Rachel speaks:, Embarassing details about life dating Jimbo Options

[Milton Roe]

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

What happens when one person prints an emailed conversation between two people? Hard to say. The states vary on the legality of voice-recording (in some states only one person has to know it's being done, in others, two). At the fed level, I think it would come down to the SCA, if the communication was over the phone lines, which it certainly would be in most cases.

[GlassBeadGame]

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

What happens when one person prints an emailed conversation between two people? Hard to say. The states vary on the legality of voice-recording (in some states only one person has to know it's being done, in others, two). At the fed level, I think it would come down to the SCA, if the communication was over the phone lines, which it certainly would be in most cases.

No it's not. Mere conversation is not property. Asking your girlfriend for a blowjob is not a creative work. Just like Freud saw everything as sex some people see everything as property.

[Kelly Martin]

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

Only if the material so recorded embodies something which can be the subject of a copyright. If there's no creative content, there's no copyright.

[Milton Roe]

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

What happens when one person prints an emailed conversation between two people? Hard to say. The states vary on the legality of voice-recording (in some states only one person has to know it's being done, in others, two). At the fed level, I think it would come down to the SCA, if the communication was over the phone lines, which it certainly would be in most cases.

No it's not. Mere conversation is not property. Asking your girlfriend for a blowjob is not a creative work. Just like Freud saw everything as sex some people see everything as property.

Voice conversation is not property, but as soon as any conversation is recorded in a fixed medium (such as an exchange of paper letters, or even in a tape recording), it is automatically copyrighted under US law, and then it IS property (the physical letters and tapes are property of the ordinary kind, and their content is intellectual property of the same kind as a novel or essay). Such stuff doesn't have to be judged to be "creative."

Which is good, or else the copyright laws would have to somehow attempt to define "creativity." And, except for my own stuff , that would cause a lot of difficulty, because some nameless people's letters, and other communications committed to media while being sent, are hackneyed and boring as hell. Imagine the courts having to decide IF they were creative enough to be copyrightable.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

Only if the material so recorded embodies something which can be the subject of a copyright. If there's no creative content, there's no copyright.

I recommend perusal of the WP article on copyright.

[GlassBeadGame]

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

What happens when one person prints an emailed conversation between two people? Hard to say. The states vary on the legality of voice-recording (in some states only one person has to know it's being done, in others, two). At the fed level, I think it would come down to the SCA, if the communication was over the phone lines, which it certainly would be in most cases.

No it's not. Mere conversation is not property. Asking your girlfriend for a blowjob is not a creative work. Just like Freud saw everything as sex some people see everything as property.

Voice conversation is not property, but as soon as any conversation is recorded in a fixed medium (such as an exchange of paper letters, or even in a tape recording), it is automatically copyrighted under US law, and then it IS property (the physical letters and tapes are property of the ordinary kind, and their content is intellectual property of the same kind as a novel or essay). Such stuff doesn't have to be judged to be "creative."

Which is good, or else the copyright laws would have to somehow attempt to define "creativity." And, except for my own stuff , that would cause a lot of difficulty, because some nameless people's letters, and other communications committed to media while being sent, are hackneyed and boring as hell. Imagine the courts having to decide IF they were creative enough to be copyrightable.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

Only if the material so recorded embodies something which can be the subject of a copyright. If there's no creative content, there's no copyright.

I recommend perusal of the WP article on copyright.

Perhaps your problem is you have pursued the article. If you are talking about 18 USC 2701 it does not create nor define property at all. It addresses privacy, not property. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Milton Roe]

Next mafia bosses will say wiretaps or at least text messages are copyvios, too. Everything that is imputed on a keyboard is not a creative work.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

What happens when one person prints an emailed conversation between two people? Hard to say. The states vary on the legality of voice-recording (in some states only one person has to know it's being done, in others, two). At the fed level, I think it would come down to the SCA, if the communication was over the phone lines, which it certainly would be in most cases.

No it's not. Mere conversation is not property. Asking your girlfriend for a blowjob is not a creative work. Just like Freud saw everything as sex some people see everything as property.

Voice conversation is not property, but as soon as any conversation is recorded in a fixed medium (such as an exchange of paper letters, or even in a tape recording), it is automatically copyrighted under US law, and then it IS property (the physical letters and tapes are property of the ordinary kind, and their content is intellectual property of the same kind as a novel or essay). Such stuff doesn't have to be judged to be "creative."

Which is good, or else the copyright laws would have to somehow attempt to define "creativity." And, except for my own stuff , that would cause a lot of difficulty, because some nameless people's letters, and other communications committed to media while being sent, are hackneyed and boring as hell. Imagine the courts having to decide IF they were creative enough to be copyrightable.

Actually it is. In the US, it is copyrighted the moment it is recorded by a medium like your hard disk. Reproducing it without permission exposes you to liability, unless you can show fair use. And in the U.S., printing somebody's email would probably violate the stored communications act (SCA), except for materials specifically named in a warrant.

Only if the material so recorded embodies something which can be the subject of a copyright. If there's no creative content, there's no copyright.

I recommend perusal of the WP article on copyright.

Perhaps your problem is you have pursued the article. If you are talking about 18 USC 2701 it does not create nor define property at all. It addresses privacy, not property. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Please look above. I'm not the person claiming that SCA only applies to material which "embodies something that can be the subject of a copyright". The two laws (copyright law and privacy law) have essentially nothing to do with each other.

In the US, there are essentially no barriers to need for "creativity" of copyright material which aren't routinely met by any "ordinary" communication, like a piece of mail. However banal. Perhaps the binary message of two lanterns in the Old North Church steeple, vs. one, would not make the definition, but any communication more complex, so long as it was recorded on a medium, would do it.

This has been tested. I wanted to publish "My Letters From J.D. Salinger: Boring as Hell". But I couldn't get legal liability insurance, so there they sit.

[Kelly Martin]

I recommend perusal of the WP article on copyright.

I'd rather rely on my instruction in media law and intellectual property from back when I was in law school, combined with my own perusal of Title 17 of the United States Code, assorted rulings of assorted courts, the various treaties, Nimmer, and assorted other expert sources. A Wikipedia article (written, no doubt, by someone who learned "copywrite" law from either a business law textbook or one of those "guides to copyright for the author") isn't even worth looking at, in comparison.

The SCA has nothing to do with copyright law; it places privacy burdens on internet service providers. I don't think the SCA would apply to someone who is not an internet service provider, however, although I haven't read the full statute.

[Cla68]

It looks like certain forms of human knowledge are not allowed on Wikipedia.

Sharing this particular type of human knowledge is also a blockable offense, even if you've been an editor since March 2006, with thousands of edits.

That edit remained almost 14 hours before SV, perhaps after reading about it here, went and reverted it. The article was even semi-protected at the time. I wonder how anyone can still claim that the current system adequately protects BLPs?

[thekohser]

I already strongly support the introduction of Flagged Revs to the English Wikipedia as soon as possible. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[CharlotteWebb]

*yawn* I heartily endorse this product or event. Ok, cut… --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[thekohser]

*yawn* I heartily endorse this product or event. Ok, cut… --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for capturing what I was getting at, in a comedic way, Charlotte. Well done.

I was thinking of adding "What more do you trolls want from me?", but your approach was more vivid.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 3rd November 2009, 4:43pm

[Milton Roe]

No it's not. Mere conversation is not property. Asking your girlfriend for a blowjob is not a creative work.

Which only proves you don't know my girlfriend.

[Happy drinker]

And I strongly suspect it was a copyvio.

How so, if Rachel released it publicly, and it was her conversation, too?

If I produce something clever and original, and someone else intersperses it with their material, I still own the copyright to what I did. If the other party chooses to put their part into the public domain, that's their business, but they cannot include my work with theirs unless I agree.

Or don't you think Jimbo can say clever, original things?

Or considering where I'm writing, maybe I shouldn't have said that!

Sharing this particular type of human knowledge is also a blockable offense, even if you've been an editor since March 2006, with thousands of edits.

I still don't understand people's idea of a BLP policy. So it's all right to put in anything you like into a BLP, whether or not it's harmful to the BLP subject, and (now I come to think of it) with no proof it's genuine?

[Milton Roe]

I still don't understand people's idea of a BLP policy. So it's all right to put in anything you like into a BLP, whether or not it's harmful to the BLP subject, and (now I come to think of it) with no proof it's genuine?

That is the present WP BLP policy, yes. See, for example, Mel Gibson DUI incident. California has actually since criminalized the sale of such info about celebrities. However, this sort of thing does not apply to WP itself, else there would would be a long and similar article about Carolyn Doran's DUI arrests and use of WMF credit card to get out of jail (she had a BLP before all that happened, now deleted by WMF lackeys). And similar embarassing information would be printed about Jimbo Wales, who, after all, was not just having a sex-chat, but one related to him getting a WP BLP "fixed" for some semi-notable female he was, erm, more or less in bed with.

[Somey]

I still don't understand people's idea of a BLP policy. So it's all right to put in anything you like into a BLP, whether or not it's harmful to the BLP subject, and (now I come to think of it) with no proof it's genuine?

The thing you have to recognize (though I think it's clear that you won't) is that there's something fundamentally unfair about a publication that gives everyone in the world some degree of control over content about a living subject, with near-complete anonymity no less, but denies any degree of control to the subject, the one most affected. The current policy would be much closer to being adequate if one or both of those imbalances were addressed, particularly the latter. In fact, if the latter imbalance is addressed, the current policy might even be excessive, even though it does currently allow for the kind of irresponsible editing you describe.

To some extent, the current policy recognizes that living individuals should have some right not to be publicly pilloried by anonymous online goons in the absence of, as you say, "proof"; that is to say, it does allow for the removal of unsourced negative material. However, it doesn't address the fundamental unfairness of Wikipedia's having many of these articles in the first place, in cases of so-called "marginal notability" and the subject's desire for privacy. Until it does, the BLP policy is mostly window-dressing - though I'll admit that even window-dressing helps in some cases, or is at least better than nothing.

This is putting aside the fact that any relevance to actual BLP issues goes out the window when we're dealing with the Jimmy Wales (T-H-L-K-D) article, for reasons that should be obvious.

[thekohser]

I still don't understand people's idea of a BLP policy. So it's all right to put in anything you like into a BLP, whether or not it's harmful to the BLP subject, and (now I come to think of it) with no proof it's genuine?

I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, Drinker, but I'll oblige.

My idea of "a BLP policy" is to start with a Board of Trustees that includes accomplished luminaries from the real world of reference publishing and knowledge management. From there, I would hope that similarly credentialed WMF staff would follow. And from this foundation (small "f") would soon emanate a set of BLP policies that are ethical, responsible, adept, and adroit.

It's not really our responsibility to come up with "a BLP policy" if the very management and caretaker team of Wikipedia are so unfamiliar with the concept of ethical accountability.

[MZMcBride]

Does Wikipedia Review have a policy (or guideline) regarding reviving ancient threads? (I realize there are no rules regarding being off-topic.)

[GlassBeadGame]

Does Wikipedia Review have a policy (or guideline) regarding reviving ancient threads? (I realize there are no rules regarding being off-topic.)

No, not an outright rule, but this is mostly because it is fun to say "thread necromancy" in the course of discouraging the practice.

[thekohser]

Does Wikipedia Review have a policy (or guideline) regarding reviving ancient threads? (I realize there are no rules regarding being off-topic.)

No, not an outright rule, but this is mostly because it is fun to say "thread necromancy" in the course of discouraging the practice.

Sorry, but I thought "Why start a new thread when this one says, 'Embarassing (sic) details about life dating Jimbo'"?

Which is exactly the subject matter of the recent editing dispute.

[GlassBeadGame]

Does Wikipedia Review have a policy (or guideline) regarding reviving ancient threads? (I realize there are no rules regarding being off-topic.)

No, not an outright rule, but this is mostly because it is fun to say "thread necromancy" in the course of discouraging the practice.

Sorry, but I thought "Why start a new thread when this one says, 'Embarassing (sic) details about life dating Jimbo'"?

Which is exactly the subject matter of the recent editing dispute.

I never had any problem with your revisiting this thread. I just like to say "thread necromancy," really.