Fw: basicmusic.net noncompliance

From: "Alex T." <[email protected]>
> From: "Sascha Noyes" <[email protected]>
>
> > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 23:06, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> > > Yep. That is blatant and needs to be either taken down or fixed.
However
> it
> > > is my understanding that unless you are a significant contributor to
any
> of
> > > those articles you do not have the authority to send a takedown notice
> to
> > > an ISP (anybody can send compliance reminders though). And even if you
> were
> > > a significant author of one or more of the articles, your authority
> would
> > > only extend to those articles you significantly contributed to (but
that
> > > may be a moot point; the ISP would probably pull the plug on the whole
> > > website since that would be the easiest - and most prudent - thing for
> them
> > > to do).
>
 Good point, so why not make Wikimedia the copyright agent of all
contributors?
Another thing I am adding to the proposed Submission standards
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Submission_Standards_(proposal)
BTW, when are you guys going to vet this and decide to use it or chuck it?

> > > Thus I think there is a need for Wikimedia to obtain a registered
> > > collection copyright on the set of articles copied. Then an official
> > > Wikimedia representative can send out the take-down letter.
>
 I think just putting the permission is a useful step in any case.

> > > So I do agree that this has progressed to the ISP take-down letter
stage,
> > > however I'm pretty sure no one person can legally do that yet (at
least for
> > > all the copied content). In the meantime you may want to find the
major
> > > contributors to many of those articles and 1) tell them about the
copyright
> > > violation and 2) ask them to let you contact the ISP on their behalf.
But
> > > that still may need copyright registration (or is that only needed
before
> > > bringing something before a court?)

> The advantages of registering within 3 months of publication is that there
are
> attorney fees that may be recuperable if the registration occurred.

> > > IANAL so I would like to hear what a lawyer has to say (even off the
> > > record).
> > >
> > > -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

 Alex(IAAL)756(but it's NALO)

> > I must admit that I'm getting a bit frustrated. Are we going to enforce
the
> > GFDL on our articles or not? There seems to be a need for a document
written
> > by a lawyer which specifies unequivocally the requirements of people who
copy
> > our content, and an exact procedure for dealing with people that don't
abide
> > by those exact requirements.

 That is what I am adding to the submissions standards proposal in part.

> > Sure, we could just go teetering along as we are at the moment, but then
what
> > is the point of even releasing wikipedia under the GFDL? We might as
well
> > release it into the public domain. Either we care about the fact that
others
> > are taking our content and claiming copyright to it or we do not. I can
> > understand if going after violators is not a priority at the moment, but
then
> > this has to be made clear. In that case I will not continue wasting my
time
> > sending emails to webmasters and otherwise researching whether or not
someone
> > is using our GFDL material improperly.

What you are doing is important Sascha. We do want to let people know that
they must comply. But it is also important to know that the copyright
holders
have years to bring a copyright infringement claim, so it is not like we
have
to file suit the day after we find the infringement.

Alex756