On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> about the
> relationship between the fundraising campaign and actual lawmaking.
> That's not entirely your fault, since the writer threw in some filler
> about the activity of an administrative agency, apparently because this
> tangent gave hi
In a message dated 6/25/2010 6:58:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu writes:
> If you want to know my fair use credentials and my involvement, I was one
> of
> the people involved in the fringe of one of the most important internet
> fair
> use court cases of the modern
Dear Andre,
I think I have made it clear in my hundreds of megs worth of donations to
material to WMF projects that I am in support of the actual licensing. I
believe it is important to allow for people who wish to have their content
be free to be free.
But as I pointed out from the WSJ, the pers
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters
<17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote:
> Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation
> of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were
> speaking against the law and not in support of the licens
Dear Michael,
Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation
of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were
speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself).
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Peters
aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at
The difference was that Wikipedia was not made for young people.
If I run a social group for adults and there are issues with children
who visit, I can blame it on their parents and say they should control
them better. If I run a social group for children, I'm now a childcare
provider and have a g
Dear Liam Wyatt,
Reread my previous emails. I have made it clear that the law that is being
discussed and being promoted by the ASCAP is a law that would terminate the
internet access of repeat piracy offenders. The only reason why CC et al are
involved are through the political advocacy of their
Jeffrey Peters wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would
> speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the
> access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of set
> copyright multiple times.
Jeffrey,
You are aware that Wikimedia projects use creative commons licenses, right?
You have noticed that Wikimedia projects delete content on-sight that is a
copyright violation? You do know that creative commons is a project to
promote the *legal* re-use of copyrighted material?
As the article
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Phoebe, in my humble opinion, this project is a bit different. I think
> when we are talking about child development and creating a project for
> children, there's no room to screw around or create some amateurish
> product. This is somethi
Dear James,
If that was what Michael was saying, then I apologize for what I said to
him. However, I think the problem could be is that some people see only what
wired.com says (i.e. targetting Creative Commons, etc) and not the law that
was being passed that the backers of those were in oppositio
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Jeffrey Peters <
17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation
> would
> speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the
> access to those who have been cau
I can think of an example where someone had to buy lyrics: When the
creators of the Eyes on The Prize civil rights documentary wanted to
republish their documentary on DVD so that a new generation of people
could see how institutionalized racism was overcome through decades of
bloody struggle,
Dear WJhonson,
Lyrics are sometimes included on disk jackets, album covers, etc.
Just because something is not accessible does not mean people have the right
to pirate them, reproduce them, etc. Instead, the rarity of a material would
make it even more legitimate to enforce the copyright.
The ly
In a message dated 6/25/2010 3:55:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu writes:
> Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? >>
Why do I envision the Red Queen and the White Queen when I read that
remark?
David Gerard cut off your own head! Do it immed
Dear Michael,
I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would
speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the
access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of set
copyright multiple times.
This is problematic because Wik
James Alexander wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/
>>
>> They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
>>
>> We may need to do something about this.
>>
>>
>> - d.
Hi, Jeffery. You are obviously upset about this, and it's coming across
strongly enough in your writing that it undermines the effectiveness of
the point you are trying to make. I see it's pretty hot in DC today.
Perhaps now would be a good time for a cold drink and a break? We'll all
still be
Dear Dan,
The Foundation-l is not for political advocacy. That is well known. It is
disgusting that someone would attempt to use it for that end.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Peters
aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Please stop with the aggressive threats against ot
Please stop with the aggressive threats against other users. It's a) not
helpful, b) incredibly inappropriate, and c) not your decision anyway.
-Dan
On Jun 25, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Peters wrote:
> David Gerard,
>
> This list is not for your political advocacy.
>
> Now, stop trolling.
>
>
David Gerard,
This list is not for your political advocacy.
Now, stop trolling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html
The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of
piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he
was proud
On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you.
It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia
Dear Ryan,
Creative Commons is two things: 1. a license, which only applies to
non-pirated work, and 2. those like Gerard who believe in removing copyright
as a whole and try to hide illegitimate actions behind legitimate ones.
There are thousands of websites that illegally republish music lyrics,
Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you.
Ryan Kaldari
On 6/25/10 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Peters wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> I'm going to donate to their cause.
>
> Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and published
> everywhere, and yet it is. I
Dear David,
I'm going to donate to their cause.
Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and published
everywhere, and yet it is. It is people like you that give the internet a
bad name. I produce my own content and donate it because I chose to. You
promote the taking of oth
On 25 June 2010 23:04, David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/
>
> They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
>
> We may need to do something about this.
>
>
> - d.
They are effectively trying to fight contract
On 25 June 2010 23:15, James Alexander wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/
>> They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
>> We may need to do something about this.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/
>
> They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
>
> We may need to do something about this.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
I can at least understand them
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia
Phoebe, in my humble opinion, this project is a bit different. I think
when we are talking about child development and creating a project for
children, there's no room to screw around or create some amateurish
product. This is something that, if done wrong, could potentially have
a bigger negative
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> I am not asking you to prove anything about this project. I just want to
> know where you got the idea that this proposal can be accurately summarized
> as a " Wikipedia fork with dumb language" and that the proto-contributors
> are biased
Hi folks,
Just wanted to send you a heads up that we're going to be doing a
little bit of banner testing for a very brief period on the English
Wikipedia sometime soon. For about a 24 hour period, there will be
banners appearing to a small segment of users that direct users to a
couple of
--- On Fri, 6/25/10, Milos Rancic wrote:
> From: Milos Rancic
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one
> Wikipedia"
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Friday, June 25, 2010, 2:05 PM
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:59 PM,
> Milos Rancic
> wrote:
>
2010/6/25 Milos Rancic :
> My first answer is that Wikipedia is good enough for children and that
> we do not need a Wikipedia fork with dumb language.
I wonder where such an attitude comes from. "Dumb"?
Ziko
--
Ziko van Dijk
Niederlande
___
foundatio
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
>> Such strong labeling of the goals and make-up of this group wishing to work
>> on a Medical Encyclopedia for Children really needs to be supported by some
>> evidence. Especially as I d
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> Such strong labeling of the goals and make-up of this group wishing to work
> on a Medical Encyclopedia for Children really needs to be supported by some
> evidence. Especially as I don't believe they are participating in this
> conversation
--- On Fri, 6/25/10, Milos Rancic wrote:
> From: Milos Rancic
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one
> Wikipedia"
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Friday, June 25, 2010, 1:07 PM
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:11 PM,
> phoebe ayers
> wrote:
>
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:11 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> But, to be fair, do we ask such questions of our other projects? I do
> not recall being asked if I was a trained encyclopedia writer or a
> trained journalist when I joined Wikimedia :) Perhaps we should ask
> these kinds of hard questions of
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> Yes. We should definitely lay the groundwork well, as Ziko says. But
>> there are good projects underway today and doing this, in spanish,
>> french, and dutch. Some of the organizers
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> We are all amateurs in cognitive development. My two exams in this
> field makes me an expert on this list. And we don't need just
> professionals, but extraordinary professionals. And those
> professionals have to be introduced well in Wikim
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Yes. We should definitely lay the groundwork well, as Ziko says. But
> there are good projects underway today and doing this, in spanish,
> french, and dutch. Some of the organizers of those projects have
> contributed to the Wikikids propo
41 matches
Mail list logo
