Slashdot Mirror


Wikipedia Moves To Delete the Free Speech Flag

decora writes "After a version of the PS3 Free Speech Flag (from the Yale Law & Tech blog) was deleted from Wikipedia, for being a copyright violation, discussion turned to the original Free Speech Flag, from the HD DVD / AACS encryption key controversy. The result is that this flag too (currently in use on six different wikipedias) has now been nominated for deletion."

258 comments

  1. 5 fucking color stripes in a square. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated.

    this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.

    1. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Necroloth · · Score: 5, Funny

      this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.

      didn't you know? Jar Jar Binks is copyrighted.

    2. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated.

      No, this is Wikipedia process-wankery and why they're losing editors in droves.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by natehoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Meesa poopsa?

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Steauengeglase · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sony is just testing the waters to see how far they can go in their "California" matter and Wikipedia just doesn't want to waste resources in the eventual court battle. While I'm not going to applaud Wikipedia, I can't throw too many rocks at them either.

      Soon someone big is going to have to deal with it and I get the feeling that it isn't going to be favorable for Sony, who has been pretty reckless since they don't have a wold conquering media format to rest their laurels on. Until then it is probably better for small players with out an army of lawyers, to keep their heads down until this thing comes to an end. Then again if the EFF wants to jump in, more power to them.

    5. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by unity100 · · Score: 2

      eff can jump in, mount a campaign for the particular case, and get donations. im sure a lot of people will donate to them.

      then sony can get their ass straightened out and properly compliant with modern standards of liberty and freedom of knowledge and information.

    6. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by DCram · · Score: 2

      I am unsure how I feel about this. While I believe that IP and copyright are getting way out of hand I ask myself how would I react to a company flying my countries flag, family crest, company logo. How would you feel if Walmart changed its logo to the American flag? Would you want them to be seen as directly representing the US.

      I don't know..I can see both sides. Not sure I agree with either.

      --
      If I were only smart enough to accomplish the things I dream about.. Or maybe too dumb to care.
    7. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by commodore6502 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wikipedia doesn't challenge copyright.

      For example they removed the List of 210 Television designated market areas (DMAs), because Nielsen complained it was copyrighted. Even after I provided a *public domain* version from the Federal Communications Commission (they call them 'television markets' for purposes of regulation), wikipedia still refused to allow it to be posted.

      Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    8. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated. "

      Arrangements of the 7 existing (western) musical notes are much worse.

    9. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by DJ+Particle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many companies incorporate a US flag, or an avatar of it, in their logos

      For example: America's Best eyewear

    10. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      nielsen can still sue wikipedia even if you put up a public domain version of something.

      thats the fault of american system - the one with the money wins the court.

    11. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're taking things too broadly. Its a case of encoding.

      Its very possible for me to grab something which has a copyright, convert it to binary and then convert it into:

      1. Colours
      2. Strings
      3. Numbers
      4. Music

      So while "Owning Arrangements of Colour" sounds stupid in principle, what you could do if this was not the case would completely destroy copyright on many things. Now you could say that's a good thing, but meh.

    12. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated.

      The funny thing is that the flag is MORE worthy of copyright protection than the original key. If you pick 5 random colors and put them on a flag, that's creative work worthy of copyright protection. An arbitrary encryption key is the result of a purely mechanical process and should not meet the threshold of originality.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "most"

    14. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      Many companies incorporate a US flag, or an avatar of it, in their logos

      Define "most"

      Why would he define most? He used MANY.

    15. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most != Many

    16. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by vlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, this is Wikipedia process-wankery and why they're losing editors in droves.

      It would be interesting to survey those whom leave. In comparison, most of the people I know whom left, hated the deletionist griefers. They are why I refuse to participate.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    17. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

      Too bad they can't arrange to lose the right editors.

      Wikipedia appears to be the Web 2.0 equivalent of urban flight and blight: anyone with a clue is ditching fast, and pretty soon, the only ones left in the "inner city" will be criminals and psychos

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    18. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... blah ... For example they removed ... blah ...

      The deletionist griefers at wikipedia enjoy filling their empty lives by destroying others work. Thats why its gone, because you cared, and they wanted the rush of destroying something you wanted. If you expressed deep desire for a table of American Morse Code letters or perhaps semaphone signals, they would delete them. Everything else is rationalization and story telling. On both sides.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    19. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by hduff · · Score: 0

      No, this is Wikipedia process-wankery and why they're losing editors in droves.

      This move to re-move is simply political trolling and biatchy bumfuggery on the part of some over-active asshat.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    20. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by DrXym · · Score: 2

      Wikipedia doesn't challenge copyright.

      For example they removed the List of 210 Television designated market areas (DMAs), because Nielsen complained it was copyrighted. Even after I provided a *public domain* version from the Federal Communications Commission (they call them 'television markets' for purposes of regulation), wikipedia still refused to allow it to be posted.

      Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

      They'd probably let you keep your submission assuming you put the money in escrow to cover any potential court battle. Otherwise, are you surprised they choose to take potentially infringing things down?

    21. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone could set up a FreePedia in Sweden.

    22. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TRADEMARK IT
      (insert: Insanity Wolf pic)
      AND SUE SONY!!

    23. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.

      Not if there's prior fart.

    24. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by commodore6502 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is inevitable that all organizations become corrupt, as they attract people desiring Status or Power. Wikipedia did that as people sought status by become "moderators", and now it's an unfriendly place for contributors, due to these persons acting dictatorial (or bureaucratic - almost as bad).

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    25. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by vlm · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wikipedia appears to be the Web 2.0 equivalent of urban flight and blight: anyone with a clue is ditching fast, and pretty soon, the only ones left in the "inner city" will be criminals and psychos

      And the politicians and paid corporate astroturfers. Oh wait, redundant.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    26. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by jimktrains · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ditto, the deletionists are why I have such mixed feelings about wikipedia. I don't see any good reason a legit article shouldn't be deleted based on some persons definition of fame.

      --
      "You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
    27. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto, the deletionists are why I have such mixed feelings about wikipedia. I don't see any good reason a legit article shouldn't be deleted based on some persons definition of fame.

      I also stopped editing wikipedia, mostly because of the deletionists.

    28. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

      Yes. Everything is potentially infringing by that rubric. If you can demonstrate a public-domain source for the information, I'd say you've done a lot more legwork than most submitters do to prove that the information they're adding to the site isn't infringing a copyright, so if they're going to delete that out of potential infringement, literally nothing is safe from that protectionist red-herring.

    29. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but since it's public domain information "owned" by the US Government rather than a corporation, the case would quickly be thrown-out.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    30. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      tl;dr version: some people just want to watch the world burn.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    31. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

      Maybe they should plaster a "Please read this personal appeal from Jimmy Wales" sign on every window, alongside a picture of him, staring intently forward, looking like he's about to try and kiss the viewer.

      It worked for Wikipedia's fund drive, maybe it'd work for corporate activism too.

    32. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats why its gone, because you cared, and they wanted the rush of destroying something you wanted. If you expressed deep desire for a table of American Morse Code letters or perhaps semaphone signals, they would delete them. Everything else is rationalization and story telling. On both sides.

      I'd like to officially express my deep desire for the deletionistas to live long and healthy lives. With any luck, they'll get right to work figuring out how to die in a fire.

    33. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

      You're taking things too broadly. Its a case of encoding.

      Its very possible for me to grab something which has a copyright, convert it to binary and then convert it into:

      1. Colours 2. Strings 3. Numbers 4. Music

      So while "Owning Arrangements of Colour" sounds stupid in principle, what you could do if this was not the case would completely destroy copyright on many things. Now you could say that's a good thing, but meh.

      Isn't copyright supposed to cover a particular expression? You can't tell me that this flag and that number can be considered the same expression.

    34. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by DJ+Particle · · Score: 3, Informative

      "she", actually :)

    35. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      How?
      This means you own the copyright on your song of these numbers if anything.

      How is this even a copyright issue? These numbers are not a creative work, they are just facts.

    36. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure all twelve notes count.

    37. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia peaked in 2007-2008. There i sa history function for that.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    38. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      That is actually the maint problem about "intellectual property" laws : they do not understand anything about information theory. How thesame information can be encoded differently in many ways, including non-copyrightable ones.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    39. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU, my friend, owe me an entirely new keyboard. /well played.

    40. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Jason+Quinn · · Score: 0

      Ditto, the deletionists are why I have such mixed feelings about wikipedia. I don't see any good reason a legit article shouldn't be deleted based on some persons definition of fame.

      The problem with non-"deletionists" is that they've never come up with a way to distinguish garbage from non-garbage.

    41. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by natehoy · · Score: 1

      It's on the way. I found you a really expensive one. It's nice.

      I used your credit card, hope you don't mind.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    42. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Steauengeglase · · Score: 3, Informative

      At least they haven't removed this one yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionpedia

    43. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that would explain why all those "deletionist griefers" have asked to delete this image.

      Oh wait -- they haven't. Take a look at the discussion -- it consists entirely of people who want to keep the image. There seems to be no one who wants to delete it except for the nominator.

      Check your bias.

    44. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Psychochild · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it so vital to classify stuff as "garbage" and "non-garbage"? (The fact that you chose to use the word "garbage" with negative connotation says a lot.) Good stuff gets looked at, the rest (shallow self-promotion, astroturfing, libel, etc.) gets corrected if it's something a lot of people will run into. Given the cost of running Wikipedia already, it's not like a few tens of thousands of pages is going to make a difference in a digital world.

      The thing I loved about Wikipedia back in the day was the ability to find obscure stuff. Yeah, I could search for it online, but that didn't give me the context. It was a real joy to just lose yourself reading links in Wikipedia. But, after seeing a bunch of articles I care about get removed, it's less of a joy because I have to wonder what other information was deemed "not notable" enough for me to read.

      The ultimate problem with "deletionism" is that people with no real knowledge of the topic are often the ones calling for deletion. Or, worse, you get someone who has a personal interest in deleting an article as "revenge", as in the case of the Old Man Murray issue from last week.

      Here's my "faling out of love witih Wikipedia" story: An article on "Dragon Kill Points" (DKP) was deleted back in the day by someone who thought it wasn't notable; as a respected MMORPG developer, I argued it was a very notable and important concept to the field. I managed to help put off two deletion attempts on the basis of "not notable" in the span of a few months, only to have the article deleted later in a "speedy" process. The first two proposals came from the same person (after the first one was an unambiguous "keep" result), and the three requests came all within 4 months of each other. This seems a bit beyond someone wanting to "clean up" the site. Of course, the article was added back some years later, but it's a shadow of its former self and not nearly as useful.

      Lesson learned! Not is a lot of potentially useful information missing, I also learned that anything I contributed in my field might be wiped out by someone who just doesn't like it. I'll spend my time doing something more useful than contributing or using Wikipedia, thanks.

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
    45. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

      That is actually the maint problem about "intellectual property" laws : they do not understand anything about information theory. How thesame information can be encoded differently in many ways, including non-copyrightable ones.

      I'd dispute the non-copyrightable bit. That flag probably IS copyright-able, but it would be 'owned' by the guy that made the flag, not the corp that 'owns' the key. (To claim copyright on an encryption key, though, that still makes my skin crawl...)

    46. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      The USA flag is public domain. Anyone and any company can use it, even as their company logo. Walmart could use it if they wanted to.

      --
      signature is pants
    47. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    48. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Lies! The Internet states no girls. :P

      --
      signature is pants
    49. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      I left Wikipedia because of the deletionists too.

      I was editing articles on the topic of acoustics. The articles that were written were totally wrong, I work in acoustics so I have the right credentials. Arguments started, they sourced their information from other web site, ironically some of them stated their source was wikipedia.

      The deletionists didn't just edit or revert back to previous version, they deleted the edits forever.

      I now stay well clear of the site, I know plenty of others who do too.

    50. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And arrangements of the two values of a bit are the worst of all!
      *sob blubber wail*

    51. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by DJ+Particle · · Score: 1

      Except lesbians ;)

    52. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately some are moving to tvtropes and are spreading the cancer there.

    53. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just some simple advice -- if you use "who" when "whom" is warranted, people generally overlook it. If you use "whom" when "who" is correct, you look stupid...

    54. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

      Why is it so vital to classify stuff as "garbage" and "non-garbage"?

      You know. So you don't run out of room. On the Internet.

    55. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      So you're telling me that if you write a song, and I copy it to a wav file, a mp3,mp4 file, a wmv file, a [whatever format they use for writing notes], a flash file with the music in it, a graphical representation of the music (either as a waveform or its notes), a video of how the song can be played on a particular instrument...

      You only own one of these expressions?

    56. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the UK, the Supreme Court may be about to redefine the creative threshold. Unfortunately, publishing information intended to enable or assist persons to remove or circumvent [a] technical device gives the copyright holder the same remedies as infringing their copyright would. So you can't publish it anyway.

    57. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      No, but the flag is a "derivative work" of the number: if the number can be protected by copyright then the creator of the flag needed a licence from the owner of the number's copyright.

    58. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

      So you're telling me that if you write a song, and I copy it to a wav file, a mp3,mp4 file, a wmv file, a [whatever format they use for writing notes], a flash file with the music in it, a graphical representation of the music (either as a waveform or its notes), a video of how the song can be played on a particular instrument...

      You only own one of these expressions?

      No, I would argue that all the formats you listed are the same expression of the song; you haven't changed it. If you took the bits representing the song and re-encoded/re-interpretted it as something visual, I feel that that is a different expression. A song is a song; a song is not a picture.

      If i'm smart, I probably already copyrighted the sheet music, so "its notes" is questionable, but I don't see why I should have copyright over a the waveform or even some graph depicting tonal qualities or whatever. The video's sketchy, too, unless you can demonstrate how to play the song without playing the song.

    59. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by darkshadow88 · · Score: 1

      I hate to be "that guy", but "whom" is not a fancy way of saying "who"; it has grammatical significance, and when you use it wrong, it makes you look like a fool.

    60. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I wonder how one might start a competitor of Wikipedia, which was [u]explicitly inclusionist[/u]? I guess you'd need some sort of provisos for deleting things that are illegal, but otherwise ... it's just a matter of disk space whether we keep detailed info on every single Sailor Moon episode or biography pages (and stubs) for every character ever mentioned in the Iliad.

      And money, of course. Money to fund the farm, so I can't really help much with that. :(

    61. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

      No, but the flag is a "derivative work" of the number: if the number can be protected by copyright then the creator of the flag needed a licence from the owner of the number's copyright.

      That's disputable. The original "work" is just a handful of hex digits. The flag is a picture. You might argue that the flag was "inspired by" the key, but even at that they key doesn't exist anywhere in the flag itself -- at a bit level, it looks drastically different than the key. Only the author's intent indicates any relationship at all with the key.

    62. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by c0lo · · Score: 1

      I wonder how one might start a competitor of Wikipedia, which was [u]explicitly inclusionist[/u]?

      There is one already

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    63. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by multisync · · Score: 1

      I predict your friends list will grow exponentially after that comment.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    64. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pics or it didn't happen.

    65. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      The way the flag looks at a bit level depends on the image format you use. In a non-compressed lossless raster format the relationship with the key is about as obvious as a slap in the face with a kipper, so that point doesn't hold any water at all unless you would consider converting a file from .bmp to .jpeg to be creating a new work which was merely "inspired" by the original.

      As to the author's intent - that's what copyright is all about. The clue is in the word. If you independently create a work which is remarkably similar to mine and you can prove that it was an independent creation (which might be rather difficult!) then you don't need a licence from me to distribute or exploit your work. If your work is derived from mine you do. The creation of the flag from the number is such an obvious case of translation that it would be a miracle were a court which upheld the copyright status of the number not to hold the flag to be a derivative work.

    66. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      It would only get thrown out if you show up with a good local lawyer in whatever part of the world they decide to sue you in, if you dont you might lose by default.

    67. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by solferino · · Score: 1

      You've got an erroneous understanding of when to use 'whom'.

    68. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Can copyright apply to a meaningless number, regardless of it's presentation?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    69. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      "Garbage" is content that is untrue.

      It the Wikipedians just stuck to their habit of requesting [citation needed], they could rather easily delete any article which is truely not noteworthy, simply because no reliable outside source found the topic worthy enough to supply the [citation needed] and the topic would end up being empty. Of you CAN find such reliable citation then, apparently, the topic is noteworthy.

      But I understand it's still very expensive to store a 10KB article on harddisk.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    70. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ditto.

    71. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Dahan · · Score: 1

      That may be the case so far, but what about the fact that the PS3 Free Speech Flag has already been deleted--and in such a way that the deletion logs are hidden too.

    72. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      No, this is Wikipedia wp:process-wankery and why they're losing editors[[opinion]] in droves[[citation needed]].

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    73. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Just some simple advice -- if you use "who" when "whom" is warranted, people generally overlook it. If you use "whom" when "who" is correct, you look stupid...

      I am Mrs Slocombe, and both I and my pussy resemble that remark, you insensitive clod!!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    74. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by crossmr · · Score: 2

      and there is just as a big a problem with people who don't seem to understand what wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not and has never been a record of all human knowledge. Yet, there are plenty who want to use it to promote their special snowflake because they know how popular it is and it deserves such an audience!

      They'll make all kinds of arguments about this and that, and about how their cousin Bob was searching for that very topic just that morning and he has cancer, so it was his last internet search and that is why wikipedia needs articles like that one he wrote about belly button lint.

      In this day and age if you can't get a single reliable source anywhere at anytime to care about your subject, then no, it doesn't really need to be there. There are plenty of other wikis, even hosted by the same organization you could use to hold that information.

    75. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      Why? Are there better internet connections in the Greek Island of Lesbos?

    76. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by kbolino · · Score: 1

      Not if the articles get deleted. Deletion destroys the history record, at least the publicly accessible one.

    77. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Don't be daft. Just because someone grouped the bytes into triplets and interpreted them as RGB values doesn't mean that the information contained is any different.

      You can argue that an encryption key should or should not be copyrightable, but trying to tell me that because you wrote those same bytes in a different style is as stupid as trying to defend copyright infringement by saying "I'm not a pirate because pirates have eye patches". All the pedantry in the world regarding choice of words (or for the case of the key, choice of encoding) doesn't change the fact of what it is.

    78. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by mxs · · Score: 2

      That is where it started. It has since gotten out of hand. Plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of good, useful, encyclopedic articles have been deleted. Most by people who have no idea what the fuck the articles were even about. Find something in the "community" rules (=cabal rules) to hang the article with and do it. It's a sport to them.

      I have stopped contributing to Wikipedia for this and some other reasons (among which the senseless timewasting in "discussion" pages with sockpuppetry, cabal-mentality, and inane stuttering about bullshit left and right). And I wasn't working on the latest Pokemon monster traits, either. Wikipedia has a real problem in the system. It is not likely to get fixed either -- many people who could and would contribute excellently don't -- because they don't have the time to deal with nitwits starting senseless revert wars, inane discussions that lack understanding of the basic concept the article itself is about, etc.

      You are right, there are other wikis out there, other ways to share your information, other ways to share your knowledge, other ways to make your field of expertise accessible to people. I still think it's a damn shame that Wikipedia can't be that place even for its stated purpose. At least it serves as an example of what to avoid in the future.

    79. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      ok, I guess I've noticed this. I'm not really big in the wikipedia community but I'm massively dependent on it as an external brain.
      But why the hell are there deletionists in the first place!? Did I miss something? Are we not supposed to "Be Bold"? Is hard-disk space too precious? Who in their right mind would want to LOWER the article count on Wikipedia? I remember when that little counter was a point of pride. I remember when I felt I was contributing when I turned a red link to blue. What sort of evil fucking empire gets their jollies by taking an axe to Wikipedia?

    80. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean 12 western musical notes (can't forget the sharps/flats).

    81. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by AlXtreme · · Score: 2

      en cy clo pe di a

      1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge.

      The only reason encyclopedias didn't add more information was because it wasn't feasible. Wikipedia was doing great, why would you want to limit it to only a subset of human knowledge? Information that I find trivial might interest my neighbor, so why would I delete an article about his precious snowflake? Why should my article about belly button lint have to be relevant?

      Storage is cheap. Compared to wiki articles storage is insanely cheap. Someone can add articles about every flower in his local park and it still wouldn't cost more than a few MB. Extra articles don't clutter up anything.

      Stop trying to place an arbitrary border around a subset of human knowledge and pretend you're the gatekeeper. The whole deletionist movement and infighting about relevancy has done Wikipedia much more harm than any article about an obscure anime series could ever do.

      Give us our H2G2. If I don't think something is relevant, I'll simply ignore it.

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    82. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. Provided that the FCC version was a US Government work, it should've been perfectly fine to post it (although not to post an identical version from Nielsen; provenance is central to copyright).

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    83. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      First thing I read: "The site is based on MediaWiki and is no longer collecting deleted articles or being updated."

    84. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by scurvyj · · Score: 0

      Yup, its gone completely out of control. I have trouble with the idea that 1's and 0's on your harddrive can send you off to Anal Sex College (unless they are nuclear launch codes that you magically can hollywood to NORAD somehow). Stateless nations roll on I say......

    85. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That would be an improvement, but it still doesn't work. Some things are only referenced online. Some things are only referenced in out of print books or magazines. This doesn't make them insignificant.

      And some fools counted upon the Wikipedia page for permanent documentation of something important, so they allowed the original source to vanish. Yeah, they were stupid to trust Wikipedia with anything important.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    86. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by SilentChasm · · Score: 1

      I left because of the notability rules (aka deleting things they don't find important enough). Everything is important, maybe not enough to be a featured article or really one of any significance but it would be nice to find something for every topic. I also didn't like looking at the discussion pages and seeing the holier-than-thou editors.

      The complex rules didn't help either. Just look at the discussion on iTouch (unofficial name of the iPod Touch). I've heard people actually call it that but apparently no source is enough. I can kind of understand the reasoning behind it, but it Just Bugs Me.

      I've since moved on to TVTropes which has articles on pretty much every tv show/movie/book that can help you decide if they might be worth the effort to watch/read.

    87. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      And money, of course. Money to fund the farm, so I can't really help much with that. :(

      A wiki scales proportionally to the user base; you wouldn't need more than a cheap VPS or a free EC2 instance until you had a decent number of users, and then you could milk^Wask them for donations.

      Personally, I don't really care. I don't mind that they delete the page for every character of Pokemon; there are better places on the web to put those, like the Gaming Wikia. Wikipedia doesn't need to have a copy of all existing information.

      Are there abuses? Sure, and they should be dealt with, but having a no-deletions-whatsoever policy only fixes that by introducing a bigger problem.

    88. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      The USA flag is public domain. Anyone and any company can use it, even as their company logo. Walmart could use it if they wanted to.

      Interesting: USA flag is public domain, but the FBI badges cannot be reproduced on X-Files and caused some unfortunate folks to challenge the FBI at their door with "pshaw, those aren't real FBI badges, I know what those look like, I watch X-Files".

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    89. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia was doing great, why would you want to limit it to only a subset of human knowledge? Information that I find trivial might interest my neighbor, so why would I delete an article about his precious snowflake? Why should my article about belly button lint have to be relevant?

      because that is what wikipedia decided it wanted. You're free to fork it and start your own at any time.
      Wikipedia looks to the articles it has as a reflection of it's quality. Obscure precious snowflakes don't fit that criteria. That's what webhosts and other things are for.

    90. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Are you basically saying that I can take down Wikipedia articles simply by claiming that they infringe on my hypothetical copyright? That's cool; let's start with the one on Wikileaks, then?

    91. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying that when they get legal threats which appear to have a basis in fact they're not going to take some random guy's assurances that some similar material is in the public domain.

    92. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I don't know in USA, but in France (and I think the whole European Union) you can't patent "mathematical formulas" or algorithms. Of course, this principle is in the law without any formal description of what constitutes a formula or an algorithm. Therefore, during the DeCss, some people published a big prime number and an algorithm that could be used to transform this number into the DeCss.

      Another interesting jurisprudence is that fashion designs are not protected by any IP law, they are considered non-patentable, non-copyrightable. One could design an algorithm to transform any content in a fashion product and lead to things of an unexpected legal status.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    93. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by vlm · · Score: 1

      because that is what wikipedia decided it wanted.

      No, that is what the small subset of griefers whom are in control wanted, so that they can cause others to suffer. Everyone else is horrified by their behavior.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    94. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Argue against it then. if the majority of the community doesn't want that and actually cares you should have no problem finding support for a policy/guideline change.

      labelling people with derogatory terms does nothing but weaken your argument and tells me you don't really care about wikipedia as a whole but instead are ticked off about something personal.
       

    95. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by spidr_mnky · · Score: 1

      Who.

    96. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use whom. Just don't use it at all. You clearly have no clue when it is appropriate, and misusing it just makes you come across as an idiot.

    97. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Bent+Spoke · · Score: 1

      How about the all to common problem of deleted pages leaving a litany of broken links in other wikipedia pages.

    98. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to "Wikipedia is not paper"? *sigh*

      Deletionists seem to think Wikipedia should be like a paper encyclopaedia, not just in terms of what subjects are included but what information is in there too. One of the best things about WP was the depth of info, discussion and trivia in articles. These days when I read a WP article I am left feeling like I want to know more. I could spend hours researching and wading through material but that is exactly the point - there is no reason why WP could not have all this stuff in it. Okay, there has to be a baseline, i.e. there must be sources and citations as well as being neutral, but otherwise it should not be removed.

      The following is a list of things that should NOT result in deletion:

      - Poor language / errors (fix it!)
      - Trivia
      - Article length (split it or uses collapsing, but keep the material no matter what)
      - Discussion of a subject as an introduction to it
      - Lack of citations in print/broadcast media (welcome to the intertubes)
      - Notability

      Yes, notability is not a reason in of itself. If there are verifiable sources then it is possible to write a good article. The default position should be to keep an article, and a very strong argument to be required to remove it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    99. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Psychochild · · Score: 1

      What is the "bigger problem" by not deleting articles? As I said in the GGP, the bad stuff should be fixed by contributors if enough (knowledgeable) people visit the page. Which, to me, is leaps and bounds better than the current situation where someone with no knowledge on a topic can advocate the deletion of an article and keep submitting it for deletion despite what people active in the field the article relates to advise.

      Ultimately, I think that's the problem with article deletion; it's a way for people to wield some modicum of power over "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." It basically says that "anyone" cannot be trusted to do the right thing, which kind of invalidates Wikipedia's whole reason for existence.

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
    100. Re:5 fucking color stripes in a square. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Wikipedia actually stood up to this shit, maybe more people would donate. I would.

  2. Conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not your usual conspiracy theory fanatic, but I might be behaving like one now. But recently, I am having the feeling that wikipedia, has been infiltrated(long time ago) by bunch of admins who want certain things gone. Maybe I just need to look deeper to realize it's wrong. But it's a feeling.

    1. Re:Conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I just need to look deeper to realize it's wrong. But it's a feeling.

      More than a feeling. The Old Man Murray article deletion that was on here a few days ago was primarily driven by a single individual that had an old dispute with the site who had been RfD other articles about the same people behind OMM. Blatant conflict of interest.

      I think most people start trying to improve wikipedia, but only those with less than noble intent seem to have the drive to put up with what the wikipedia rules have been twisted into.

  3. This seems simple enough to fix by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    There's only one question here that needs answered: Has the current copyright owner released the flag for use under a compatible license?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:This seems simple enough to fix by Hatta · · Score: 0

      There is no copyright owner. The flag is a graphical representation of an encryption key. Since an encryption key is arbitrary, and requires no creative input, it cannot be copyrighted.

      Of course, none of that means that WP won't be sued anyway.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:This seems simple enough to fix by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      Name a flag that isn't a graphical representation of something. A flag is nothing without meaning.

    3. Re:This seems simple enough to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. From the discussion:

      "Third, this flag itself was eligible for copyright and was released into the public domain by John Marcotte, its creator (not the MPAA or AACS LA)."

  4. For all you non-Americans . . by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This controversy is a metaphor of the beautiful paradox that is the USA.

    We have a flag for free speech, yet the flag is legally unavailable unless a contract with the owner of the flag is secured.

    1. Re:For all you non-Americans . . by DJ+Particle · · Score: 1

      It's not the flag itself that's the problem, it's the apparently "copyrighted" number it represents.

    2. Re:For all you non-Americans . . by eiiiI'monslashdot · · Score: 1

      seems like america is working very well!

    3. Re:For all you non-Americans . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Internationale" song is copyrighted too.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internationale
      In 2005, Le Chant du Monde, the corporation administering the authors' rights, asked Pierre Merejkowsky, the film director and an actor of Insurrection / résurrection, to pay €1,000 for whistling the song for seven seconds.

    4. Re:For all you non-Americans . . by gknoy · · Score: 2

      Someone just needs to find an already existing (preferably public domain) song whose notes, when encoded a certain way, have the key in them. Or, as someone mentioned, pi. Or an excerpt of the US constitution. Better yet, use the Bible, because there is no way in hell that the courts will back banning portions of the bible from being distributed. The political shitstorm from that would be of epic proportions.

      Rather than a song (despite the deliciousness of the irony!), I propose using a literary work as the source for this. Find an excerpt from the Bible, the Koran, War and Peace, or the DMCA itself which expresses the key (or keys), and can be freely distributed. Bonus points for exerpts which are readable or easily memorable, penalty points for using anything from Wikileaks. Bonus points for using a public domain religious document (such as the King James Bible).

    5. Re:For all you non-Americans . . by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Would you make that same argument if all your PINS and passwords were about to be distributed all over the world by a clever black hat hacker, or would you seek the help of the law?

    6. Re:For all you non-Americans . . by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I don't feel that is a very good analogy.

      While PINs and passwords are something I consider precious, I am not claiming copyright on them, nor am I trying to claim they're somehow legally protected. If some black-hat hacker found them out and distributed them, I'd change my passwords and report the fraud if someone pretended to be me. The short version of my answer to your question is that YES, I would make the same argument, because the situations are entirely different.

      If I were distributing them (even if in some obfuscated form) or using them to sign software that I write (which is more similar to what Sony has), I'd consider them a trade secret. Let's pretend I'm only using them as a private key to sign things, and am not distributing them, as that's closest to the PS3 situation. If someone happens (through cleverness or brute force) to figure out my trade secret, hooray for them. I'll be pissed, as it hurts my business (and by their nature I cannot replace them, since hardware support for things signed by my keys cannot be rescinded), but they have every right to do so. Trade secrets aren't protected once they're publicly known, as long as it wasn't obtained by some bad means (industrial espionage). I believe that reverse engineering, as these hackers did, is entirely kosher. Wrapping it in the DMCA because the secret happens to be an encryption key is utter bullshit.

      I'm not a lawyer, etc etc... but I'd be interested to hear why someone would feel these keys aren't considered trade secrets which have now been exposed. If you do think that it's been exposed by improper means, please explain how: I'm pretty sure it's clearly arguable that those who did so were working on their own hardware, for the purpose of maintaining interoperability (which I believe the DMCA permits?), not to enable piracy.

    7. Re:For all you non-Americans . . by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      I think that the law is and should be used to protect the secrecy of people's electronic records. Medical records are a classic example, that I think everyone would agree on. Most people would probably agree that publishing another person's password and PIN with the intent that the recipient of the password/PIN would steal from the other person is, and should be a crime.

      The argument that numbers must be kept "free" has its problems. In this case, the users of the numbers are "good guys" who just want to use the numbers to do "good things." Tomorrow, the users of the numbers might be thieves or corporations intent on stealing from you.

  5. Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This can't be for serious. They're deleting an image that represents free speech because it violates copyright law?

    Am I missing something or is this really as stupid as it sounds?

    This is on par with that whole debacle of 1984 getting remotely recalled from kindle's.

    1. Re:Is this a joke? by andrea.sartori · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Am I missing something or is this really as stupid as it sounds?

      I'm afraid it really is this stupid.
      Wikipedia has become more of a bureaucracy than an "open" encyclopedia. [citation needed]

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    2. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia has become more of a bureaucracy than an "open" encyclopedia.

      This comment does not currently meet our Notability standards. Unless you're capable of having this comment printed and referred to by a third party, and cite said third party as a reference, we'll have to revert.

    3. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know why but that reminded me of this quote:

      <CtrlAltDestroy> Here is my impression of Wikipedia.
      <CtrlAltDestroy> "There are five fingers on the human hand [citation needed]"

    4. Re:Is this a joke? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why I *never* log in anymore for the few times I "edit" something (and I use random IPs). It's hardly worth the time to edit anyway.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:Is this a joke? by andrea.sartori · · Score: 0

      I don't know why but that reminded me of this quote:

      Maybe because I saw it on qdb and now it gets back to my mind every time I hear about wikipedia.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    6. Re:Is this a joke? by aepervius · · Score: 1

      QUOTE:

      I'm afraid it really is this stupid. Wikipedia has become more of a bureaucracy than an "open" encyclopedia. [citation needed]

      To that you can add NPOV, and notoriety.

      --
      C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
      visit randi.org
    7. Re:Is this a joke? by mxs · · Score: 2

      This can't be for serious. They're deleting an image that represents free speech because it violates copyright law?

      Am I missing something or is this really as stupid as it sounds?

      This is on par with that whole debacle of 1984 getting remotely recalled from kindle's.

      It's an excellent expression of art. I'd go so far as to say that the intent of the author was for precisely this to happen. The key is meaningless, the flag is meaningless, the fact that it's being taken down is a very powerful message and comment on where free speech is at.

  6. Being Nice? by jimmerz28 · · Score: 1

    Is this because people are scared there *might* be some legal ground for a take down or do they actually have some footing in this case?

    1. Re:Being Nice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's because the MPAA claims to hold the copyright on the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 (used as an encryption key for HD-DVDs), and the "free-speech flag" is a representation of that number.

      When confronted with a claim by the originator of a "work" that said "work" is copyrighted, and counterclaims that the "work" does not constitute a copyrightable work, it is Wikipedia policy to crawl away like a bitty little bug.

    2. Re:Being Nice? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      wait, you're saying that the number sequence:

      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

      is somehow special?

      let me save that so that I can do some analysis on this, later on.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Being Nice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. The number is allegedly 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.

  7. Free speech by bragr · · Score: 1

    Well I guess wikipedia's right to free speech includes the right to not say anything at all I suppose.

  8. 262144 pixels on a grid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that it is somewhat stupid, but an image is an image, and I'm not sure if we're better off if we start setting limits on how detailed an image has to be in order to have copyright apply to it. Or maybe we are. Is it weird that I find this whole thing analogous to the abortion issue?

    1. Re:262144 pixels on a grid. by kthreadd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point is not about the flag, it's about the number that they claim that they own copyright to.

      I claim 5. Everyone who wants to use a 5 out there better contact me because I'm taking licensing fees.

    2. Re:262144 pixels on a grid. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? Well, I claim 4, which was used no fewer than 5 times in your post.

      If you don't want a big lawsuit over it, though, we could just each agree to license our respective digits to each other for free, and then the two of us can go after all those mathematicians and computer types and sue them into the ground!

      Hey, what I'm doing is no different than what major software vendors do.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:262144 pixels on a grid. by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 3, Funny

      Worse than that... "5" is clearly a derivative work of your product.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    4. Re:262144 pixels on a grid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      derivative of 4 is 0

    5. Re:262144 pixels on a grid. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I wonder.

      Suppositions,

      1. You cannot own copyright to a math formula
      2. A math formula could be generated that would produce the no-no number

      Lets produce this formula, and publish it far and wide.

      Results:

      1. Sony lawyer's heads explode
      2. PROFIT!!!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  9. waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by v1 · · Score: 1

    the MPAA has asserted they own all rights to the number under the DMCA

    It still astounds me that the (current interpretation of the) law allows someone to own all the rights to a number

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by sqlrob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In some ways it makes sense, but there needs to be better defined limits.

      Everything is representable as a number. Software, this post, a scan of the Mona Lisa. Where do you draw the line?

    2. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by boristdog · · Score: 2

      Fine. I'm patenting "1".

      Now you and I can sue everyone who uses a binary computer.

    3. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      If you get to patent "0", then I get to patent "O".

    4. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Even drawing the line at a creative work is problematic. For the next super-secret encryption key, they will make the flag first, claim they chose the colors for the aesthetics, and then use the number.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    5. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      Software is a string of binary - number
      Music can be digitised - string of binary - number
      Images can be digitised - string of binary - number
      Top Secret Military files - string of binary - number

      Its a question of encoding.

    6. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by adonoman · · Score: 0

      Every application, game, song, movie, image, story, or whatever that is stored in digital form is just a number - a really big number, but still just a number. You can argue that some numbers are too small to be copyrighted, but I don't think it's reasonable to say no numbers are copyrightable. For example, the text of the first three sentences in this comment could be copyrighted, and represented by the number:

      0x45 76 65 72 79 20 61 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74 69 6f 6e 2c 20 67 61 6d 65 2c 20 73 6f 6e 67 2c 20 6d 6f 76 69 65 2c 20 69 6d 61 67 65 2c 20 73 74 6f 72 79 2c 20 6f 72 20 77 68 61 74 65 76 65 72 20 74 68 61 74 20 69 73 20 73 74 6f 72 65 64 20 69 6e 20 64 69 67 69 74 61 6c 20 66 6f 72 6d 20 69 73 20 6a 75 73 74 20 61 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 20 2d 20 61 20 72 65 61 6c 6c 79 20 62 69 67 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 2c 20 62 75 74 20 73 74 69 6c 6c 20 6a 75 73 74 20 61 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 2e 20 20 59 6f 75 20 63 61 6e 20 61 72 67 75 65 20 74 68 61 74 20 73 6f 6d 65 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 73 20 61 72 65 20 74 6f 6f 20 73 6d 61 6c 6c 20 74 6f 20 62 65 20 63 6f 70 79 72 69 67 68 74 65 64 2c 20 62 75 74 20 49 20 64 6f 6e 5c 27 74 20 74 68 69 6e 6b 20 69 74 5c 27 73 20 72 65 61 73 6f 6e 61 62 6c 65 20 74 6f 20 73 61 79 20 6e 6f 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 73 20 61 72 65 20 63 6f 70 79 72 69 67 68 74 61 62 6c 65 2e 20 20 46 6f 72 20 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 2c 20 74 68 65 20 74 65 78 74 20 6f 66 20 74 68 65 20 66 69 72 73 74 20 74 68 72 65 65 20 73 65 6e 74 65 6e 63 65 73 20 69 6e 20 74 68 69 73 20 63 6f 6d 6d 65 6e 74 20 63 6f 75 6c 64 20 62 65 20 63 6f 70 79 72 69 67 68 74 65 64 2c 20 61 6e 64 20 72 65 70 72 65 73 65 6e 74 65 64 20 62 79 20 74 68 65 20 6e 75 6d 62 65 72 3a

    7. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computers do not use 1 or 0 as you believe. They use various potential differences (voltage) to handle state. We assign them as numbers/characters to ease our understanding.

    8. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Dachannien · · Score: 2

      This has nothing to do with patents. It has to do with the concept that the key, under the DMCA, "effectively controls access to a protected work".

      So you don't even have to spend money on a patent. You just have to use a public domain cryptosystem (or roll your own, if you can avoid the patent minefield) and hand it a frequently-used-on-the-internet number as a symmetric key. Then go around demanding that people remove that number from various websites, because publishing it violates the DMCA.

    9. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who died and made *you* Captain Obvious?

    10. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by meerling · · Score: 1

      It can easily (especially using historical documents and interviews) be argued that computers us the "potential differences (voltage)" to represent the numbers of 1 and 0 as designed by the humans that conceived of them.

    11. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously Captain Obvious

    12. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Zerth · · Score: 2

      And we'll just use a different colorspace. Invent one, if we have to. Scarlet, Orange, Navy, Yellow or something.

    13. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, then we will not need to use hacking to find out the key, we allready have the key when they release the flag.

      and the response will be a flag using the keys values as HSV values, instead of RGB values.

    14. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Lord_Byron · · Score: 2

      In general, the line is drawn at the threshold of originality.

    15. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Although in all of the case of media, the "number" can be changed to a very different one and still be infringing.

      In this case it's not a copyright on the number at all. People want to portray it as such for rhetoric effect. It's copyright on a number in a specific context. The flag, on its own, is not infringing. The flag represented explicitly as a means to circumvent copyright is infringing. The flag as an illustration of a means to circumvent copyright probably isn't, but I could understand Wikipedia wanting to err on the side of caution here. If they get sued and win they're still out of pocket.

    16. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by crhylove · · Score: 2

      You should not draw the line. Ever. That's the whole point. Hindering the progress of humanity for selfish or covet means is wrong. Or in the words of Ben Franklin, a genius, founding father of the greatest democracy yet made, prolific inventor, and scientific discoverer, "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."

      You can disagree with Ben Franklin if you want to, but you will be an idiot, almost every time.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    17. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you draw the line?

      You don't, the line is copyrighted. You need my permission to draw the line.

    18. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Shit, I have to change all my passwords again. :(

    19. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Legal.Troll · · Score: 0

      I don't suppose you could be troubled to actually read and understand the DMCA so that you wouldn't post nonsense like this? I didn't think so. Enjoy your tenure on /.

      --
      "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
    20. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Would I be feeding the "Legal.Troll" by asking for an explanation of how I'm wrong?

    21. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Legal.Troll · · Score: 0

      Let's start with the relevant text, with some helpful emphasis. FWIW, this is the section on "TRAFFICKING": (b) Additional Violations.— (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

      --
      "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
    22. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Awesome. Wish you had posted that to start with, instead of being an asshole about it.

    23. Re:waiting for my patent on "0" to be approved by Legal.Troll · · Score: 0

      That's a fair complaint. Allow me to explain what's gotten me in this grumpy mood. Any time a story shows up on /. discussing copyright, free speech, or, God forbid, the DMCA itself, the forum is flooded with people who are so utterly certain that the law was written by the spawn of Satan for the express purpose of beginning the slow process of subjugating mankind for all eternity. I'd say a good 80% of these comments reach a "foaming at the mouth" stage of utter rabidity. Yet apparently 95% or more have never taken the time to read the law, but remain confident their view is correct even where the law's plain language directly contradicts their unshakeable beliefs as to its substance. It should come as no surprise that fewer still seem to have given serious thought to how an ugly law is often the result of difficult compromises between competing interests, each of which is worthwhile. Further, many seem resolute in the view that the DMCA itself is merely one of a billion examples that demonstrate why laws and lawyers are worthless things. What I think the overwhelming majority of Slashdotters fail to appreciate is the fact that it's an extremely difficult job to craft legal principles which strike an appropriate balance among a diversity of worthwhile interests -- or the fact that even the most finely crafted balance is always going to piss someone off and result in dire complaint. Imagine you're a project manager in charge of 50+ developers of varying levels of experience. You have 15 years in the industry, including prior management experience, one or two advanced degrees, and a whole raft of certs. In walks a lawyer who has inexplicably been given some kind of control over this project. Without pausing to say hello, he announces to the entire team that the project is to be completed WITHOUT the use of any private variables, because software should be open and transparent. You don't even know where to begin about how utterly clueless this man is, and your mind boggles at the amount of training it would take just to get him to realize what an idiotic statement he's just made. But this guy is here, and he's loud, and he won't shut the hell up until he gets what he wants. This, sir, hopefully begins to explain why you find yourself talking to a Legal Troll on Slashdot. I apologize for my rudeness and commend you on your level-headed response.

      --
      "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
  10. Is this even a thing? by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How many of you were aware there was such a thing AS the "Free Speeg Flag"? I wasn't (I was half expecting to see an article about a bitfield struct.). How many of us have actually seen one, and not some SVG but an actual cloth banner on a pole, in an actual context in the RL? Does the Important Movement of Our Time, AKA ripping movies and posting them on a torrent, really need a flag?

    This thing looks like it was invented by some self-aggrandizing dweeb who is now trying to get a slashdot flash mob to save his "original research."

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    1. Re:Is this even a thing? by heckler95 · · Score: 1

      The hex HTML color codes for the colors in the flag represent the encryption key. It's a way to publish the key without actually publishing the key. Pretty clever if you ask me.

    2. Re:Is this even a thing? by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

      Presumably it can only exist online or in digital format. As soon as you display it, print it or make a flag out of it any mismatch from fading, dye inconsistencies, LED spec variation etc. would mean that the colors no longer have that exact hexadecimal representation.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    3. Re:Is this even a thing? by SethThresher · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was aware of it before today, but this is the first time I've ever really seen it mentioned outside of the HD-DVD encryption, or since that time. Back then folks were doing anything to keep the basics of that key from being suppressed or deleted, so the flag ended up emerging as another end for this goal. It's quite clever, really. The fact that wikipedia is moving to delete it speaks volumes for wikipedia's current attitude towards notability and their ability to mold information as a few select editors see fit.

    4. Re:Is this even a thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I'm tired of these misguided hipster youths getting things like pirated DVDs and drugs confused with real free speech and human rights.

      The notion of representing the PS3 key as a colored flag is a meaningless gesture. As is the Free Speech flag. If people want to spend their time fighting for a cause, there are better ways to do it than this.

    5. Re:Is this even a thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention that once I read up on the "Free Speech Flag", I completely failed to see how it was about Free Speech at all. I could see how it was a 'clever' encoding of some decryption key, and now that's all it seems to represent to me.. somebody's idea of sneaking-in-plain-sight a decryption key past some manner of perceived Big Brother that comes down hard on those who dare publish it 'as is'.

      Free Speech would be just publishing the key, in relevant articles, period. Not hiding it behind 'flag colors', or pointing out that the key exists in the digits of pi at digit #whatever, or any other sort of obfuscation.

      If they're trying to show the opposite - that one has to go through such lengths in order to publish (privileged) information at all, then it still fails because the key -is- published up the wazoo on the internet. Just because a particular site doesn't want it published through their avenue - for whatever reason - doesn't mean you can't have it published and available to a wide audience.

    6. Re:Is this even a thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What amuses me to no end is that we somehow only now "need" some "flag" for free speech, and that it's somehow "important" that this one flag that some hipster douchebag pulled out of his ass in the past week (if that) be allowed to be advertised^W^Wstand for JUSTICE(tm) and FREEDOM(tm) and FREE SPEACHZ0RZ(tm) on Wikipedia. Quick, my brothers and sisters! Next we neeeeeed a damn flag for gun rights, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, prohibition, the repeal of prohibition, and the right to not have to quarter soldiers in our homes during peacetime*! If we don't have flaaaaaaaaaags, we'll never be able to rally around anything, given how shaky and fragile our determination is, easily thwarted by the release of a new candy-colored dating sim^W^WJRPG!

      It further amuses me that a "free speech" flag must be represented by the ability to pirate PS3 games. Yes, PS3 games. Games on one fucking stupid chunk of plastic and silicon. That is clearly the most important issue in the history of national free speech and protection of same from government censure. Hey, everyone around the world who died at the hands of their governments because they published things critical of their glorious leaders? Yeah, that's nice and all, but weeeeeeee wanna play video games for freeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!! Countries rife with manipulation of the press by officials to cover up blatant corruption? Get in line, Final Fantasy X-2-5-alpha-4 was just released, and I need that shit for free RIGHT NOW. Middle Eastern rebellions to allow the free flow of information to topple oppressive regimes? Nope, I'm sure you'll all agree your lifelong dreams and the suffering of your people pale in importance to my ability to play imported games before they get North American releases, because otherwise I'd have to wait a whole MONTH! And that's, like, my personal suffering and stuff, right? So you can all see why basing a flag on the global, humanity-spanning concept of free speech on a fucking video game console over an issue that just came up less than six months ago is so much more worthwhile.

      Honestly. Wikipedia shouldn't have listed "copyright infringement" as the reason for deletion. They should've listed it as "blatantly insulting to countries where REAL free speech problems exist, deal with it".

      *: If someone actually makes and markets a smartass set of real-world cloth rally flags for each of the US Constitutional amendments, including Prohibition AND the repeal of same, I will pay good money for them.

    7. Re:Is this even a thing? by Myria · · Score: 1

      Presumably it can only exist online or in digital format. As soon as you display it, print it or make a flag out of it any mismatch from fading, dye inconsistencies, LED spec variation etc. would mean that the colors no longer have that exact hexadecimal representation.

      Yes. However, the differences in color will only be in the lower bits, and you can re-derive the correct key reasonably quickly through brute force. Also, if you know the printing process and the primary colors it uses, you could closely analyze the halftone pattern the printer chose.

      --
      "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    8. Re:Is this even a thing? by datsa · · Score: 1

      The flag is extremely clever, but it's a statement about copyright and IP, not "free speech". Calling it a "free speech flag" is misleading.

  11. Umm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The color combination is pretty unsightly, but not evilly so. Wonder if this'd look good in tie-dye?

  12. The online encyclopedia almost anyone can edit by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    ... unless you're not one of the handful of pre-approved mods who require no justification for cutting out larger swaths of knowledge than the 1984 Ministry of Truth.

    1. Re:The online encyclopedia almost anyone can edit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not entirely convinced that deleting copies of something to which an as-yet unlitigated (and therefore possibly valid) copyright claim has been asserted is a "larger swath[] of knowledge than the 1984 Ministry of Truth" cut out. Have you read the book? It goes a good bit farther than this and is different on a fundamental level. In 1984, the Ministry of Truth is tasked with constantly rewriting history to manipulate every citizen's thoughts. This is just an argument over whether copyright can attach to a number which happens to be the key to decrypting and making copies of other copyrighted material.

    2. Re:The online encyclopedia almost anyone can edit by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This is a symptom, not the issue.

      It's important in the same way that Amazon deleting 1984 from Kindles was. I.e., the particular issue wasn't significant, but that issue highlighted an existing problem in a noticeable way. In both cases the particular instance was reasonable. But I have decided to never by a Kindle because Amazon included a remote deletion feature into it. Yes, Amazon didn't have the legal right to distribute the particular version of 1984 that they did, but to delete it publicly admitted that they had intentionally built that capability into their Kindles. Similarly, the discussion around this and the previous topic centering around Wikipedia deletionism has informed me that specialists in a field are not allowed to ensure that articles in their field are correct. Pretty much ending the use of Wikipedia for anything but entertainment, a field it's not particularly good at. I was "sort of" aware of this already, but I hadn't properly generalized my observations about articles in areas in which I am knowledgeable. Now I have.

      So, yes, this is an important topic, even though the particular instance isn't all that important.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  13. Re:Ironyyyy by magarity · · Score: 1

    Why is it irony? WP's article says the "free speech flag" apparently is the HD-DVD key. While the whole DVD key scheme is annoying, turning their key into your flag is, well, waving a flag the MPAA's face for a lawsuit.

  14. Oh No, not another thing! by Joe+U · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't look to wikipedia to challenge corporations. They won't do it.

    Well, that's 2 things they're not good for now:

    1. Reliable information.
    2. Challenging corporations.

    However, they do excel at wasting my time and deleting things. So, it does make up for it in some way, I think.

    1. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by trollertron3000 · · Score: 1

      And even if they do present reliable information they present it in the driest most boring tone ever created. They suck the fun out of learning. When I was a child I used to get excited when I saw a shelf of encyclopedias. I can't imagine wikipedia does the same for kids these days.

      --
      Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
    2. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by Jay+L · · Score: 4, Funny

      You forgot solemnly looking at you. They're good at solemnly looking at you.

    3. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by davidbrit2 · · Score: 2

      The big problem with Wikipedia articles on anything remotely technical is that they aren't written to be read by a layman, but rather are written by a bunch of specialists in the field all having a big circle-jerk with their collective knowledge. If you need the information that's present in the article, then chances are you can't make heads or tails of it - likewise, if you can actually understand what's in the article, then you probably already know most of what it's about.

    4. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by lgw · · Score: 2

      Wikipedia is great, truly great, for one thing:

      1. Funding Jimmy Wales' junkets.

      He's a constant source of comedy gold for gossip rags like Vallywag.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for stuff that is non-controversial or purely fact based I love wikipedia. Everyone gets a hard-on talking that the website has to be an Encyclopedia on EVERYTHING when it really doesn't. As long as the stuff it does house is good I could care less what it doesn't have.

      So next time I need to look up an article on Whales, penises, or whale penises I know that I can get reliable information at wikipedia. Well established topics rarely get maliciously edited and when they do they're usually fixed in less than a day. Works for me.

    6. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by thehodapp · · Score: 1

      I believe that has been recognized and is addressed in the Simple English section of the site.

    7. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... since when was it their responsibility to challenge corporations?

    8. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing they are good for: translating ingredients.
      When you're not an English native speaker, you may pick up a smattering of English words. But unless you live in an English-speaking country, the names of common vegetables need not be one of them.

      Solution to this conundrum?
      1. Check the wikipedia article on the vegetable in question (example).
      2. Take note of the pictures.
      3. Scroll down the list of languages and click English (or any other language you need).
      4. result.

      You can use the pictures to double-check. If the new page happens to use the same picture, it probably is a correct link.

    9. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by calmofthestorm · · Score: 2

      This is insufficient for those of us with a basic knowledge of calculus, linear algebra, diffyq, stats, etc who are trying to learn more advanced math that builds on it.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    10. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      This is insufficient for those of us with a basic knowledge of calculus, linear algebra, diffyq, stats, etc who are trying to learn more advanced math that builds on it.

      Wikipedia isn't the venue for that sort of thing. Although, it might be useful if you were to look at an article, find a subject, and then follow the citation to the source. Then you could read the detailed version there

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    11. Re:Oh No, not another thing! by thehodapp · · Score: 1

      That's what the normal Wikipedia site is for...

      If you want an easier explanation to munch on then check out Khan Academy.

  15. Wikipolice? by margeman2k3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it interesting (and maybe a little disturbing) that Wikipedia, which was supposed to be open for everyone, and always seemed to represent freedom, democracy, etc. now has a "secret police" system. There are a group of editors there who can just make pages... disappear. The logs are hidden from everyone (even the admins).
    It's like those pages just never existed.

    It makes you wonder what else is going on inside Wikipedia.

    1. Re:Wikipolice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't someone just mirror Wikipedia in real time and ignore all the deletion changesets?

      Although I will say that Wikipedia is a good example of how 'open source' democracy is doomed to fail in short order. Ideals always take a back seat to reality.

    2. Re:Wikipolice? by vlm · · Score: 2

      Why doesn't someone just mirror Wikipedia in real time and ignore all the deletion changesets?

      Although I will say that Wikipedia is a good example of how 'open source' democracy is doomed to fail in short order. Ideals always take a back seat to reality.

      Try something like that with git and some plain ole source code, and you'll rapidly learn the pain of merges.

      Now you could mirror wikipedia but refuse to completely delete pages, or refuse to remove more than 50% of the text at a time or whatever. At which point the deletionist griefers will find a way around your protection, so as to destroy. Such as commit ten reverts each of which deletes 10% of the text, or let the file name stay the same but change the contents to some hash functions, etc.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Wikipolice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should have clarified but I meant pages only. Merging page edits is moronic. Plus the volume of page deletions are so small it would be easy to manually revert to known-good versions.

      Probably a waste of bandwidth ultimately since no one would hear of it :P.

    4. Re:Wikipolice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously Jimmy Wales 'thinking of the children'.

      I hope that wasn't too 'subtle' for some of you.

  16. Why the surprise? by Chas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wikipedia hasn't been about free speech since about thirty seconds after inception.

    It's about control of information by a cabal (admittedly a very LOOSELY affiliated cabal, but a cabal nonetheless) of editors. All of whom have their own particular agendas and axes to grind. And it's not about what you know, but whom.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Why the surprise? by Dachannien · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, Wikipedia? Okay. For a second there, I thought you were talking about Anonymous.

    2. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cabal, per definition, can't all have their own particular agendas and axes to grind. If it's not organized, there is no cabal.

    3. Re:Why the surprise? by alnjmshntr · · Score: 1

      Where exactly can you find an objective collection of information? It doesn't exist.

      --
      If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
    4. Re:Why the surprise? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      or, just life, in general.

      who do these kids, today, think they are? the world is just as broken as it was years ago. why do they expect justice and fairness when the world was NEVER supposed to be like that?

      in life, it has always been about 'who you know'. in a way, wiki helps teach that. ugly lesson but no one (other than your pastor and some stupid disney movie) said life was fair or just.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Why the surprise? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with the FSF?

  17. Yeah, because that worked so well for Digg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just know that right at this moment, someone's spamming /b/ about this. Should anyone get the attention of the Anon army, it would result in a huge edit war that would only achieve two things, wikipedia being unavailable for a while due to traffic (whether intentional DDOS or just people flocking to see what's going on), and the flag being inserted in all manner of articles apropos or not.

    Remember when this happened on digg?

  18. Wikiwho? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Isn't Wikipedia that website that deletes knowledge in a time where 2TB drives cost less than 100 bucks?

    Super Aspergers who control nothing in real-life but shoot milk out of their male breasts when they can label something they are not interested in "not noteworthy" and delete it then?

    That place is an asshole... full of assholes...

  19. The courts use "good faith" by subanark · · Score: 2

    The courts are going to use "good faith" in determining what violates copyright law. Part of the purpose of this flag is to encode Sony's copyrighted number sequence. The flag is for this reason not in good faith. If I published a list of every possible 10 byte number in a random order the courts would not find it violating copyright law. If however, someone said look at number 78654321 on my list, and it happened to be Sony's number, the courts would find that document, not mine infringing, as it is just encoding the number. If I came up with some interesting math question to which that number was the solution, it would be infringing if displayed by itself. The question is: If someone wanted to read that number, could they use your material to find it any easier than if they didn't have it?

    1. Re:The courts use "good faith" by oracleguy01 · · Score: 2

      You shouldn't be able to copyright or trademark a number. That is just absurd. In your example you mention a list of numbers and a math equation, sure you are in good faith but if Sony has a copyright or a trademark on that number it still doesn't stop them from taking you to court and making you fold simply because they have the resources to tie you up in court for years. So you might be in right but because you don't have millions of dollars to spend to defend yourself, you'll lose. Since we use numbers to represent everything at some basis or another, they shouldn't be allowed to be copyrighted or trademarked.

      If I came up with some interesting math question to which that number was the solution, it would be infringing if displayed by itself.

      Isn't that just crazy, you are saying that just displaying a specific number shouldn't be allowed? So if a lottery happened to come up with the same number as Sony's encryption key, in your world Sony would be justified and in the legal right to sue them for infringement?

    2. Re:The courts use "good faith" by subanark · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying what should and should not be. I'm simply stating what I think the courts will do. Tying people in courts using deep pockets is another issue in itself.

      I'm not saying that displaying a specific number is disallowed by itself. What is disallowed is if the purpose of displaying the number is to relay Sony's number as "Sony's number". The size of the number doesn't matter. For example, if I say "Sony's PS3 master code is even" I would be infringing, as I am displaying part of the number. However, in that case I'm fairly sure I am protected under fair use.

      For the above reason, if a lottery number came up to match that it wouldn't be infringing (unless it was rigged to do so) since its not designed to be Sony's number. Stating that the lottery number that appeared on that date, at that lottery location, is Sony's number would be infringing.

  20. There was a copyright owner by langelgjm · · Score: 2

    That's not right. While I fail to see how the key itself, as a short sequence of arbitrary numbers, can be copyrighted, the flag is a creative work and is just as eligible for copyright as anything else. The wiki page lists an author who released the image into the public domain.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:There was a copyright owner by Hatta · · Score: 2

      You're right. I was thinking of the copyright owner of the encryption key, of which the flag is a derivative work.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  21. True Names by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 5, Informative

    The key amounts to a "true name", a label which is identical to the natural essence of that which is named. I'd never considered it anything other than an amusing literary device until now. Calling it "the HD-DVD key" is akin to "He Who Must Not Be Named". To state the true name itself - which is the only way to give an accurate reference thereto - is to reveal the great secret (of a now-defunct format - heh) and incur the wrath of the MPAA. To reference it using a peculiar sequence of colors is playing "I'm not saying it" games, akin to trying to tell someone the secret name without actually saying it. You cannot tell someone not to use that sequence of numbers, a short enough sequence that it could in fact be used by accident, without violating the [potential] copyright.

    Upshot: the key amounts to a true name, and you can't assert legal right to a name and then prohibit anyone from ever using it (even in appropriate context). It wasn't copyrighted, it can't be copyrighted (heck, the copyright notice would be longer than what's copyrighted), and to ban use of the "free speech flag" is tantamount to fearing the utterance of "Voldemort" - silly. If there is in fact an issue, it need be fixed by means other than fearing a "true name".

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:True Names by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      I'd be more inclined to ask where the creative expression is. It's a random number. It's entirely functional with no creativity whatsoever. You can't copyright the entries in a phone book, right? So how is this different?

  22. Size matters by langelgjm · · Score: 1

    Every application, game, song, movie, image, story, or whatever that is stored in digital form is just a number - a really big number, but still just a number. You can argue that some numbers are too small to be copyrighted, but I don't think it's reasonable to say no numbers are copyrightable.

    Size matters. Words and short phrases, slogans, titles, etc. are ineligible for copyright, despite the fact that they are combinations of words just like a book or play. It is irrelevant that anything can be represented numerically. I cannot possibly see how the encryption key can be protected by copyright. It is functional, it is an extremely short sequence, it is arbitrary and required no creative effort... in short, it is everything that copyright is not. If it truly is protected by copyright, I would like to see them try to register it. Good luck with that.

    A better question is whether the flag is a circumvention device, and that is nearly as hard to argue.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  23. Dear Wikipedia by sjames · · Score: 1

    As long as your getting ready to jump the shark anyway, could you be so kind as to delete all reference to the number 5? I fancy that number, so I'm claiming it as mine now in any and all manifestations.

    Thanks

  24. Flag of Japan by shoppa · · Score: 1

    In related news, the Flag Of Japan Inc. is suing all websites that contain any red circles.

  25. Re:Ironyyyy by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

    turning their key into your flag is, well, waving a flag the MPAA's face for a lawsuit.

    Uhm... so? Are you arguing that because the MPAA might get upset we shouldn't say it?

  26. It's the wrong key anyway! by marcansoft · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not the key that lets you sign your own code. It's not the key that lets you decrypt the OS. It's not the key that lets you decrypt games. It doesn't let you do anything interesting. Huh? What? Yes, you heard me.

    It's a useless key that is used to authenticate factory service dongles (which will only let you run signed executables anyway, and those signing keys are secure as of the latest firmware and will never be obtained). Its only purpose so far was to perform downgrades (as released in a commercial product using stolen service executables) in order to use another commercial product (by ostensibly the same company) which used an exploit to enable game piracy (using a whole bunch of other methods unrelated to it). All of this predated the 27c3 presentation and geohot's release. It's useless now and has never served any "master" key purpose. It was called the "master key used to generate service dongle keys", then of course the clueless news websites just shortened that to "master key".

    The PS3 has tons of keys and you can't "do everything" with one key. You need three or four to run stuff via metldr, that's why geohot released a whole bunch of keys, not just one (none of which are the one that was used here). But if you must pick one "representative" key to obfuscate and post and distribute and make an icon out of, at least pick Da from geohot's keyset (starts with C5). That's the metldr private key, originally stored at some vault at Sony's HQ, calculated thanks to their massive signing screwup, and which can be used to sign code that all existing PS3s will execute, forever (you still need to encrypt it, but signing is ideologically more important). And for fuck's sake, please let go of the "46 DC" dongle key already. Please.

    1. Re:It's the wrong key anyway! by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      However the key in question allows you to decrypt HD DVDs...if you can find any that is.

  27. Here's an idea by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting (and maybe a little disturbing) that Wikipedia, which was supposed to be open for everyone, and always seemed to represent freedom, democracy, etc. now has a "secret police" system. There are a group of editors there who can just make pages... disappear. The logs are hidden from everyone (even the admins).
    It's like those pages just never existed.

    I always wondered what type of chaos there would be if everyone who has ever had an article deleted on Wikipedia just went and added them back in. All at the same time.

  28. Sony? by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 1

    Was this actually initiated by Sony? Or was this a deletionist getting his rocks off?

  29. Rainbow tables have long been used for cracking by Artifex · · Score: 1

    ...but this is the first time I've seen rainbow flags used in this manner.

    Fabulous idea :)

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
  30. Just in case anyone's wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just in case anyone's wondering what the fuss is about.

    erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B
    riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D
    pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19
        R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17
        n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1
        K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D
      Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70

  31. Use protected political speech by ygslash · · Score: 1

    OK then, never mind a flag, and never mind Wikipedia and its ilk.

    How about writing some legitimate political commentary with the key threaded through it? Design it so that there is no way to remove any of the key material without detracting in a significant way from the content of the political commentary.

    It would be interesting to see a court trying to justify itself if it orders that taken down.

    1. Re:Use protected political speech by russotto · · Score: 1

      How about writing some legitimate political commentary with the key threaded through it?

      The Yale Law Blog (linked from summary) included the keys in the blog. In fact, as the title of the article. Which I suppose is the author's way of saying "Go ahead, Sony. Sue us. We're a law school, we've got nothing better to do than respond."

  32. Check the talk page by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 3, Informative

    No one bothered to look at the talk page? There are NO arguments for deletion. Meaning that unless things are different now at wiki, this flag isn't going anywhere. There are also some very good points about the relevant (or not) legal standing of the image. In short, wiki has no reason to delete this image, other than fear mongering. That won't actually stop them from doing it, but it's worth noting. OH, and what's to stop the /. community from reinstating the copyright flag in every wiki article on the site? Nothing. Don't mess with free speech modmins, you don't have the balls to play the game. Next thing you know you'll be drowning in Perl shaped like a camel, or ponies or something.

  33. Inception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, you're telling me. Ever since that movie came out, Wikipedia just wasn't the same.

  34. Re:encoding by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    Godel's Revenge! Come on kids, let's encode!

    Take the 100 million digits of Pi - I bet somewhere in there is the decimal version of the key. Then all you need is a marker and off you go!

    Convert it to Base 4 and I garner it's in our genetic code! Can they stop you from having a copy of your genetic code? Or will they make "placeholders" illegal?

    Go to a grocery store and buy stuff in a certain order! Can they stop you from shopping for food?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  35. Lot of complaining, simple solution by Cholten · · Score: 2

    For all the people who are complaining about the deletionist asshats download Wikipedia and provide a *fork*. Tell people it's better - spread the word.

    If you care, make the effort.

  36. Fix your laws first by devent · · Score: 0

    How about you fix your stupid copyright laws and stop bitching about Wikipedia? Write to your representatives and vote. What's next, bitch about drivers because they stop at red?

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  37. Make it harder to be an editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think a person should have a certain number of submissions to their credit before they can become an editor. Otherwise, we have this dynamic where men create content and deletionist women destroy content.

  38. more exciting version: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Alfred Pennyworth: A long time ago, I was in Burma, my friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never found anyone who traded with him. One day I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.

    Bruce Wayne: Then why steal them?

    Alfred Pennyworth: Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  39. Re:Ironyyyy by magarity · · Score: 1

    Uhm... so? Are you arguing that because the MPAA might get upset we shouldn't say it?

    No, I'm saying the irony is in calling it 'the free speech flag' in the first place, not in having to remove it.

  40. All along the watchtower by gtvr · · Score: 2

    You could convert the notes from that song into jump coordinates and find Earth!!

  41. Sorry, your Hex is hexed on copyright by niteshifter · · Score: 1

    The human understandable portion of your post - that part beginning ... ending: "Every application ... the number:" - is the result of a human creating it (creative expression). It enjoys protection under US copyright law.

    That string of hex digits is the result of a mechanical process that is a translation - a derivative work. It differs in form, but not - if a reverse translation mechanism is available (and such is) - content. That, by US Law renders the hex string not protected by US copyright (see: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf).

    This is the problem. That bit vector ensconced in a device's firmware, even though it is the result of a mechanical process, that mechanical process is but the end point of a creative process and can enjoy copyright protection (US). A hexadecimal representation cannot.

  42. Re:Ironyyyy by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

    No, I'm saying the irony is in calling it 'the free speech flag' in the first place, not in having to remove it.

    Ah, OK. That's more understandable.

    I'd still disagree, though. Calling it the free speach flag is apropos, because it kind of embodies the thrust of the movement (that they can't keep us from saying "09 F9"). I'm not sure that I'd call Wikipedia's act of censoring the Free Speach Flag "ironic" per se, but it comes close.

  43. That appeal from Jimbo Wales by salesgeek · · Score: 2

    falls on deaf ears when people invest time and knowledge in Wikipedia only to have the content deleted.

    --
    -- $G
    1. Re:That appeal from Jimbo Wales by richlv · · Score: 1

      there could be a banner like the wikipedi ones, just saying "personal appeal from jimbo wales - please, please, stop deleting content"

      --
      Rich
    2. Re:That appeal from Jimbo Wales by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      If he cared, the deletionists would be gone.

      --
      -- $G
  44. Easy solution by Y-Crate · · Score: 2

    Come on people. The Wikipedia process provides solutions for situations like this.

    1) Find a cell phone. But it's gotta be from 2002/2003. This is a must. Serious business and all.

    2) Take a photo of the screen with the Free Speech Flag on it. Make sure you cut off like half the image, blow it out and dutch it too.

    3) Delete the image already on Wikipedia

    4) Post your new image.

    5) Add an anime reference to the bottom of the article.

  45. Google should downrank Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google should downrank Wikipedia until they get their shit together. Wikipedia is quickly becoming an even bigger cesspool.

  46. Thanks Slashdot by selex · · Score: 1

    Could have told me the key was on the Yale site. Now my PS3 doesn't work, I also think my Discman blew up, and Sony goons are at my door asking to look at my computer. They are fast, all within 5 minutes.

    MS said they'd bail me out with an Xbox, but I asked does it play Blu-Ray and network to my home media server. They hung up on me. Jerks.

    Selex

  47. Interesting idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An arbitrary encryption key is the result of a purely mechanical process...

    So what if this arbitrary key was generated by a program like openSSL? Wouldn't the author/authors of openSSL have claim to the number?

  48. really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Go to the wiki page
    >See EVERYONE votes "keep"
    >Realize that the PS3 flag is just a lame reference to the original
    >seriously, what the fuck guys?

  49. Wikipedia: the Meta-Sphincter by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    That place is an asshole... full of assholes...

    Now that's a disturbing image. Though sadly it seems to be accurate.

    I can't recall where I first ran across it, but someone once said this was all mathematical: two half-asseds make an ass-whole. And WP has gone well beyond half-assed.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  50. I wouldn't have it any other way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video games are fine the way they are. I'm 23 and really I'd rather not see any change to the way gender and sex are handled in video games. Women ARE just for oogling, Seriously, I wouldn't mind at all if they added more substantial clothing to women in fighting games as long as there were still other costumes where I can see their tits. As for sex itself, bring it on, we need more rated M games with sex.

  51. Copyright? by c0lo · · Score: 2

    This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit.
    this is ridiculous. someday, someone will be able to claim 'rights' in the arrangement that someone's crap makes when out of their ass.

    Why are the keys copyrighted? Are they an expression of artistic creation?

    Aren't they rather a "trade secret"?

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  52. Re:encoding by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Convert it to Base 4 and I garner it's in our genetic code! Can they stop you from having a copy of your genetic code?

    No, but seems that they can patent it.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  53. Too late, Microsoft already has the patents by Noren · · Score: 1

    Microsoft patented both the numbers zero and one back in 1998.

  54. Re:encoding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Decimal: 13,256,278,887,989,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

    Base 4: 21332101010002213113103230200000000000000000000000000000000000

  55. for profit wiki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Similarly to another website I am working on, is it possible to implement a for-profit wiki in which it costs to edit, but also editors can get paid for their contributions? Relatedly, I established a user-generated content that site that involves paying and profiting. It makes use of Bitcoin cryptocurrency. A for-profit wiki could potentially be established using Bitcoin also. Any thoughts?

  56. well, I never! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    goddamit, I thought this was a gay pride demonstration! What's with all the skinny pasty-looking guys?!!!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  57. wrong story dude, how'd you do that? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I'm forty-five years old and what is this?!!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  58. On illegal derived numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if I perform a trivial bit operation between these "highly illegal keys" (given the fuzz these must be highly toxic or something) and an IEEE float presentation of Pi or Euler's number will those and the resulting number presentations became highly illegal, too? "I just accidentally decades of research.. is this dangerous?"

    Moreover, given the diffrence between little- and big-endian platforms may I be able to target only those I don't like? I mean if I would hate PowerPCs could I just make a flag or something that gives viewer a hint that he/she/it should be running a big-endian based system when performing the operation?-)

  59. I wonder by zeroshade · · Score: 1

    does this count as a derivative work?

  60. Re:Ironyyyy by Ksevio · · Score: 1

    If the flag (not created by the MPAA) is under copyright, then surely the key (created by the MPAA) it was derived from would also be under copyright and all references of it should be removed from the article.

    However, only the flag is being marked as a copyright violation.

  61. Another nail in wikipedia's suicide coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Wikipedia is so hellbent on deleting itself into oblivion, they should just drop the charade and "rm -rf /" already.

    (haha: captcha is "nonsense"! what better word to describe wikipedia's delete-fetish?)

  62. Totally incorrect title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The title is "Wikipedia Moves To Delete the Free Speech Flag" when it SHOULD be "Wikimedia Commons user starts discussion on whether to delete Free Speech Flag".

  63. Re:encoding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take the 100 million digits of Pi - I bet somewhere in there is the decimal version of the key.

    You are off by a bit. It would take on the order of O(2^n) digits of pi for you to find a specific string of n decimal digits.

  64. Best anti-IP argument by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    This is where we are down to, with this copyright/intellectual property shit. i mean, now arrangements of colors are being owned/dominated.

    But this is the essential meaning of IP - controlling how you can (not) arrange your own property (your ink and paper, your hard drive bits, the strings on your guitar, etc.) It's actually this very argument that convinced me that IP is anti-property, not pro-.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  65. Time for a new 'pedia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe what we need is a wikipedia competitor!