Jussi-Ville Heiskanen writes:
It should be noted that the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - which
> is the closest thing to a accessible public record of such notices - does
> not appear to hold more than 3 (count them, three) notices that
> deal with content on wikimedia sites. Notably it appears
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Techman224 wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, the WMF got involved the moment when they removed the keys,
>> also the DMCA notice (or any other notice)
>> is given to the person or organization that runs the website. It is not
>> given to the user who posted the content as they
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 4 March 2010 19:41, wrote:
>
>> Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very
>> technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken
>> down.
>> In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every month
>> a
Techman224 wrote:
> Unfortunately, the WMF got involved the moment when they removed the keys,
> also the DMCA notice (or any other notice)
> is given to the person or organization that runs the website. It is not given
> to the user who posted the content as they can't
> remove content after it
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Doesn't matter how they were posted. If they were, and there is a valid
> notice, the action is to expeditiously remove them, notify the poster and let
> the poster decide if they want to counter-notice and contest it.
>
> All the second guessing in the world is irrelevant
geni wrote:
>
> Some
> calculator of little note? It would appear not.
>
Sarcasm much?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/found
On 4 March 2010 19:41, wrote:
> Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very
> technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken down.
> In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every month
> and force the project offline.
>
>
On 6 March 2010 01:51, wrote:
>
> That's extreme. We already use reliable sources in the project. The key is
> "reasonable" >effort, not Herculean effort, not absurd effort, just a
> reasonable effort.
Outside some rather narrow areas copyright law tends not to care about
reasonable effort.
On 4 March 2010 19:41, wrote:
> Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very
> technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken down.
> In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every month
> and force the project offline.
>
>
4, 2010 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
On 3 March 2010 03:32, wrote:
>
> But Dan your reply allows any illegitimate claim of copyright infringement
> to
be acted upon as an office action.
>
> It's possible that we could say th
Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very
technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken down.
In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every month
and force the project offline.
That's the world you're advocating?
On 3 March 2010 03:32, wrote:
>
> But Dan your reply allows any illegitimate claim of copyright infringement
> to be acted upon as an office action.
>
> It's possible that we could say that the office cannot know whether a claim
> is legitimate or not, but if the office is informed through a r
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>>> You've identified one of the criticisms of OCILLA/DMCA -- that it can be
>>> easily abused by copyright holder to keep stuff offline. (This is what the
>>> EFF is probably gettin
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> You've identified one of the criticisms of OCILLA/DMCA -- that it can be
>> easily abused by copyright holder to keep stuff offline. (This is what the
>> EFF is probably getting involved over). However, the proper response to that
>> is for the
egitimate and they have taken action, are they
> obligated to refuse the positive action they've taken?
>
> That's the issue.
>
> W. J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Rosenthal
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Ma
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> The WMF should absolutely duke it out to protect material that ought
> to be in Wikipedia in accordance with the educational mission and
> community editorial guidelines. It ought not engage in fights outside
> of those areas for every instance of possibly suppressed legi
im is illegitimate and they have taken action, are they obligated to
refuse the positive action they've taken?
That's the issue.
W. J.
-Original Message-
From: Dan Rosenthal
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Te
On 3 March 2010 14:11, Techman224 wrote:
> Unfortunately, the WMF got involved the moment when they removed the keys,
> also the DMCA notice (or any other notice)
> is given to the person or organization that runs the website. It is not given
> to the user who posted the content as they can't
>
No, actually it's not.
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Take_down_and_Put_Back_provisions
and then figure out why this is not WMF's place to get involved other than
availing itself of the safe harbor protections. Hint: check step 6.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Peter Coombe wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 13:26, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> >> On 3 March 2010 12:28, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for your copyfight. There is plenty
> >>>
On 3 March 2010 13:26, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 3 March 2010 12:28, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>> Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for your copyfight. There is plenty
>>> of reason to exclude this material regardless of the copyright/le
Unfortunately, the WMF got involved the moment when they removed the keys, also
the DMCA notice (or any other notice)
is given to the person or organization that runs the website. It is not given
to the user who posted the content as they can't
remove content after it has been published. Since th
Doesn't matter how they were posted. If they were, and there is a valid notice,
the action is to expeditiously remove them, notify the poster and let the
poster decide if they want to counter-notice and contest it.
All the second guessing in the world is irrelevant to a fight between two
people
It depends on how the keys were posted and displayed on the wiki page, however
we can't see the revisions
with the keys because of the oversights, to see how they were posted and where,
so we are in the dark there.
On 2010-03-03, at 4:38 AM, Chad wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Peter
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 12:28, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for your copyfight. There is plenty
>> of reason to exclude this material regardless of the copyright/legal
>> concerns, and plenty of other people hosting
On 3 March 2010 12:28, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for your copyfight. There is plenty
> of reason to exclude this material regardless of the copyright/legal
> concerns, and plenty of other people hosting it elsewhere. Doubly
> true where the material is promoted
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Techman224 wrote:
> It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation through its "Office
> actions" policy removed and oversighted the
> signing keys for Texas Instruments calculators under a DMCA takedown notice
> on October 7, 2009. Cary Bass then overs
On 3 March 2010 10:38, Chad wrote:
> By looking on the other sites that seem to be posting it. I don't see
> how posting their signing keys helps anyone trying to learn about
> the company.
> This sounds like a new case of "we want to post it because they don't
> want it posted"
It's not the so
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 04:26, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> I think you're misconstruing who is doing what here. The Foundation is not
>> the "person" required to send the counter notice, nor do they have the
>> freedom or the obligation to involv
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 04:26, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> I think you're misconstruing who is doing what here. The Foundation is not
> the "person" required to send the counter notice, nor do they have the
> freedom or the obligation to involve themselves in a copyright dispute
> between TI and anot
I think you're misconstruing who is doing what here. The Foundation is not the
"person" required to send the counter notice, nor do they have the freedom or
the obligation to involve themselves in a copyright dispute between TI and
another user. It's not their determination to make whether the a
Re-sending message, the mail server doesn't like html :(
It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation through its "Office
actions" policy removed and oversighted the signing keys for Texas Instruments
calculators under a DMCA takedown notice on October 7, 2009. Cary Bass then
over
It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation through its "Office
actions" policy removed and oversighted the signing keys for Texas Instruments
calculators under a DMCA takedown notice on October 7, 2009. Cary Bass then
oversighted all revisions that had the signing keys. Let me jus
33 matches
Mail list logo
