Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

[Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jayen466 at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 9:48 AM

Post #1 of 26 (668 views)
Permalink
[Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
O'Dwyer's January extradition trial:

http://www.europeanrights.eu/public/sentenze/WMC13gen2012.pdf

Some quotes:

---o0o---

O’Dwyer did not charge users of TVShack.net to download or stream content.
Instead he earned money from hosting advertisements on various portions of
the TVShack.net website.

[...]

According to Alexa.com, an organisation that ranks website popularity based
on frequency of visits, as of on or about June 28, 2010, TVShack.net was
the 1779th most popular website in the world and the 1419th in the United
States”. Following seizure of the original domain name on 29th June 2010
“within one day O’Dwyer and one of his co conspirators… registered a new
domain name, TVShack.net to TVShack.cc which was hosted on a server located
at an ISP either in Germany or the Netherlands.

[...]

TVShack.cc continued to offer copyrighted movies and television programs
under the new domain name without authorisation from the copyright
holders… Also posted on the homepage of this new website was the photograph
of a rap music group and the title of one of their songs “F*ck the Police”.


In interview, relied on in the U.S. Request, he is said to have accepted
owning TVShack.net and TVShack.cc “earning approximately £15,000 per month”
from online advertisements hosted on those sites.

[...]

[The US prosecutor argued] there was no attempt to protect copyright, he,
Richard O’Dwyer, knew materials were subject to copyright and actively
taunted already cited efforts in June 2010 to seize TVShack.net.

---o0o---

So Jimbo is saying that a chap who, according to statements in this court
document, made well over 20,000 advertising dollars a month from copyright
infringement (under the motto "fuck the police") reminds him "of many great
Internet entrepreneurs".

It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has
been co-opted to support.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


nawrich at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 9:56 AM

Post #2 of 26 (663 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:

> Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
> O'Dwyer's January extradition trial:
>

[snip]

>
> It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has
> been co-opted to support.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>


Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


tom at tommorris

Jun 27, 2012, 10:01 AM

Post #3 of 26 (665 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 17:56, Nathan wrote:
> Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?




The whole point about deliberate obfuscation is that it's supposed to blur that line. ;-)

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


phnash at blueyonder

Jun 27, 2012, 10:04 AM

Post #4 of 26 (667 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 [at] gmail>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:48 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer


Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
O'Dwyer's January extradition trial:

http://www.europeanrights.eu/public/sentenze/WMC13gen2012.pdf

Some quotes:

---o0o---

O’Dwyer did not charge users of TVShack.net to download or stream content.
Instead he earned money from hosting advertisements on various portions of
the TVShack.net website.

[...]

According to Alexa.com, an organisation that ranks website popularity based
on frequency of visits, as of on or about June 28, 2010, TVShack.net was
the 1779th most popular website in the world and the 1419th in the United
States”. Following seizure of the original domain name on 29th June 2010
“within one day O’Dwyer and one of his co conspirators… registered a new
domain name, TVShack.net to TVShack.cc which was hosted on a server located
at an ISP either in Germany or the Netherlands.

[...]

TVShack.cc continued to offer copyrighted movies and television programs
under the new domain name without authorisation from the copyright
holders… Also posted on the homepage of this new website was the photograph
of a rap music group and the title of one of their songs “F*ck the Police”.


In interview, relied on in the U.S. Request, he is said to have accepted
owning TVShack.net and TVShack.cc “earning approximately £15,000 per month”
from online advertisements hosted on those sites.

[...]

[The US prosecutor argued] there was no attempt to protect copyright, he,
Richard O’Dwyer, knew materials were subject to copyright and actively
taunted already cited efforts in June 2010 to seize TVShack.net.

---o0o---

So Jimbo is saying that a chap who, according to statements in this court
document, made well over 20,000 advertising dollars a month from copyright
infringement (under the motto "fuck the police") reminds him "of many great
Internet entrepreneurs".

It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has
been co-opted to support.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

I might have supported this guy but for two things-

1. It's obviously in issue whether his activities amount to assisting
copyright infringement, so I don't feel confident in saying yea or nay
before a full consideration of the facts has occurred, and

2. Wales supports him. This is, in my view wrong for three reasons; (a) see
1 above (2) it's an overtly political act in which Wales is seeking to use
his reputation and influence (if any) to gather support for Dwyer and (3)
having been treated appallingly badly by Wales and his Arbitration
Committee, I feel disinclined to offer my own support.

Forgive me if I am being less than sanguine, but some pain just does not go
away, particularly the toothache I am currently suffering. Ask again next
week, perhaps.


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jayen466 at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 10:05 AM

Post #5 of 26 (664 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

>
> Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
>

I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory "Wikipedia
founder" label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated
with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse.

Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


tom at tommorris

Jun 27, 2012, 10:10 AM

Post #6 of 26 (667 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
> be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
> that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory "Wikipedia
> founder" label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated
> with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse.
>
> Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
> fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.




It's almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two different things that have only a very tenuous relationship.

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


morton.thomas at googlemail

Jun 27, 2012, 10:17 AM

Post #7 of 26 (664 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

Jimmy's platform is Wikipedia.

The media struggle to seperate the two (note the connect back to SOPA
in this case)

Not that I agree entirely with Andreas. But certainly I think the
community could have a view on this.

Tom Morton

On 27 Jun 2012, at 18:01, Tom Morris <tom [at] tommorris> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 17:56, Nathan wrote:
>> Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
>
>
>
>
> The whole point about deliberate obfuscation is that it's supposed to blur that line. ;-)
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jayen466 at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 10:20 AM

Post #8 of 26 (664 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Tom Morris <tom [at] tommorris> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there
> would
> > be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
> > that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory "Wikipedia
> > founder" label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated
> > with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse.
> >
> > Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
> > fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.
>
>
>
>
> It's almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are
> two different things that have only a very tenuous relationship.




That's what makes a reliable source. ;)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


nemowiki at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 10:29 AM

Post #9 of 26 (655 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

Andreas Kolbe, 27/06/2012 19:05:
> Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
> fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.

Really? The article attributed to him is signed "Wikipedia founder", are
you saying that the newspaper added it?

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


martijnhoekstra at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 10:41 AM

Post #10 of 26 (655 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<nemowiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe, 27/06/2012 19:05:
>
>> Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
>> fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.
>
>
> Really? The article attributed to him is signed "Wikipedia founder", are you
> saying that the newspaper added it?
>
> Nemo
>

If Jimmy does things like these, which he is obviously *allowed* to
do, IMO he should make very clear that he is speaking as an
individual, and not as a representative of the WMF or as a
spokesperson for Wikipedia, and, in case he has the possibility, have
them explicitly state in the final piece that he is speaking as
himself, and is only representing his own opinions, before giving
permission for publication.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jayen466 at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 10:51 AM

Post #11 of 26 (654 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki [at] gmail>wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe, 27/06/2012 19:05:
>
> Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
>> fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.
>>
>
> Really? The article attributed to him is signed "Wikipedia founder", are
> you saying that the newspaper added it?



I think you mean his petition? You're right in that he signed his petition
as "Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder":

http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard

Jimmy's article in the Guardian ends with a glowing back-reference to SOPA:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/richard-o-dwyer-my-petition

---o0o---

O'Dwyer is the human face of that battle, and if he's extradited and
convicted, he will bear the human cost. That's why I've launched a petition
on change.org to ask the home secretary to stop his extradition – and why I
hope you will sign it. Together, we won the battle against Sopa and Pipa.
Together, we can win this one too.

---o0o---

It is not signed, at least not in the online version. However, there are
innumerable newspaper articles with titles like "Wikipedia founder starts
petition to stop extradition of Richard O'Dwyer".

Far from being seen as apolitical, what we have is Jimmy Wales as Robin
Hood and Wikipedia as his merry band of followers.

And hell, there really are two points of view about copyright, and what
systemic copyright violation does to artists' communities. Read the
Trichordist, for example:

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

Or read the synopsis of Louis Theroux's BBC report on the effect of endemic
copyright infringement on the porn industry:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18352421

Short version: porn actresses are now living off prostitution, because they
can no longer make enough money off films.

It's a fallacy to claim that copyright infringement is incapable of
destroying an entertainment industry.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


werespielchequers at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 11:57 AM

Post #12 of 26 (662 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

Message: 4

> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:05:10 +0100
> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
> Message-ID:
> <CAHRTtW-a=G3Lq2UUstusazv4osA0SSRCttYBQ-WFtRh8=119bQ [at] mail
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> >
> > Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
> >
>
> I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
> be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
> that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory "Wikipedia
> founder" label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated
> with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse.
>
> Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
> fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> SOPA is a bad example, not least because those of the community who
expressed an opinion mostly agreed with Jimmy.

Better examples would be the rumour floated a year or so back that Jimmy
was interested in a Senate seat, and Jimmy's porn purge attempt on
Commons. The senate bid is a good example because the press were able to
differentiate between what Jimmy was planning to do and what Wikipedia was
planning. The porn purge is a good example because it shows what happens
when Jimmy tries to do something on wiki but doesn't take the community
with him. "Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA
blackout was had" implies that Jimmy has a merely to make a decision and
the community will dutifully obey. Reality is very different.


WSC
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


yannfo at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 12:07 PM

Post #13 of 26 (657 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

2012/6/27 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail>:
>
> Or read the synopsis of Louis Theroux's BBC report on the effect of endemic
> copyright infringement on the porn industry:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18352421

Ah! Ah! Ah! This article is a condensed writing of pure nonsense.
Well, I am not going to be sad.

> It's a fallacy to claim that copyright infringement is incapable of
> destroying an entertainment industry.

Do you better real life example?
So far as I remember, Hollywood is not going backrupt because DVD
piracy is claimed to be sky-rocketing.

Yann

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


gregory.varnum at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 12:16 PM

Post #14 of 26 (658 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

Before conspiracy theories go too far - I do think it is worth noting that the possible missteps by the press (and not Jimmy) that folks are suggesting do indeed happen often.

News outlets need to attract readers to make ad sales. The reality is that not many non-Wikimedians know, or care, about who Jimmy is. It is in the paper's best interest to make that link for the reader to get more attention for the article.

There have been many times when I have submitted things to news outlets and specifically asked them NOT to include my organization affiliations - but they do it anyway. So, yes, the notion that the press inserted his link to Wikipedia is absolutely plausible and happens often. The notion that folks submitting content to the press have any control over what the press does with it at that point is absolutely false.

I think anyone that has been interviewed by the press more than a dozen times has had experiences of the reporter doing the exact opposite of what you request, or completely messing up your quote. It happens.

I do not know what happened here, but the idea that Jimmy never mentioned Wikipedia or Wikimedia anywhere in his writing, and that the press inserted it for him, would absolutely not surprise me as it has happened to me before.

Just wanted to add that as I sensed some folks were quicker to believe Jimmy was to "blame" than the press - who in my experience are just as often the culprit in disagreements like this.

While I do not agree with this view, a number of folks in the press have also told me they do not see linking a person to their "claims to fame" imply they are then speaking on behalf of those causes (they often use former elected officials, who retain their prefix titles, as examples). Again, I disagree, but have heard that multiple times from reporters at different news outlets - I would not be surprised to learn that the copy-editor, or whomever, felt the same here.

-greg


On 27 Jun, 2012, at 2:57 PM, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers [at] gmail> wrote:

> Message: 4
>
>> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:05:10 +0100
>> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail>
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAHRTtW-a=G3Lq2UUstusazv4osA0SSRCttYBQ-WFtRh8=119bQ [at] mail
>>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>>>
>>> Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
>>>
>>
>> I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
>> be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
>> that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory "Wikipedia
>> founder" label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated
>> with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse.
>>
>> Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
>> fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> SOPA is a bad example, not least because those of the community who
> expressed an opinion mostly agreed with Jimmy.
>
> Better examples would be the rumour floated a year or so back that Jimmy
> was interested in a Senate seat, and Jimmy's porn purge attempt on
> Commons. The senate bid is a good example because the press were able to
> differentiate between what Jimmy was planning to do and what Wikipedia was
> planning. The porn purge is a good example because it shows what happens
> when Jimmy tries to do something on wiki but doesn't take the community
> with him. "Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA
> blackout was had" implies that Jimmy has a merely to make a decision and
> the community will dutifully obey. Reality is very different.
>
>
> WSC
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


geniice at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 12:19 PM

Post #15 of 26 (655 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> I think you mean his petition? You're right in that he signed his petition
> as "Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder":
>
> http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard
>
> Jimmy's article in the Guardian ends with a glowing back-reference to SOPA:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/richard-o-dwyer-my-petition
>
> O'Dwyer is the human face of that battle, and if he's extradited and
> convicted, he will bear the human cost. That's why I've launched a petition
> on change.org to ask the home secretary to stop his extradition – and why I
> hope you will sign it. Together, we won the battle against Sopa and Pipa.
> Together, we can win this one too.

And if he thinks that the general internet population is going to care
about O'Dwyer he is in error but that a bit outside the remit of this
mailing list.


>
> It is not signed, at least not in the online version. However, there are
> innumerable newspaper articles with titles like "Wikipedia founder starts
> petition to stop extradition of Richard O'Dwyer".
>
> Far from being seen as apolitical, what we have is Jimmy Wales as Robin
> Hood and Wikipedia as his merry band of followers.

I'm failing to see exactly why we should be concerned if jimbo is
considered apolitical.


> And hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,

I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far
more than that.

> and what
> systemic copyright violation does to artists' communities. Read the
> Trichordist, for example:
>
> http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

Well they don't know the history of copyright law but in fairness they
are artists. They also haven't heard of Kowloon Walled City but in
fairness they don't appear very aware of the world outside the US. I'd
also take issue with their view of the free culture movement.

Their complaints about falling payments to artists are probably better
considered in the context of the web killing of the long tail.



> Or read the synopsis of Louis Theroux's BBC report on the effect of endemic
> copyright infringement on the porn industry:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18352421
>
> Short version: porn actresses are now living off prostitution, because they
> can no longer make enough money off films.

You think thats new?

In practice I suspect the problem is more the one the stock photo mob
have. There are already decades of stock photos in the archives so
making money from new stuff is tricky.

> It's a fallacy to claim that copyright infringement is incapable of
> destroying an entertainment industry.

It hasn't yet and your examples are poor. The cost of music production
is low enough that the collapse of copyright is unlikely to kill it.
Feature films would be a more obvious candidate.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jayen466 at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 1:25 PM

Post #16 of 26 (647 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni <geniice [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:> And
> hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,
>
> I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far
> more than that.



Let's just start with the notion that there might be more than just *one*
view. ;)

Useful article about the Internet's impact on musicians, in an independent
UK music newspaper:

http://www.thestoolpigeon.co.uk/features/interview-robert-levine-ben-watt-sopa-internet-piracy.html

---o0o---

*How well drafted is SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and what impact do you
think it will have? *

That’s very hard to answer because it’s a complicated law that keeps
changing almost daily. I think SOPA had some problems, some of which were
solved before Christmas and almost all of which will be solved when the
DNS-blocking provisions are blocked. At the same time, most of the
objections were a little silly — enforcing copyright isn’t censorship, and
I can’t see how keeping the current structure of the internet the same way
it was in 1995 is more important than a body of law that’s hundreds of
years old.

The truth is that most of SOPA’s opponents will object to anything that
enforces copyright because they hate it on principle or their businesses
depend on the intellectual property of others — mostly the latter. And it’s
important to remember that many of the nonprofit organisations that came
out against the bill receive some funding from Google. Again, to be clear,
SOPA had problems. But it’s important to keep in mind that the goal of the
other side isn’t to derail SOPA — it’s to prevent any kind of law or legal
precedent that would protect creators’ rights.

*It’s hard to avoid big names from the the arts speaking out strongly
against SOPA at the moment. Both Stephen Fry and the comedy writer Graham
Linehan (‘Father Ted’, ‘The Ladykillers’) have been very outspoken on
Twitter this week. Do you feel they are misguided? *

There are plenty of aspects to SOPA that one can legitimately dislike, but
there’s also a great amount of misinformation. It’s a complex issue that’s
not very well-suited for the tone of the modern media, and it’s even less
well-suited for 140-character tweets. For example, I would not consider
blocking sites like The Pirate Bay to be censorship and neither would US
courts, from what I understand. The truth is that the law wouldn’t change
what’s illegal as much as who’s responsible for infringement — and the
reason Silicon Valley Venture Capitalists are so opposed to it is because
they don’t want any responsibility at all.

To some extent, this is really an argument about corporate liability that
Google is hiding beneath a lot of rhetoric about free speech. That doesn’t
mean there aren’t some free speech issues involved, or that there are no
legitimate reasons to dislike the law; it’s a complicated issue that merits
an extensive and serious discussion (which, to be fair, neither side is
exactly calling for). But many of the nonprofits who have come out against
the law receive funding from Google — and that includes Wikipedia.


---o0o---

It's nice to see not everyone has drunk the Kool-Aid.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


morton.thomas at googlemail

Jun 27, 2012, 1:46 PM

Post #17 of 26 (650 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni <geniice [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:> And
> > hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,
> >
> > I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far
> > more than that.
>
>
>
> Let's just start with the notion that there might be more than just *one*
> view. ;)
>
>
It's a question of extremes.

At one extreme there are, for example, music executives who see a risk to
they fat paychecks, and prefer a model where they can control the
distribution and license costs indefinitely.

On the other extreme are people who not only want something for nothing,
but consider it an inherent right they deserve it.

I find both of these people objectionable.

<ascends soap box>

The aggravating thing about copyright reform lobby is that I often find
myself surrounded by the latter people - the utter dregs of society. As
mentioned somewhere here the idea of intellectual property is a moral
right; lack of respect for this is yet another symptom of our declining
social standards.

</dismounts>

O'dwyer is an odd case. I don't begrudge him the opportunity to make good
money he saw (the media seem not to be interested in how much he has
stashed away... but from his own words, I imagine it is a fair amount) He
is far from an impoverished and defenceless individual.

I'm not a fan of extraditing him. But I would like to see a firmer stance
taken in the UK; perhaps a court could rule he must pay compensation to the
copyright holders of the works he linked to.

On the topic of Jimmy; Wikipedia is his calling card, it opens doors. I
think he hasn't done enough in many situations to distance his own views
from us; which is unfortunate. But not necessarily deliberate :)

As I said before; Wikipedia should have it's own view.

It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high profile
media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world!

Tom
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jayen466 at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 2:05 PM

Post #18 of 26 (647 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas [at] googlemail
> wrote:

> On the topic of Jimmy; Wikipedia is his calling card, it opens doors. I
> think he hasn't done enough in many situations to distance his own views
> from us; which is unfortunate. But not necessarily deliberate :)
>
> As I said before; Wikipedia should have it's own view.
>
> It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high profile
> media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world!
>
>

If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems to like
him a lot),

---o0o---

Together, we won the battle against Sopa and Pipa. Together, we can win
this one too.

---o0o---

and it ends up copied in newspapers around the world,

https://news.google.co.uk/news/story?q=%22Together,+we+won+the+battle+against+Sopa+and+Pipa.+Together,+we+can+win+this+one+too.%22&hl=en&prmd=imvns&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1066&bih=743&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dgWkAFmBLjQBsNMJyGJqPnbvsPpkM&sa=X&ei=xXTrT8rQHYqp8QO_hqXVBQ&ved=0CC0QqgIwAA

attributed to the Wikipedia founder, then there really is no discernible
difference between his view and Wikipedia's, or Google's.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


geniice at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 2:10 PM

Post #19 of 26 (646 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
> Let's just start with the notion that there might be more than just *one*
> view. ;)

Why start there? Again I understand you haven't really studied
copyright but quite a few wikipedians have. So everything from
copyright maximalist anarco-capitalists to the usual annoying
everything should be free crowd is well understood. And thats before
we even begin to consider historic positions and those that involve
technology that hasn't been invented yet.

> Useful article about the Internet's impact on musicians, in an independent
> UK music newspaper:
>
>http://www.thestoolpigeon.co.uk/features/interview-robert-levine-ben-watt-sopa-internet-piracy.html
>

Not really. No new stats no worthwhile legal or technical analysis.

> ---o0o---
>
> *How well drafted is SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and what impact do you
> think it will have? *
>

SOAP is dead. It is largely irrelevant at this point. Perhaps you
couldn't find anyone talking about ACTA but that suggests a concerning
lack of google skills. Incidentally the length of your quote is really
pushing it a bit with regards to the UKs fair dealing provisions. But
perhaps you are unconcerned with such matters.



> It's nice to see not everyone has drunk the Kool-Aid.

Were you trying to say something here?

--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


geniice at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 2:16 PM

Post #20 of 26 (650 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On 27 June 2012 22:05, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
> attributed to the Wikipedia founder, then there really is no discernible
> difference between his view and Wikipedia's, or Google's.

"wikipedia" doesn't really have views in the conventional sense. The
amorphous blob that is the Wikipedia community does to an extent and
it is well documented that they conflict with jimbo from time to time.

Trying to line up wikipedia and google though is just more evidence
you haven't been paying attention. Differing approaches to user
privacy and PLC vs non profit being the most obvious differences.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jwalsh at wikimedia

Jun 27, 2012, 3:42 PM

Post #21 of 26 (641 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

>
>
> > It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high profile
> > media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world!
> >
> >
>
> If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems to like
> him a lot),
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Together, we won the battle against Sopa and Pipa. Together, we can win
> this one too.
>
> ---o0o---
>
> and it ends up copied in newspapers around the world,
>
>
> https://news.google.co.uk/news/story?q=%22Together,+we+won+the+battle+against+Sopa+and+Pipa.+Together,+we+can+win+this+one+too.%22&hl=en&prmd=imvns&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf
> .,cf.osb&biw=1066&bih=743&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dgWkAFmBLjQBsNMJyGJqPnbvsPpkM&sa=X&ei=xXTrT8rQHYqp8QO_hqXVBQ&ved=0CC0QqgIwAA
>
> attributed to the Wikipedia founder, then there really is no discernible
> difference between his view and Wikipedia's, or Google's.
>
>
Hi folks - I'm a bit late to this thread, but I wanted to chime in. The
Communications Committee list/group brought up the issue of some wildly
inaccurate headlines on this story over the last 48hrs, and with their help
and some outreach we've tried to get some corrections.

The press is going to make a very logical, if occasionally wildly
inaccurate, series of judgements on how to frame this whole topic/issue up.
Headlines are commonly over-generalized to the point of being dead wrong -
"Wikipedia backs Richard O'Dwyer petition" etc.

The Wikimedia (chapter etc) folks who work with the press around the world
are regularly doing everything possible to avoid the overly general
summaries that come out in the media. We (and certainly WMF) are highly
sensitive to incorrect facts, and generally the media actually appreciate
it when we're able to reach out and get corrections. Wikimedians and
readers of the stories who offer up comments/responses on stories - below
the story - can help with this too. In some cases we have relationships
with senior editors at outlets and can get things fixed quickly. In other
cases timezones and publication timelines make this harder to resolve.

I know how quickly a bad headline can spiral into more headlines and
echoing of false information. We hold the news outlets who originate those
stories and the ones that continue to repeat them accountable, and we ask
them to get it right.

Just wanted to let you know that there's almost always an effort underway
to get corrections recorded. Jimmy is also very sensitive to these facts
and frequently when he sees an issue in a story he was interviewed for he
writes directly to the reporter for a fix.

jay

--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.org
blog.wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jayen466 at gmail

Jun 27, 2012, 5:37 PM

Post #22 of 26 (644 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Jay Walsh <jwalsh [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> >
> >
> > > It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high
> profile
> > > media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems to
> like
> > him a lot),
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > Together, we won the battle against Sopa and Pipa. Together, we can win
> > this one too.
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > and it ends up copied in newspapers around the world,
> >
> >
> >
> https://news.google.co.uk/news/story?q=%22Together,+we+won+the+battle+against+Sopa+and+Pipa.+Together,+we+can+win+this+one+too.%22&hl=en&prmd=imvns&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf
> >
> .,cf.osb&biw=1066&bih=743&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dgWkAFmBLjQBsNMJyGJqPnbvsPpkM&sa=X&ei=xXTrT8rQHYqp8QO_hqXVBQ&ved=0CC0QqgIwAA
> >
> > attributed to the Wikipedia founder, then there really is no discernible
> > difference between his view and Wikipedia's, or Google's.
> >
> >
> Hi folks - I'm a bit late to this thread, but I wanted to chime in. The
> Communications Committee list/group brought up the issue of some wildly
> inaccurate headlines on this story over the last 48hrs, and with their help
> and some outreach we've tried to get some corrections.
>
> The press is going to make a very logical, if occasionally wildly
> inaccurate, series of judgements on how to frame this whole topic/issue up.
> Headlines are commonly over-generalized to the point of being dead wrong -
> "Wikipedia backs Richard O'Dwyer petition" etc.
>
> The Wikimedia (chapter etc) folks who work with the press around the world
> are regularly doing everything possible to avoid the overly general
> summaries that come out in the media. We (and certainly WMF) are highly
> sensitive to incorrect facts, and generally the media actually appreciate
> it when we're able to reach out and get corrections. Wikimedians and
> readers of the stories who offer up comments/responses on stories - below
> the story - can help with this too. In some cases we have relationships
> with senior editors at outlets and can get things fixed quickly. In other
> cases timezones and publication timelines make this harder to resolve.
>
> I know how quickly a bad headline can spiral into more headlines and
> echoing of false information. We hold the news outlets who originate those
> stories and the ones that continue to repeat them accountable, and we ask
> them to get it right.
>
> Just wanted to let you know that there's almost always an effort underway
> to get corrections recorded. Jimmy is also very sensitive to these facts
> and frequently when he sees an issue in a story he was interviewed for he
> writes directly to the reporter for a fix.



Jay, what did Jimmy expect the press to report? None of you have been doing
this since yesterday. Jimmy's very petition is signed "Jimmy Wales,
Wikipedia founder".

http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard

This is Wikipedia's name that is being leveraged here, pure and simply. And
consciously so, deliberately, intentionally, knowingly.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


phnash at blueyonder

Jun 27, 2012, 5:52 PM

Post #23 of 26 (652 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

>> I know how quickly a bad headline can spiral into more headlines and
>> echoing of false information.

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee don't, apparently.

>> Just wanted to let you know that there's almost always an effort underway
>> to get corrections recorded. Jimmy is also very sensitive to these facts
>> and frequently when he sees an issue in a story he was interviewed for he
>> writes directly to the reporter for a fix.

But not so sensitive to the effects his faulty judgements have on the real
people who have given so much to Wikipedia.

When Wales accepts his judgement was rushed and faulty in my case, I'll
respect him; until then, I doubt he'll be welcome in Liverpool.



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


smolensk at eunet

Jun 27, 2012, 11:47 PM

Post #24 of 26 (643 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On 27/06/12 22:25, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I can’t see how keeping the current structure of the internet the same way
> it was in 1995 is more important than a body of law that’s hundreds of
> years old.

Excellently put. He really can't.


geniice at gmail

Jun 28, 2012, 4:30 AM

Post #25 of 26 (642 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer [In reply to]

On 28 June 2012 01:37, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> Jay, what did Jimmy expect the press to report? None of you have been doing
> this since yesterday. Jimmy's very petition is signed "Jimmy Wales,
> Wikipedia founder".
>
> http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard
>
> This is Wikipedia's name that is being leveraged here, pure and simply. And
> consciously so, deliberately, intentionally, knowingly.


Yeah we get it you don't like Jimbo. Is there any reason we should care?


--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.