Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Threatens Artists For Fair Use
Hugh Pickens writes "Can a noncommercial website use the trademark of the entity it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not. The EFF reports that Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern have created a noncommercial website at Wikipediaart.org intended to comment on the nature of art and Wikipedia. Since 'Wikipedia' is a trademark owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, the Foundation has demanded that the artists give up the domain name peaceably or it will attempt to take it by legal force. 'Wikipedia should know better. There is no trademark or cybersquatting issue here,' writes the EFF's Corynne McSherry. 'Moreover, even if US trademark laws somehow reached this noncommercial activity, the artists' use of the mark is an obvious fair use.' It is hard to see what Wikipedia gains by litigating this matter, but easy to see how they lose."
Load and aim at foot
They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
Does anyone think he would get away with creating "CryslerArt.com" ?
I don't see why not. "ChryslerArt.com" might be a little more problematic.
Man oh man, does it get any better than this? I'm gonna go pop some corn...
the PETA that puts naked chicks in cages on the street
WHERE!? Where does this happen and how do I get there!?
Step 1: Go outside /. would make it past step 1.
Step 2: Head to your local...awe who am I kidding, nobody on
"ChryslerArt.com" might be a little more problematic.
Yeah, it's quite fraudulent to call anything by Chrysler "art".
Okay, okay, maybe the foresight in scamming pensioners...
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Disclaimer: I am a 1950s socialist and have debated and contributed towards Maxist theory.
You may be able to point to the Soviet Union not being open-minded. From the purging of Citizens to being denounced by the co-founder, you may be able to point to things they've done that seem really really controlling and closed minded.
But look at what they've done and accomplished. Look at how they've come under attack themselves for their ideals or having over 1/2 of the world's population blocked from you.
They have established a totally classless society. No inequality. They have had to balance quality with quantity. They have established rules that define what socialist. I would wager that in the past year they are more talked about than any other country in this publication. Their power of veto in the UN reflect this.
If you are criticizing them because they are not as free and open as the West, fine. But know that I have access to a free public health care, education, transport and many other systems, to use them as an invaluable resource. Would the USSR have been as successful if they had taken a more open and free stance? They walk a fine line between their control and community control and I think they've done a fine job with their success as evidence.
May the Maths Be with you!
It's quite lengthy and technical, so allow me to summarize:
Using our trademarked term 'Art' in a non-Wikipedia web page such as yours [citation needed] inevitably tends to dilute and water down our historic trademark protections and liberties. Those who would sacrifice article quality for a little temporary respite from deletion are doomed to repeat it, poorly. Wikipedia is like a car, and taking the wheels off it to replace them with DRM'd ones that only work on a particular kind of road is like boiling a frog. Just consider what would happen if Hitler himself designed cars...
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Read the answer by Mike Godwin
Damn. You just Hitlered the debate!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire