On 23 June 2011 07:54, Alec Conroy <alecmcon...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's not about ignoring legitimate copyright claims-- we can always > decide for ourselves what is a legitimate copyright claim for > WMF-hosted projects.
Except the WMF just signed up in support of the EMF side which means it's now the foundation's position that such copyright claims should have no significance in the US. > If this case goes the wrong > way, it's possible that the congress will force all US citizens and > organizations to recognize illegitimate copyright claims. That doesn't even make sense. > The nation's judicial branch has a > legitimate question that's gone all the way to the supreme court-- > precisely how should copyright laws be interpreted in the internet > age? Indeed the lawyers are free to make such arguments. No reason for us to get involved. > Of course the non-profits are right to share their analysis with the > US supreme court. It's not as if they're actually deciding the > case-- they're just contributing to the discussion with the US Supreme > Court, sharing their best guess about what their lawyers believe the > correct answer is.. Did you even bother to read the opening post? Arcane legal arguments about what the law is falls outside the foundation's remit. We are not a lawyers benefit foundation. No the foundation has taken a very practical real world campaigning position which probably sounds great to a limited number of people within the US but is going to cause problems outside. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
