headers
David Goodman | 1 Feb 07:14
Picon

Re: RfC: License update proposal

I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@...> wrote:
> On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:23:33 Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> David Goodman wrote:
>> > My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
>> > and unquestionably legally  necessary is a violation of the moral
>> > rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
>> > the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We all
>> > explicitly agreed there could be commercial use, and most of us did
>> > not particularly concern ourselves with how other commercial or
>> > noncommercial sites would use or license the material, as long as what
>> > we put on Wikipedia could be used by anyone.
>>
>> Precisely!  To a large extent, we are effectively releasing our work
>> into the public domain, except for the fact that in some countries this
>
> No, we are not, and it is ridiculous to even think that. First of all, I would most certainly not work on
Wikipedia or any similar project if that would mean that my work is put in the public domain.
>
>> is not allowed.  Also, putting a work into the public domain means
>> abandoning our rights of action in the event that there is infringement
>
> No, it does not. Even if we have had put our work in public domain, in most jurisdictions we would still
retain our moral rights. No one would be allowed to claim to be the author, for example.
>
>> on that public ownership. There is no custodian of the public domain to
>> take action when the copyrights of the general public have been infringed.
>
> Yes, there is. For example, Copyright law of Serbia explicitly specifies (Article 56) that author's
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 31 comments |
headers
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen | 1 Feb 07:25
Picon

Re: RfC: License update proposal

David Goodman wrote:
> I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
>   

It is a bit ego-centric to only care about how one self only
views ones work as mattering. It is wise and pragmatic
to acknowledge that not every individual thinks as one
thinks themselves. That is pluralism.

I don't myself care too much about being attributed
(which is one of the reasons for a long time I just did
IP-based edits), but I certainly will defend to the utmost
anyones right to feel pride from name-recognition.

Given that not that many books in the world are
published anonymously, clearly this approach to ones
name is far from exceptional.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ray Saintonge | 1 Feb 08:30

Re: Re-licensing

George Herbert wrote:
> Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is
> saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors
> distinct from copyright owners etc.
>
> The specific term as used in copyright law (as Mike says, a "term of the
> art" in that field) has no legal utility in the United States, as those
> rights in question are not acknowledged by US copyright law or precedent.
>   
It is acknowledged in section 106A, but that seems to have been added 
more as a form of lip-service to international treaties.  At the same 
time US law seems to be at pains to make sure that it has no meaningful 
legal effect.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen | 1 Feb 08:34
Picon

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> David Goodman wrote:
>   
>> My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
>> and unquestionably legally  necessary is a violation of the moral
>> rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
>> the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We all
>> explicitly agreed there could be commercial use, and most of us did
>> not particularly concern ourselves with how other commercial or
>> noncommercial sites would use or license the material, as long as what
>> we put on Wikipedia could be used by anyone.
>>
>>   
>>     
> Precisely!  To a large extent, we are effectively releasing our work 
> into the public domain, except for the fact that in some countries this 
> is not allowed.  Also, putting a work into the public domain means 
> abandoning our rights of action in the event that there is infringement 
> on that public ownership. There is no custodian of the public domain to 
> take action when the copyrights of the general public have been infringed.
>
>   

This is an important point. It is precisely why it is not a
good idea to remove attribution. Because just as
releasing into public domain is not allowed in many
jurisdictions, equally removing attribution willy-nilly
is not allowed in many jurisdictions.

If we were removing attribution like that, the problems
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Ray Saintonge | 1 Feb 08:40

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony wrote:
> Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when
> dealing with constitutional issues.  That's why I find it nearly impossible
> to believe that Mike doesn't understand this.  How in the world can you
> defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up out of
> nowhere?  Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made
> up and wrote down on paper?  The very nature of the legal system in the
> United States of America is based upon natural rights.  "We hold these
> truths to be self-evident".  Self-evident.  Not created by congressmen.
It was not created by congressmen because there were no congressmen 
before the US Constitution was written.

The fact that they "held" their opinions to be self-evident does not 
make their opinions universal. Your self-serving comment is on a par 
with saying that God exists because the Bible says so.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen | 1 Feb 08:54
Picon

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> The only reason that "moral rights" is an issue is its inclusion in the 
> statutes of various countries.  It mostly stems from an inflated 
> Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the 
> divine rights of kings.  Common law countries have been loath to embark 
> in this direction.  Moral rights are mentioned in the US law, but only 
> as a toothless tiger.
>
> Ec
>
>   

I would actually be interested to get the background for
this interpretation of how moral rights came to happen
as a legal idea. If there are such references.

Particularly as the legal reasons in at least Finnish legal
manuals for laymen who have to deal with moral rights
seem to focus on the utility moral rights have in terms of
protecting the artisans reputation as being good at his
craft.

I have great difficulty understanding how the "right to examine"
could be traced to some grandiose "Rights of Man" basis,
since the argument presented for this particular moral right is
clearly grounded on protecting the artisan/artists ability
to examine their earlier work, to remind them self and
refresh their memory on methods they had employed on those
works, and thus enable them to not lose skills and methods
they had mastered in earlier days.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Nikola Smolenski | 1 Feb 09:10
Picon

Re: RfC: License update proposal

On Sunday 01 February 2009 07:14:44 David Goodman wrote:
> I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.

You say that as if it is a bad thing. Why turn off narcissistic people if work 
they do is useful?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
Gerard Meijssen | 1 Feb 09:15
Picon

Re: RfC: License update proposal

Hoi,
Because their narcissism gets in the way of what we want to achieve perhaps
?
Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@...>

> On Sunday 01 February 2009 07:14:44 David Goodman wrote:
> > I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's
> narcissism.
>
> You say that as if it is a bad thing. Why turn off narcissistic people if
> work
> they do is useful?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |
headers
Ray Saintonge | 1 Feb 09:19

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony wrote:
> Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike.  Your last
> paragraph seems to imply that you understand it.
>   

Per Eric Partridge's "Origins," both words are Latin in origin.  "Moral" 
is from "mores" the plural of "mos" indicating "a way of carrying 
oneself, hence especially of behaving; a custom as determined by usage, 
not by law."  "Morose" is from the same source. "Right" derives from 
"rex" meaning "the king"; it took a king to set things straight.  Is 
there something "natural" in that?
>> It's true that religious beliefs don't have great force in Western
>> courtrooms. I dismiss this particular religious belief not because
>> it's irrelevant in a courtroom, however, but because there is no
>> evidence in the physical world that this difference exists.
>>     
> In what way is the concept of moral rights a religious belief?
>   
U.S. courts still have witnesses who swear to tell the truth, "So help 
me God," with one hand on the Bible; this only shows that the separation 
of church and state is far from perfect.  The concept of larger moral 
rights (rather than those associated with copyrights) is religious 
because it is based on faith alone.
> That would be odd if it were true. But it isn't. Theft and slavery are
> morally wrong, in addition to (and regardless of) being illegal.
Theft has been quite consistently viewed as wrong throughout history, 
with possible exemptions for kings.

To say this of slavery, however, in the US context, would be to say that 
Christian slave-owners before the Emancipation Proclamation were all
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen | 1 Feb 09:25
Picon

Re: RfC: License update proposal

>
> 2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@...> wisely remarked:
>
>
>   
>>
>> You say that as if it is a bad thing. Why turn off narcissistic people if
>> work
>> they do is useful?
>>
>>     

Gerard Meijssen top-posted:
> Hoi,
> Because their narcissism gets in the way of what we want to achieve perhaps
> ?
>
>   
This would seem to suggest that what "we" want to achieve is
*not* "producing an encyclopedia". I suggest you reconsider.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |

Gmane