The myth of reference sources Options

[thekohser]

Sure, I have no idea how copyright works in every one of the world's 192 countries, each with its own separate copyright laws. But I do have some idea of the fact that laws of Florida, for example, cannot be imposed legitimately on the rest of the world. Not even the American Wikipedia can pull that off.

Do you even realize that most of Wikipedia was constructed on a GFDL license, not the Creative Commons license? It sounds like you're not even aware of that fact.

Regardless, for those of us who have no clue what point you are trying to make, could you BRIEFLY explain how copyright laws play into the success and/or survival of Wikipedia? In other words, what exactly are you trying to postulate, but having thus far done such a poor job of doing?

[Milton Roe]

Sure, I have no idea how copyright works in every one of the world's 192 countries, each with its own separate copyright laws. But I do have some idea of the fact that laws of Florida, for example, cannot be imposed legitimately on the rest of the world. Not even the American Wikipedia can pull that off.

The laws of Florida have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is extended by law in the US by federal code, specifically the Copyright Act of 1976. The states cannot add or subtract from federal code, which supercedes all state and local laws when it comes to intellectual property (per the constitution, which makes copyright and patent federal issues).

About all the states can do is add statues that complement code. For example, those that implement antipiracy laws, like making videorecorders illegal in movie theaters. However, film piracy methods are not really copyright issues per se, but rather have to do with the technical details (the videocam things are sort of like "paraphenalia laws").

So, what the devil are you talking about?

[melloden]

Sure, I have no idea how copyright works in every one of the world's 192 countries, each with its own separate copyright laws. But I do have some idea of the fact that laws of Florida, for example, cannot be imposed legitimately on the rest of the world. Not even the American Wikipedia can pull that off.

The laws of Florida have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is extended in the US by federal code, specifically the Copyright Act of 1976. The states cannot add or subtract from federal code, which supercedes all state and local laws when it come to intellectual property (per the constitution, which makes copyright and patent federal issues).

About all the states can do is add statues which complement code. Like those that implement antipiracy laws, like making videorecorders illegal in movie theaters. However, film piracy methods are not really copyright issues per se, but rather have to do with the technical details (the videocam things are sort of like "paraphenalia laws)."

So, what the devil are you talking about?

Has communicat made one good point in this thread yet?

[EricBarbour]

You guys wanna see a massive pile of possible trademark violations by the WMF?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:With_trademark

[communicat]

Sure, I have no idea how copyright works in every one of the world's 192 countries, each with its own separate copyright laws. But I do have some idea of the fact that laws of Florida, for example, cannot be imposed legitimately on the rest of the world. Not even the American Wikipedia can pull that off.

Do you even realize that most of Wikipedia was constructed on a GFDL license, not the Creative Commons license? It sounds like you're not even aware of that fact.

Regardless, for those of us who have no clue what point you are trying to make, could you BRIEFLY explain how copyright laws play into the success and/or survival of Wikipedia? In other words, what exactly are you trying to postulate, but having thus far done such a poor job of doing?

You may have noticed the topic here is titled The myth of reference sources. My original posting of 16 Aug 9.34 proposed: "You might find that the CC visual images influence text content credibility as much as or maybe even more so than the reference citations." What I was and still am postulating is: there are numerous significant but completely unsourced WP articles that seem to derive "credibility" only through the use of convincing images. My further postulation is that WP would not have the mass appeal it currently enjoys were it not for the free-use system of CC lisencing. Nobody here has actually commented on this, as reasonably postulated. Instead, topic drift quickly established itself.

I made the mistake only of mentioning, (only in passing), some associated, perceived legal copyright implications, which regretably had an effect of muddying the waters. My apologies. Copyright is a very complex and convoluted subject that probably merits a separate topic of its own; nor does the subject lend itself to precis writing. One thing's for sure though: Jimbo's expensive lawyers and their energetic interactions with Free Software Foundation would certainly have sewn up the free-use package very securely; and without it WP would probably not have become a "success". End of story. Hopefully.

This post has been edited by communicat: Fri 19th August 2011, 3:04pm

[thekohser]

You may have noticed the topic here is titled The myth of reference sources. My original posting of 16 Aug 9.34 proposed: "You might find that the CC visual images influence text content credibility as much as or maybe even more so than the reference citations." What I was and still am postulating is: there are numerous significant but completely unsourced WP articles that seem to derive "credibility" only through the use of convincing images. My further postulation is that WP would not have the mass appeal it currently enjoys were it not for the free-use system of CC lisencing. Nobody here has actually commented on this, as reasonably postulated. Instead, topic drift quickly established itself.

I made the mistake only of mentioning, (only in passing), some associated, perceived legal copyright implications, which regretably had an effect of muddying the waters. My apologies. Copyright is a very complex and convoluted subject that probably merits a separate topic of its own; nor does the subject lend itself to precis writing. One thing's for sure though: Jimbo's expensive lawyers and their energetic interactions with Free Software Foundation would certainly have sewn up the free-use package very securely; and without it WP would probably not have become a "success". End of story. Hopefully.

The thread went off track when you made those hare-brained comments about the exclusive nature of Florida laws, which were just simply untrue and unsubstantiated. Setting that aside, I nicely agree with much of the dual-edged point you were trying to make. I think photographs, charts, and diagrams do lend a subconscious credibility to encyclopedia-like text content. I also agree that the mass appeal of Wikipedia has been thanks in substantial part to its free-licensing policies. I'm glad we could get back on track so cordially. I'm sorry for the names I called you; but, please don't embellish your comments in the future with incorrect conjecture, especially about legal matters.

[communicat]

You may have noticed the topic here is titled The myth of reference sources. My original posting of 16 Aug 9.34 proposed: "You might find that the CC visual images influence text content credibility as much as or maybe even more so than the reference citations." What I was and still am postulating is: there are numerous significant but completely unsourced WP articles that seem to derive "credibility" only through the use of convincing images. My further postulation is that WP would not have the mass appeal it currently enjoys were it not for the free-use system of CC lisencing. Nobody here has actually commented on this, as reasonably postulated. Instead, topic drift quickly established itself.

I made the mistake only of mentioning, (only in passing), some associated, perceived legal copyright implications, which regretably had an effect of muddying the waters. My apologies. Copyright is a very complex and convoluted subject that probably merits a separate topic of its own; nor does the subject lend itself to precis writing. One thing's for sure though: Jimbo's expensive lawyers and their energetic interactions with Free Software Foundation would certainly have sewn up the free-use package very securely; and without it WP would probably not have become a "success". End of story. Hopefully.

The thread went off track when you made those hare-brained comments about the exclusive nature of Florida laws, which were just simply untrue and unsubstantiated. Setting that aside, I nicely agree with much of the dual-edged point you were trying to make. I think photographs, charts, and diagrams do lend a subconscious credibility to encyclopedia-like text content. I also agree that the mass appeal of Wikipedia has been thanks in substantial part to its free-licensing policies. I'm glad we could get back on track so cordially. I'm sorry for the names I called you; but, please don't embellish your comments in the future with incorrect conjecture, especially about legal matters.

Forgive the topic drift, but it would still be helpful to know where WP/WMF assets are located outside of Florida, just in case I or anyone else here is ever presented with the conjectural opportunity to sue WP/WMF outside of Florida.

[communicat]

Sure, I have no idea how copyright works in every one of the world's 192 countries, each with its own separate copyright laws. But I do have some idea of the fact that laws of Florida, for example, cannot be imposed legitimately on the rest of the world. Not even the American Wikipedia can pull that off.

The laws of Florida have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is extended by law in the US by federal code, specifically the Copyright Act of 1976. The states cannot add or subtract from federal code, which supercedes all state and local laws when it comes to intellectual property (per the constitution, which makes copyright and patent federal issues).

About all the states can do is add statues that complement code. For example, those that implement antipiracy laws, like making videorecorders illegal in movie theaters. However, film piracy methods are not really copyright issues per se, but rather have to do with the technical details (the videocam things are sort of like "paraphenalia laws").

So, what the devil are you talking about?

My confusion arose basically from the wikipedia entry on wikipedia, which states that content in WP is governed by laws of Florida, "especially copyright law". The entry then goes into a spiel about CC-BY-SA, leading the casual reader to believe the two things are closely interwoven. Serves me right for relying on WP for edification. Thanks to those in this thread who've now clarified the issue for me, to some extent at any rate.

[thekohser]

My confusion arose basically from the wikipedia entry on ...

I think we just learned quite a lot about you, "communicat".

[KD Tries Again]

Copyright is a very complex and convoluted subject that probably merits a separate topic of its own; nor does the subject lend itself to precis writing.

I don't know, I thought Milton did a pretty good job above. Copyright 101 is pretty easy.