If it is then you've likely wasted your time getting a court order. However there is a fairly good chance that it isn't. Lots of people don’t realise how traceable they are online. As a result it's a worthwhile approach.
Nope. The court thinks she has reason to think that it is blackmail:
"In ordinary language, the mother believes that she is the subject of an attempt at blackmail. On the information before the court, she has reason to believe that."
# In reply, lawyers for the Respondent made a number of preliminary observations. First they addressed the request made on behalf of the Applicants that the amendment be deleted. They stated that the Respondent is not the publisher or writer of the article relating to the mother, or of the amendment. They said they would refer the request for the deletion of the archived version of the amendment to "the community of volunteer editors, one or more of whom may attempt to address your concerns". They referred to the immunity they claim under section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act (1996) from most civil liability for content they did not originate or develop. They stated that the Respondent does not conduct operations within the jurisdiction of this court. Nevertheless, they stated that they were happy to forward the Applicants' request to their volunteer community.
# The amendment was removed promptly following the request made on behalf of the Applicants.
# In their letter of 19 November lawyers for the Respondent next addressed the Applicants' request for the IP information. They stated that it is the policy of the Respondent that such data be released in response to a valid sub poena or equivalent compulsory legal process. They added:
"Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity, we nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter".
What you are hitting there is that wikipedians know that the odds of you having permission to release yahoo owned IP under a free license are extremely limited and even if you did it would likely be rather a bad idea on your part. We get a lot of PR guys trying to release company logos when they don't actually have the authority to do that.
Well they haven't so far. Stock photos can see a lot of reuse (even ignoring cases like the blue marble where there is a lack of alternatives). It's not so bad for the A list but much below that you are likely to see the same pics again and again.
Advertising also does this a fair bit for example everywhere girl.
Google has never provided servers or bandwidth to wikipedia. Yahoo provided some servers at one point. Since wikipedia doesn't carry ads google has little incentive to suppot it
In practice bandwidth demands will likely be limited by how hard it is to produce encyclopedic videos and harder still to produce ones people want to watch.
hmm £600 thats about what getty and corbis ask when people use their images without permission. It there some standard legal fee that adds up to that amount somewhere?
Hardly a suprise. Tax havens can be overlooked when times are good. Less so now. If the situation of somalia continues I can see some reform of the ship flagging system also takeing place.
In many cases it's quite hard to spot that you have been blocked (since you need enough traffic to spot the change in IP patturns). Working out exactly what has been blocked is harder still.
The counter is that asside from the ability to make money one of the key rights offered by copyright is the ability of the artist to control their work if they so chose. In this case the beatles have chosen not to put their work online and you are violateing their rights by not accepting their choice. Much the same line of argument kicks in when trying to enforce things like the GPL.
Quite possibly less. So called abandonware exists because whoever owns the copyright isn't interested in the game any more. With assets being sold off there is a better chance of them ending up in the hands of people who would be interested in doing something with them.
Articles with videos in have been on wikipedia for some time for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Historyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_diver#Experiment_description
when encyclopedias moved from books to CDs back in the 90s they did have videos (not many but I doubt there is a past encyclopedia with anything close to the number of pictures wikipedia has). While encyclopedic videos are not easy they are certianly posible.
Slashdot Mirror
If it is then you've likely wasted your time getting a court order. However there is a fairly good chance that it isn't. Lots of people don’t realise how traceable they are online. As a result it's a worthwhile approach.
Nope. The court thinks she has reason to think that it is blackmail:
"In ordinary language, the mother believes that she is the subject of an attempt at blackmail. On the information before the court, she has reason to believe that."
Section 7
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
# In reply, lawyers for the Respondent made a number of preliminary observations. First they addressed the request made on behalf of the Applicants that the amendment be deleted. They stated that the Respondent is not the publisher or writer of the article relating to the mother, or of the amendment. They said they would refer the request for the deletion of the archived version of the amendment to "the community of volunteer editors, one or more of whom may attempt to address your concerns". They referred to the immunity they claim under section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act (1996) from most civil liability for content they did not originate or develop. They stated that the Respondent does not conduct operations within the jurisdiction of this court. Nevertheless, they stated that they were happy to forward the Applicants' request to their volunteer community.
# The amendment was removed promptly following the request made on behalf of the Applicants.
# In their letter of 19 November lawyers for the Respondent next addressed the Applicants' request for the IP information. They stated that it is the policy of the Respondent that such data be released in response to a valid sub poena or equivalent compulsory legal process. They added:
"Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity, we nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter".
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
The edits in question have been removed from general public visibility.
The problem with that argument is that how much you mind something being made public has little relation to it's importance.
What you are hitting there is that wikipedians know that the odds of you having permission to release yahoo owned IP under a free license are extremely limited and even if you did it would likely be rather a bad idea on your part. We get a lot of PR guys trying to release company logos when they don't actually have the authority to do that.
Well they haven't so far. Stock photos can see a lot of reuse (even ignoring cases like the blue marble where there is a lack of alternatives). It's not so bad for the A list but much below that you are likely to see the same pics again and again.
Advertising also does this a fair bit for example everywhere girl.
Well wikimedia mostly sticks to JPG for photos but 3000*4000 is not that uncommon for objects rather than people:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shorland_armoured_car_mk1.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
Depends what you are useing to play it. If you have firefox with the VLC plugin it works fine.
If they have java installed they can play it.
check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#History . The video is at least somewhat useful.
Google has never provided servers or bandwidth to wikipedia. Yahoo provided some servers at one point. Since wikipedia doesn't carry ads google has little incentive to suppot it
In practice bandwidth demands will likely be limited by how hard it is to produce encyclopedic videos and harder still to produce ones people want to watch.
Title is somewhat misleading. Wikipedia has had video for years. For example scroll down at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_C8 or for direct to video http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morris_C8_towing.ogv
hmm £600 thats about what getty and corbis ask when people use their images without permission. It there some standard legal fee that adds up to that amount somewhere?
Hardly a suprise. Tax havens can be overlooked when times are good. Less so now. If the situation of somalia continues I can see some reform of the ship flagging system also takeing place.
It's not per se a ban on naked children. Naked children with erotic posing are under UK law at least the lowest level of problematical images.
This smoking gun page contains a fairly good set of descriptions of the kinds of things that are out there: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0210093foxnews1.html
In many cases it's quite hard to spot that you have been blocked (since you need enough traffic to spot the change in IP patturns). Working out exactly what has been blocked is harder still.
However it's actual legislation only goes in one direction.
The counter is that asside from the ability to make money one of the key rights offered by copyright is the ability of the artist to control their work if they so chose. In this case the beatles have chosen not to put their work online and you are violateing their rights by not accepting their choice. Much the same line of argument kicks in when trying to enforce things like the GPL.
US is somewhat secondary. Sweden is an EU memeber. The EU has views on the subject of copyright.
Quite possibly less. So called abandonware exists because whoever owns the copyright isn't interested in the game any more. With assets being sold off there is a better chance of them ending up in the hands of people who would be interested in doing something with them.
Questionable. For much of it's rise to popularity wikipedia.org redirected to en.wikipedia.org which is packed with content.
Articles with videos in have been on wikipedia for some time for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_diver#Experiment_description when encyclopedias moved from books to CDs back in the 90s they did have videos (not many but I doubt there is a past encyclopedia with anything close to the number of pictures wikipedia has). While encyclopedic videos are not easy they are certianly posible.