[WikiEN-l] British copyright law != American copyright law

Thu Aug 5 20:03:08 UTC 2004

Like any US business, Wikipedia must either conform to
an existing particular protectionist system (hence
entering into an implicit agreement to somewhat
conform to a particular cultural imperialism) or
choose to defy it, in the hope that the means of
enforcing its protections elsewhere are impractical. 
WP can continue to skirt indefinitely around the issue
of violating various "laws," as long as it complies
with 'US law.' But at some point, US law may come to
excessively test WP's conformity to its implied
contract to conform, and may have to find somewhere
else to go.

Considering some of the methods by which the RIAA for
example (a much-coddled entity) has excercised its
"authority" to enforce IP rights in the cyberworld,
its perhaps only on the continued disbelief in the
wiki model that WP is not being legally challenged.
IMHO its worth the effort to just imagine a future
wherein WP can exist and function outside of all
"legal" restrictions; and yet, as an entity in good
faith with human goals, still prosper. The authority
of courts to enforce their juristiction ultimately
comes down to means of enforcement, and hence the
extension of Constitutional principle (free speech,
habeas corpus, etc.) to international matters is on
the cutting edge of current legal issues; which is why
in Iraq for example, dominant enforcement system
without the extension of Constitutional juristiction
and citizen protections, is an ethical anomaly which
calls to explanation the very basis of US legal
authority in an international context.

S

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Nikola Smolenski wrote: 
> >On Wednesday 04 August 2004 18:28, Jimmy (Jimbo)
> Wales wrote:
> >>p.s.  I would be interested in gathering examples
> of content that (a)
> >>we ought to have in the encyclopedia on editorial
> >>grounds but that (b)
> >>would not be legal for us to host in the United
> >>States.

> >In some countries, works enter public domain 50
> years after author's death. 
> >So, there are wagons of pictures and texts of
> authors who died between 1934 
> >and 1954 which are PD in those countries but not PD
> in the US.
> 
> All 1954 deaths are still have their works under
> copyright until the end 
> of this year.  What you cite is the standard under
> international law.  
> It is interesting to note that the countries that
> have or are pushing 
> for longer copyright terms are rich ones with many
> businesses that are 
> already heavily invested in their intellectual
> properties.  The artists 
> that did the work more than 50 years ago have long
> since been paid off. 
> 
> Lately the third world countries have been more
> interested in 
> agricultural subsidies since that has a greater
> impact on them than 
> intellectual property. 
>
> -Ec

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail