Mailing List Archive: Foundation policy on linking to website that violates copyright

Foundation policy on linking to website that violates copyright

Apr 14, 2009, 11:42 AM

Post #1 of 3 (665 views)

Hi, list,

I'm not sure I'm in the right place to ask such questions, so please
point me to more correct place if you know it.

There was an ArbCom case in ruwiki about removing links to some website.
One of the arguments was the fact that this website contains
copyright-protected materials in such a way that violates right of
copyright holder. As an evidence we had clear license statement from the
copyright holder that explicitly forbid usage of copyright-protected
materials in such a way as they were used on the website. So ArbCom
ruled that due to absence of editorial necessity links to this site are
violation of copyright policy and therefore are forbidden. ArbCom cited
the policy en:WP:C and the case Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse
Ministry which is cited by that policy.

However, some editors argue that en:WP:C is neither ruwiki nor
Foundation policy, but just a policy of English Wikipedia, and therefore
Russian Wikipedia and ArbCom don't have to follow it. (We don't have
such copyright-based restrictions in our "External link" policy yet.)
They say that we put excessive burden on the editors and it is simply
not necessary to investigate facts of copyright violation on third-party
websites (at least, since there are no requests from copyright holders),
because we have no explicit statements of the Foundation that we have to
do it.

So my question is: are there any Foundation policy or statement about
it? Should Russian Wikipedia obey en:WP:C here, or we can make our own
decisions on this matter?

Thanks,

--
With best regards,
Ilya V. Schurov
[[User:Ilya Voyager]]

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

Re: Foundation policy on linking to website that violates copyright [ In reply to ]

rarohde at gmail

Apr 14, 2009, 11:57 AM

Post #2 of 3 (630 views)

Permalink

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Ilya Schurov <ilya.schurov@noo.ru> wrote:
<snip>
> They say that we put excessive burden on the editors and it is simply
> not necessary to investigate facts of copyright violation on third-party
> websites (at least, since there are no requests from copyright holders),
> because we have no explicit statements of the Foundation that we have to
> do it.
<snip>

On the narrow issue of en:WP:C and Intellectual Reserve v. Utah
Lighthouse Ministry, neither is expected to impose a positive burden
on editors. The court case is predicated on the fact that they
already knew they were linking to copyright violations and continued
to do so intentionally.

The enwiki policy is simply a statement that we will remove links if
we become aware that they are associated with copyvios, but it is fine
for an ordinarily editor to link to anything unless he has already
become aware of a problem. No editor is required or expected to do
copyright investigations before adding a normal link.

-Robert

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

Re: Foundation policy on linking to website that violates copyright [ In reply to ]

birgitte_sb at yahoo

Apr 14, 2009, 12:58 PM

Post #3 of 3 (638 views)

Permalink

--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Ilya Schurov <ilya.schurov@noo.ru> wrote:

> Yes, it's clear. Nobody is going to require editors to do
> copyvio
> investigation of third-party resources before linking them.
> It's a
> conflict resolution matter: e.g. one editor claim that some
> site
> violates copyright and therefore we shouldn't link there,
> while the
> other editor try to put this link into the article and
> argue that
> copyright issues are not important here. ArbCom believes
> that the site
> under consider indeed violates copyright. Should we
> consider this as an
> argument to remove such link, or just ignore it?

Do you acknowledge that what you are suggesting would be immoral? Or is one of those situations were you believe the copyright claim is immoral itself and see the legal situation as some technicality based on a corruption of government? I know Russian copyright has a few areas that defy common sense.

Either way it would probably be best to follow to the rule of law, even when on stupid corner cases. Because in the long run different groups will have a different opinions on which cases qualify as stupid corner cases and always following the law is easier for the entire community to accept without fracturing.

But those are my personal thoughts. You probably won't get an actual straight answer here.

Birgitte SB

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