[Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Wed Feb 14 17:46:01 UTC 2007

geni wrote:

>On 2/12/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>  
>
>You want minimum restrictions with regard to copyright that is the
>correct course of action.
>
I agree with minimum restriction, but a move to Iran strikes me as 
slightly unrealistic.

>>I'm arguing that we should weigh the advantages of accommodating foreign
>>restrictions
>>    
>>
>Try again this time try not to think so americano centri
>
Some accomodation of "foreign" restrictions is necessary, but it seems 
that the most retrogressive pressures are the ones that come from the 
European Union.

>>U.S. centrism is borne of ignorance or willful exclusion. Neither is the
>>case here.
>>    
>>
>Then try and think why when dealing with the option of moving the
>foundation to somewhere with the most liberal copyright laws on an
>international mailing list why using the term "foreign restrictions"
>isn't exactly ideal phrasing.
>
I can see where the word "foreign" leads to a number of anomalous 
problems.  The location of the hardware in the United States does lead 
to the natural tendency to have other laws considered foreign.  At the 
same time it would be good to have a contingency plan for the location 
of servers even if there is no immediately forseeable reason for 
invoking that plan.  In any circumstances it would be helpful if we can 
start developping more international terminology for our discussions.  
Would the Berne Convention be a good starting point for this?.

Ec