Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Brian J Mingus
[0] is the addition of an abstract from the journal Nature [1]. It was in
the encyclopedia for four months until I accidentally found it. I was told
in IRC that the procedure for this situation is to simply remove the change
from the current revision of the article, because it is technically
difficult to permanently remove things from the database. This seems
incredibly problematic to me. From a legal perspective, I don't see any
difference in viewing an old version of an article which contains a
copyright violation, and that copyright violation still being in the current
version. There is some effort to hide old revisions from search engines, but
the violation still exists on the Internet, and the copyright owner's rights
are still being violated.

Please note that I have no special interest in this text. I thought it was
common sense that blatant violations like this would be deleted from the
database, and so am very surprised at the lackadaisical attitude I have
encountered. This seems like a tremendous legal risk, and there must be some
technical solution for easily removing old revisions from the database,
especially in cases like this where the text remained essentially unchanged.

After I asked for more information about the procedure for deleting text
like this from the database, I was told to nominate the article for deletion
so that it could be rewritten without the copyright violation. The community
solution was to remove the text from the current revision and speedy keep
the article. This does nothing to protect the rights of the journal Nature,
and if the community is going to be left in charge of handling copyright
violations, they should be empowered with tools for permanently removing
that text.

I hope someone here can tell me about all the aspects of this situation of
which I am unaware in addition to the actual legal perspective.

/Brian Mingus
User:Alterego

[0]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_brain_stimulation&diff=prev&oldid=123233977
[1]
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/1301408a.html;jsessionid=0016FB4E9E6717DAC69AFF2B4D72EC5F
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

geni
On 8/12/07, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Please note that I have no special interest in this text. I thought it was
> common sense that blatant violations like this would be deleted from the
> database, and so am very surprised at the lackadaisical attitude I have
> encountered.

It is possible to delete back to a version that existed before the
text was added.

>This seems like a tremendous legal risk,

DMCA safe harbour.

> and there must be some
> technical solution for easily removing old revisions from the database,
> especially in cases like this where the text remained essentially unchanged.

It is posible but not easy on articles with large revision histories.
Deep brain stimulation has a little over 250 so it would be doable.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/

> In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, an OSP must:
>
>    - have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, the infringing
>    activity
>    - provide proper notification of its policies to its subscribers
>    - set up an agent to deal with copyright complaints
>
> Reverting a copyright violation seems to violate the first point.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Anthony-73
On 8/12/07, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:

> http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/
>
> > In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, an OSP must:
> >
> >    - have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, the infringing
> >    activity
> >    - provide proper notification of its policies to its subscribers
> >    - set up an agent to deal with copyright complaints
> >
> > Reverting a copyright violation seems to violate the first point.

Only if you have actual knowledge that the version is indeed a
copyright violation, which would require at the very least knowing
that the material is copyrighted, knowing that it is being used
without permission, and knowing that it is not fair use.

<blockquote>Actual knowledge is not an opinion about infringement i.e.
"I think this is infringing" or "this is copied from another site,
therefore it is infringing".</blockquote> - [[OCILLA]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
Brian wrote:

> [0] is the addition of an abstract from the journal Nature [1]. It was in
> the encyclopedia for four months until I accidentally found it. I was told
> in IRC that the procedure for this situation is to simply remove the change
> from the current revision of the article, because it is technically
> difficult to permanently remove things from the database. This seems
> incredibly problematic to me. From a legal perspective, I don't see any
> difference in viewing an old version of an article which contains a
> copyright violation, and that copyright violation still being in the current
> version. There is some effort to hide old revisions from search engines, but
> the violation still exists on the Internet, and the copyright owner's rights
> are still being violated.
>
> Please note that I have no special interest in this text. I thought it was
> common sense that blatant violations like this would be deleted from the
> database, and so am very surprised at the lackadaisical attitude I have
> encountered. This seems like a tremendous legal risk, and there must be some
> technical solution for easily removing old revisions from the database,
> especially in cases like this where the text remained essentially unchanged.
>
> After I asked for more information about the procedure for deleting text
> like this from the database, I was told to nominate the article for deletion
> so that it could be rewritten without the copyright violation. The community
> solution was to remove the text from the current revision and speedy keep
> the article. This does nothing to protect the rights of the journal Nature,
> and if the community is going to be left in charge of handling copyright
> violations, they should be empowered with tools for permanently removing
> that text.
>
> I hope someone here can tell me about all the aspects of this situation of
> which I am unaware in addition to the actual legal perspective.
>
> /Brian Mingus
> User:Alterego
>
> [0]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_brain_stimulation&diff=prev&oldid=123233977
> [1]
> http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/1301408a.html;jsessionid=0016FB4E9E6717DAC69AFF2B4D72EC5F
>
>  
You're making a mountain out of a molehill.  The journal in question is
not "Nature", it's "Neuropsychopharmacology" though that does not change
the points at issue from either side.  Saying that the violation is
blatant is pure hyperbole.  So is the phrase, "tremendous legal risk".

I would fault the editors for not putting the material in quotation
marks, but that's an easy fix.  As long as the material is properly
credited this wouldn't be a copyright violation at all.  It is from an
abstract in a scientific journal.  The purpose of abstracts includes
letting people know about these studies; it is to their benefit to have
others quoting the abstract.  Has there ever been any case brought to
court over the use of an abstract?  This is exactly the kind of
material  If all else fails this is exactly the sort of thing that
justifies applying the fair use rules.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
Anthony wrote:

> On 8/12/07, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512
>>> In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, an OSP must:
>>>
>>>    - have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, the infringing
>>>    activity
>>>    - provide proper notification of its policies to its subscribers
>>>    - set up an agent to deal with copyright complaints
>>>
>>> Reverting a copyright violation seems to violate the first point.
>>>      
> Only if you have actual knowledge that the version is indeed a
> copyright violation, which would require at the very least knowing
> that the material is copyrighted, knowing that it is being used
> without permission, and knowing that it is not fair use.
>
> <blockquote>Actual knowledge is not an opinion about infringement i.e.
> "I think this is infringing" or "this is copied from another site,
> therefore it is infringing".</blockquote> - [[OCILLA]]
I strongly agree.  While there are reasons and times times when it is
prudent to act on suspicion the important factor remains the need to
have standing.  From that same chillingeffects site: "[OCILLA] protects
online service providers (OSPs) from liability for information posted or
transmitted by subscribers if they quickly remove or disable access to
material identified *in a copyright holder's complaint."  *That last
factor is especially important.  There is more to determining whether
there has been copyright infringement than simply identifying two
identical passages.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Brian J Mingus
I personally feel that the foundation should be proactive in developing
technologies that allow potential copyright violations (for example, edits
that were reverted because someone thought they were copyright violations)
to be removed from the database. It also seems to me that a lot of dangerous
interpretation of untested law is going on. This particular instance appears
to be a blatant violation of rights, and unless you are suggesting that we
should be the ones who test it in court, why not just go through the steps
of creating a procedure to remove this and all others like it?

I am still waiting for the fair use analysis of scientific journal
abstracts. I actually bothered to read their copyright claims before coming
here, and they require you to get explicit permission (via a third party)
before using the material, although using an abstract on the web is free
once you get that permission.

If the attitude is: we are going to push safe harbor to the untested limits,
I have nothing more to say, because there is nothing I can say.


On 8/12/07, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 8/12/07, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512
> >>> In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, an OSP must:
> >>>
> >>>    - have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, the infringing
> >>>    activity
> >>>    - provide proper notification of its policies to its subscribers
> >>>    - set up an agent to deal with copyright complaints
> >>>
> >>> Reverting a copyright violation seems to violate the first point.
> >>>
> > Only if you have actual knowledge that the version is indeed a
> > copyright violation, which would require at the very least knowing
> > that the material is copyrighted, knowing that it is being used
> > without permission, and knowing that it is not fair use.
> >
> > <blockquote>Actual knowledge is not an opinion about infringement i.e.
> > "I think this is infringing" or "this is copied from another site,
> > therefore it is infringing".</blockquote> - [[OCILLA]]
> I strongly agree.  While there are reasons and times times when it is
> prudent to act on suspicion the important factor remains the need to
> have standing.  From that same chillingeffects site: "[OCILLA] protects
> online service providers (OSPs) from liability for information posted or
> transmitted by subscribers if they quickly remove or disable access to
> material identified *in a copyright holder's complaint."  *That last
> factor is especially important.  There is more to determining whether
> there has been copyright infringement than simply identifying two
> identical passages.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Ray Saintonge
Brian wrote:

> On 8/12/07, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Anthony wrote:
>>    
>>> On 8/12/07, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512
>>>>        
>>>>> In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, an OSP must:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, the infringing
>>>>>    activity
>>>>>    - provide proper notification of its policies to its subscribers
>>>>>    - set up an agent to deal with copyright complaints
>>>>>
>>>>> Reverting a copyright violation seems to violate the first point.
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>> Only if you have actual knowledge that the version is indeed a
>>> copyright violation, which would require at the very least knowing
>>> that the material is copyrighted, knowing that it is being used
>>> without permission, and knowing that it is not fair use.
>>>
>>> <blockquote>Actual knowledge is not an opinion about infringement i.e.
>>> "I think this is infringing" or "this is copied from another site,
>>> therefore it is infringing".</blockquote> - [[OCILLA]]
>>>      
>> I strongly agree.  While there are reasons and times times when it is
>> prudent to act on suspicion the important factor remains the need to
>> have standing.  From that same chillingeffects site: "[OCILLA] protects
>> online service providers (OSPs) from liability for information posted or
>> transmitted by subscribers if they quickly remove or disable access to
>> material identified *in a copyright holder's complaint."  *That last
>> factor is especially important.  There is more to determining whether
>> there has been copyright infringement than simply identifying two
>> identical passages.
> I personally feel that the foundation should be proactive in developing
> technologies that allow potential copyright violations (for example, edits
> that were reverted because someone thought they were copyright violations)
> to be removed from the database. It also seems to me that a lot of dangerous
> interpretation of untested law is going on. This particular instance appears
> to be a blatant violation of rights, and unless you are suggesting that we
> should be the ones who test it in court, why not just go through the steps
> of creating a procedure to remove this and all others like it?
>  
"Blatant" is only your perception.  There is a wide difference between
"blatant" and "potential", and we are nowhere near to a court test of
the issue.
even the most aggressive among us should not hold our breaths waiting
for a court action.

There is more to determining whether something is a copyright violation
than someone's guesswork.  That kind of guesswork leads to such things
as taking down material when it was really the other site that was in
violation of our copyrights.  As Wikipedia ages that will be an
ever-growing problem. We should not leave that task to mindless
technologies and speculators.

Ironically, the more the Foundation involves itself in hunting down
copyright violation, the less it will be able to act objectively in such
circumstances.  It can and should have policies for dealing with
identified copyright violations, but it should not actively seek them
out.  The factual determination in such situations should rest with the
communities and the actual copyright owners.
> I am still waiting for the fair use analysis of scientific journal
> abstracts. I actually bothered to read their copyright claims before coming
> here, and they require you to get explicit permission (via a third party)
> before using the material, although using an abstract on the web is free
> once you get that permission.
>  
Fair use claims do not require explicit permissions.  You don't need to
"wait" for that fair use analysis, you can do it yourself.  Which of the
four criteria is troubling you?
> If the attitude is: we are going to push safe harbor to the untested limits,
> I have nothing more to say, because there is nothing I can say.
No-one is even suggesting taking this to the limit.  There are plenty of
more aggressive actions that we can take without even getting near to
the limits.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Marco Chiesa
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
Brian wrote:

>[0] is the addition of an abstract from the journal Nature [1]. It was in
>the encyclopedia for four months until I accidentally found it. I was told
>in IRC that the procedure for this situation is to simply remove the change
>from the current revision of the article, because it is technically
>difficult to permanently remove things from the database. This seems
>incredibly problematic to me. From a legal perspective, I don't see any
>difference in viewing an old version of an article which contains a
>copyright violation, and that copyright violation still being in the current
>version. There is some effort to hide old revisions from search engines, but
>the violation still exists on the Internet, and the copyright owner's rights
>are still being violated.
>  
>
I'm always surprised at the very lax attitude that en.wikipedia has
towards copyright violations. On it.wikipedia we have a much more
draconian approach: if a potential copyright violation is present
(usually at least a sentence copied from another website) all the
versions in the history containing that bit are deleted, and, if there
are good edits in between, a note is put in the talk page with the
deleted revisions. This is sometimes an awful work for the sysop that
has to do it, since sometimes pages where a copyvio had been removed get
edited with another copyvio - the risk is that previously deleted
versions may get recovered by mistake as the only procedure to remove a
version is deleting the page and recovering the good versions. So, for
heavily edited pages, from time to time we move the old versions to
another name which we protect, so that the history is not too long (we
did it for the village pump a couple of times, than we switched to
having a page for each thread that gets included in the weekly pump). We
also have a bot (RevertBot) which checks all the edits with google and
yahoo and creates a page of suspect copyvios that a sysop will have to
check manually who copied from whom. Occasionally we discovered copyvios
on en.wikipedia that had been there for more than one year. We also had
a case of a trusted user with 30k edits, who had been sysop in the past,
that was caught copying large chunks of text from printed encyclopedias.
That forced us to set up a project to selectively remove all his
non-typos edits as suspected copyvios, which destroyed also quite a bit
of work by honest users, who had fixed his edits, added stuff that alone
didn't make sense to keep but was precious anyway.

Cruccone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
On 8/13/07, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I personally feel that the foundation should be proactive in developing
> technologies that allow potential copyright violations (for example, edits
> that were reverted because someone thought they were copyright violations)
> to be removed from the database.

Deletion by admins of single revisions from article history is a
feature currently being worked on by the tech team.  If you'd like to
speed up the process, code would be helpful.

But this won't resolve situations where a copyright violation stayed
around for a while, through unrelated edits by other users.  In that
case there is a catch-22 in that removing the one copyright violation
causes another, as the users who made those unrelated edits will no
longer be attributed.  Fixing this would require even more code, and
would be pretty complicated.

> It also seems to me that a lot of dangerous
> interpretation of untested law is going on.

Part of the whole point of OCILLA was supposed to reduce the need for
interpretation of untested law.  But at some point you're always going
to have to do it.

In fact, copyright law is so screwed up that you're pretty much forced
to break it all the time.  Did you know that US copyright law requires
you to send a copy of every copyrighted text work to the Library of
Congress?  That's right, every time you create an article on Wikipedia
without sending a copy to the Library of Congress, you break the law.

> This particular instance appears
> to be a blatant violation of rights, and unless you are suggesting that we
> should be the ones who test it in court, why not just go through the steps
> of creating a procedure to remove this and all others like it?
>
> I am still waiting for the fair use analysis of scientific journal
> abstracts.

Me too.  Maybe once this analysis is performed we can determine
whether or not to remove the text.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
Isn't this simply a job for oversight? While it doesn't completely
remove the revisions from the database, it makes them invisible to
almost everyone.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Andrew Gray
On 13/08/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Isn't this simply a job for oversight? While it doesn't completely
> remove the revisions from the database, it makes them invisible to
> almost everyone.

Oh God no. Simple deletion of copyrighted material is general practice
and completely sufficient for most purposes; it moves it from being
"public" to "internal", the conceptual equivalent of
MegaEncyclopediaCorp having a photocopy of it stuffed in a filing
cabinet for one of their researchers to go check on later.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Isn't this simply a job for oversight? While it doesn't completely
> remove the revisions from the database, it makes them invisible to
> almost everyone.
>
Basically agreeing with Andrew Gray, the problem with saying this is a
job for oversight is that there is way too much work for the very few
people with oversight permission.

If the foundation receives an actually DMCA takedown notice (or any
notification from the actual copyright holder that eir copyright is
being infringed), then maybe it's a job for oversight, as this is a
much more rare occurrence.

Oversight was a temporary hack put in place for the really egregious
cases, until revision deletion was completed.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
On 12/08/07, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Please note that I have no special interest in this text. I thought it was
> common sense that blatant violations like this would be deleted from the
> database, and so am very surprised at the lackadaisical attitude I have
> encountered. This seems like a tremendous legal risk, and there must be some
> technical solution for easily removing old revisions from the database,
> especially in cases like this where the text remained essentially unchanged.

The problem is that such a deletion involves us writing off four
months of the history; four months worth of changes and contributions.
We *can* do this, but it means:

a) we lose the knowledge of who contributed
b) we lose an awful lot of our ability to constructively edit the article

[This assumes we delete everything between the original addition and
your removal, not just roll the article right back to the state
immediately before the removal and remove any newer revisions]

a) has licensing implications; whilst we can comply with the bare
necessities simply by stating "the following people, not credited in
the article history, were contributors", we have problems with where
to put this (we always say the history list is the contributor list)
and it is a bit clunky (as well as being riddled with false positives)

b) is a little more problematic. Basically, we've lost four months of
discussion and development; we've lost a big chunk of what we rely on
elsewhere as normal tools for our editing process.

Basically, is the small potential harm caused by us continuing to make
copyrighted text available (in an obscure archive, where you have to
look hard to find it) greater than the beneft we get from not screwing
up our systems? Not a clean-cut answer, that one, and understandably
quite amenable to "let's leave it for now".

[Note also that if we get a *complaint*, we do actually Do Stuff About
It. This is the pre-emptive case]

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
> Oh God no. Simple deletion of copyrighted material is general practice
> and completely sufficient for most purposes; it moves it from being
> "public" to "internal", the conceptual equivalent of
> MegaEncyclopediaCorp having a photocopy of it stuffed in a filing
> cabinet for one of their researchers to go check on later.

Ok, that's reasonable. The suggestion is the original email, however,
was effectively oversight, which is why I mentioned it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
By the complainant's logic, all of Google's cached pages are blatant
copyright violations.

Should Google eliminate all access? No. Are there lawsuits and massive
efforts clamoring to get Google to take everything down? No.

Let's avoid copyright paranoia.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from the database

Thomas Dalton
On 15/08/07, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> By the complainant's logic, all of Google's cached pages are blatant
> copyright violations.
>
> Should Google eliminate all access? No. Are there lawsuits and massive
> efforts clamoring to get Google to take everything down? No.
>
> Let's avoid copyright paranoia.

I don't know about massive efforts, but Google has had some legal
difficulties with things like that. I believe they've always won so
far, but there have certainly been complaints.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deleting blatant copyright violations from thedatabase

brian.mcneil-2
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Google_convicted_in_case_brought_by_Belgian_pres
s

The above link may change your mind about Google's success. IIRC Le Soir
temporarily vanished from all Google searches following this incident. The
situation now is none of the French language Belgian papers are mirrored by
Google news.

We have lots of (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category:Google#cat) Google
goodness over on Wikinews.


Brian.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: 15 August 2007 16:58
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Deleting blatant copyright violations from
thedatabase

On 15/08/07, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> By the complainant's logic, all of Google's cached pages are blatant
> copyright violations.
>
> Should Google eliminate all access? No. Are there lawsuits and massive
> efforts clamoring to get Google to take everything down? No.
>
> Let's avoid copyright paranoia.

I don't know about massive efforts, but Google has had some legal
difficulties with things like that. I believe they've always won so
far, but there have certainly been complaints.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l