On 1/28/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
I think there is a
place for fair use in Wikipedia, and at the same time I support the
rationale for its being prohibited in Commons.
Then we are in agreement.
Your talk of multiple
sub-goals seems to be a second rate categorixation problem more than
anything else. Don't make the issue more complicated than it should be.
This is the wording used on [[Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria]], which I object to.
While
I support fair use I still recognize the transitivity problem connected
with it.
But as long as the fair use content cannot be replaced with free
content, the transitivity is a non-issue. We can't do anything about
it. When legal, we *can* still use it to further our encyclopedia,
though.
Our goal is to
create a
repository of "the sum of all human knowledge"; not "a collection of
copyright-free human knowledge". (That's what Project Gutenberg is
for.)
Then what do you see as the goal of Wikisource?
I don't know much about Wikisource. They have their own comparison at
<http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Wikisource_and_Project_Gutenberg>
To get your terminology straight "fair use"
is specifically NOT a
"copyright violation". Don't muddle the argument by mixing up claimed
fair use and actual fair use.
Rather, it is "not an infringement of copyright", or an "exception to
copyright".