Well, yes it can. And, in general, no they don’t. And, where they do, they generally don’t get so much uncritical admiration as does Wikipedia, which makes them less dangerous.

Your point about Copyright Law is well-taken, though. Internationally, and even over time, it’s a mess. This is sort of because of the “Law” thing; although I’d personally take the “mess” over piracy. (Particularly given FieryAngel’s suggested options of requesting fair use or specific rights.)

]]> By: Harald K http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1560 Harald K Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:18:23 +0000 http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1560 Mark apparently feels the need to go insult instead of argue, and has not understood. Respecting law is well and good, but guess what, there isn't one copyright law. All independent countries have their own, and there's nothing stopping them from going far beyond any international conventions in asserting ownership. That wikipedia runs afoul of national laws doing ugly things like retroactively removing a work from public domain, is quite forgivable and understandable. I also cannot understand the Fieryangel's analysis of the comments to his article. They brought up many of the important points, and I thought you made your case exceptionally poorly ("You're drinking the Kool-Aid, obviously"). Let's look at another valid criticism of wikipedia: Because of anonymity, arrogance, condescension and good writing skills are all you need to set up yourself as an authority. You could for instance say that a highly respected law professor has completely misunderstood copyright law, without backing it up in the slightest, and if people otherwise like you (because they agree with you on other issues, for instance), he'll get away with it. This problem is not exclusive to Wikipedia, to put it like that. Mark apparently feels the need to go insult instead of argue, and has not understood. Respecting law is well and good, but guess what, there isn’t one copyright law. All independent countries have their own, and there’s nothing stopping them from going far beyond any international conventions in asserting ownership. That wikipedia runs afoul of national laws doing ugly things like retroactively removing a work from public domain, is quite forgivable and understandable.

I also cannot understand the Fieryangel’s analysis of the comments to his article. They brought up many of the important points, and I thought you made your case exceptionally poorly (”You’re drinking the Kool-Aid, obviously”).

Let’s look at another valid criticism of wikipedia: Because of anonymity, arrogance, condescension and good writing skills are all you need to set up yourself as an authority.

You could for instance say that a highly respected law professor has completely misunderstood copyright law, without backing it up in the slightest, and if people otherwise like you (because they agree with you on other issues, for instance), he’ll get away with it.

This problem is not exclusive to Wikipedia, to put it like that.

]]> By: The Fieryangel http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1510 The Fieryangel Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:02:52 +0000 http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1510 Harald K. If you knew anything about copyright law, you would realize that Lessig is completely wrong in his analysis of it, and that's why he lost the Eldrig case 7-0. The main issue that many participants on the Wikipedia Review forum had in this discussion here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15028&st=0 was that the people who write these licenses are giving themselves rights which should only be exercised by the creators, to which they are absolutely not justified. So, think again, my friend. Harald K.

If you knew anything about copyright law, you would realize that Lessig is completely wrong in his analysis of it, and that’s why he lost the Eldrig case 7-0.

The main issue that many participants on the Wikipedia Review forum had in this discussion here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15028&st=0 was that the people who write these licenses are giving themselves rights which should only be exercised by the creators, to which they are absolutely not justified.

So, think again, my friend.

]]> By: Mark http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1505 Mark Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:30:21 +0000 http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1505 Hey Harald K, way to miss the point of the entire article. It is not anti-sharing, rather it is about the cavalier attitude some of these people have in regard to Copyright Law. To most people the word law implies that certain behaviors are illegal and certain behaviors are not. Evidently you lack the mental facilities required to draw such inferences. Touchy-feely notions about how we all live in one big global community do not provide adequate justification (or any justification for that matter) for the theft of someone else's intellectual property. When a group of people is stealing from someone else, in violation of the law, then it seems that the whole "culture of sharing which it is supposed to be based on" is indeed a problem, contrary to what you try ( I am being generous) to assert. As for your life +500 years "argument", why not just make it a gazillion years. It makes about as much sense as what you wrote. Hey Harald K, way to miss the point of the entire article. It is not anti-sharing, rather it is about the cavalier attitude some of these people have in regard to Copyright Law. To most people the word law implies that certain behaviors are illegal and certain behaviors are not. Evidently you lack the mental facilities required to draw such inferences.
Touchy-feely notions about how we all live in one big global community do not provide adequate justification (or any justification for that matter) for the theft of someone else’s intellectual property. When a group of people is stealing from someone else, in violation of the law, then it seems that the whole “culture of sharing which it is supposed to be
based on” is indeed a problem, contrary to what you try ( I am being generous) to assert.

As for your life +500 years “argument”, why not just make it a gazillion years. It makes about as much sense as what you wrote.

]]> By: Harald K http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1488 Harald K Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:16:59 +0000 http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/#comment-1488 Aren't there enough legitimate complaints about wikipedia, that you have to dig up such anti-sharing vitriol? For all his confidence and condescension, "FieryAngel" has obviously not thought as much and critically about copyright law as Prof. Lessig. A file that was in public domain in Russia is suddenly retroactively removed from it is part of the story. But he's too busy hating to see how problematic this is. If the descendants of the Grimm brothers moved to the Cayman Islands, lobbied through a "life of author + 500 years" copyright law, would it then be OK to force Project Gutenberg to take it down? Yes, and it would be fair and just, if you believe FieryAngel. There are legitimate reasons to dislike wikipedia, namely that it's a quiltwork of petty kings, being (ab)used rather cynically to further the economic interests of an unscrupulous objectivist, that it values user's anonymity over accountability, that the "process" is devoid of meaningful checks and balances, and more. The culture of sharing which it is supposed to be based on, however, is not a problem, even though it's somewhat opposed to the "ideas as property" notion. It's not self-evident that the principles of property should be applied to any and all information a person should produce, in fact there are very good arguments against it. If FieryAngel reads through Lessig's book, he might find a few of them, although if he insists on reading it as a certain person reads the Bible, it's a waste of time. Aren’t there enough legitimate complaints about wikipedia, that you have to dig up such anti-sharing vitriol?

For all his confidence and condescension, “FieryAngel” has obviously not thought as much and critically about copyright law as Prof. Lessig.

A file that was in public domain in Russia is suddenly retroactively removed from it is part of the story. But he’s too busy hating to see how problematic this is.

If the descendants of the Grimm brothers moved to the Cayman Islands, lobbied through a “life of author + 500 years” copyright law, would it then be OK to force Project Gutenberg to take it down? Yes, and it would be fair and just, if you believe FieryAngel.

There are legitimate reasons to dislike wikipedia, namely that it’s a quiltwork of petty kings, being (ab)used rather cynically to further the economic interests of an unscrupulous objectivist, that it values user’s anonymity over accountability, that the “process” is devoid of meaningful checks and balances, and more.

The culture of sharing which it is supposed to be based on, however, is not a problem, even though it’s somewhat opposed to the “ideas as property” notion. It’s not self-evident that the principles of property should be applied to any and all information a person should produce, in fact there are very good arguments against it. If FieryAngel reads through Lessig’s book, he might find a few of them, although if he insists on reading it as a certain person reads the Bible, it’s a waste of time.

]]>