User talk:Master grand - Revision history

Mike Linksvayer: /* block */ new section

2011-11-03T17:16:01Z

‎block: new section

Hamilton Abreu: /* Second upload */

2011-08-07T18:48:37Z

‎Second upload

Hamilton Abreu: /* Second upload */

2011-08-02T09:50:52Z

‎Second upload

Hamilton Abreu at 23:40, 1 August 2011

2011-08-01T23:40:58Z

Hamilton Abreu at 23:40, 1 August 2011

2011-08-01T23:40:36Z

Hamilton Abreu: /* Second upload */

2011-08-01T14:05:08Z

‎Second upload

Hamilton Abreu: /* Second upload */

2011-07-26T23:32:09Z

‎Second upload

Hamilton Abreu: /* Second upload */

2011-07-25T22:45:14Z

‎Second upload

Hamilton Abreu at 19:04, 21 July 2011

2011-07-21T19:04:33Z

Hamilton Abreu at 01:11, 21 July 2011

2011-07-21T01:11:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 3 November 2011
Line 129:		Line 129:

	The only comment I have is that the DMCA is a U.S. law, applicable to locations under United States jurisdiction. An .ru URL is probably on a server located in Russia and under Russian jurisdiction. Wouldn't the applicable law be Russia's implementation of the corresponding WIPO treaties, if one exists? [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 18:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)		The only comment I have is that the DMCA is a U.S. law, applicable to locations under United States jurisdiction. An .ru URL is probably on a server located in Russia and under Russian jurisdiction. Wouldn't the applicable law be Russia's implementation of the corresponding WIPO treaties, if one exists? [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 18:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	== block ==
		+
		+	Your contributions here have nothing to do with CC. I have new opinion of the legality, desirability, or otherwise of your activities or the Beatles. They simply are not relevant here and there is no reason to waste further time engaging. [[User:Mike Linksvayer\|Mike Linksvayer]] 17:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 7 August 2011
Line 125:		Line 125:

	Authors have the right of financial gain from their original creations. And so they should. And that right is rightly protected. Otherwise, creativity would always be dependent on benefactors, and bodies of work such as that of the Beatles might not even exist. [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 09:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)		Authors have the right of financial gain from their original creations. And so they should. And that right is rightly protected. Otherwise, creativity would always be dependent on benefactors, and bodies of work such as that of the Beatles might not even exist. [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 09:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	The only comment I have is that the DMCA is a U.S. law, applicable to locations under United States jurisdiction. An .ru URL is probably on a server located in Russia and under Russian jurisdiction. Wouldn't the applicable law be Russia's implementation of the corresponding WIPO treaties, if one exists? [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 18:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:50, 2 August 2011
Line 121:		Line 121:

	Let me give you an example: the english wikipedia allows fair use. You can place content in it, under the US fair use legislation. You can read their policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_free_content here]. Now, if science and culture are two elements of your site, they certainly are two elements of wikipedia. If you place the contents of your site on the english wikipedia, under a fair use justification, will it be allowed? [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)		Let me give you an example: the english wikipedia allows fair use. You can place content in it, under the US fair use legislation. You can read their policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_free_content here]. Now, if science and culture are two elements of your site, they certainly are two elements of wikipedia. If you place the contents of your site on the english wikipedia, under a fair use justification, will it be allowed? [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	Authors have the right of financial gain from their original creations. And so they should. And that right is rightly protected. Otherwise, creativity would always be dependent on benefactors, and bodies of work such as that of the Beatles might not even exist. [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 09:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:40, 1 August 2011
Line 120:		Line 120:
	Fair use does not allow a distribution of the entire work just because the distributor thinks the distribution is fair. You need to read carefully [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Fair use], especially the section "Common misunderstandings". In general, fair use means that you are allowed under US law to copy a '''small''' part, an excerpt, a sample, of the entire work. When copying an entire work, e.g. a picture, the copy must generally be of very low resolution. Anything beyond this is generally pushing it.		Fair use does not allow a distribution of the entire work just because the distributor thinks the distribution is fair. You need to read carefully [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Fair use], especially the section "Common misunderstandings". In general, fair use means that you are allowed under US law to copy a '''small''' part, an excerpt, a sample, of the entire work. When copying an entire work, e.g. a picture, the copy must generally be of very low resolution. Anything beyond this is generally pushing it.

−	Let me give you an example: the english wikipedia allows fair use. You can place content in it, under the US fair use legislation. You can read their policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_free_content here]. Now, if science and culture are two elements of your site, they certainly are two elements of wikipedia. If you place the contents of your site on the english wikipedia, under a fair use justification, will it be allowed?	+	Let me give you an example: the english wikipedia allows fair use. You can place content in it, under the US fair use legislation. You can read their policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_free_content here]. Now, if science and culture are two elements of your site, they certainly are two elements of wikipedia. If you place the contents of your site on the english wikipedia, under a fair use justification, will it be allowed? [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:40, 1 August 2011
Line 115:		Line 115:

	The copyright terms are defined in http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html under section "About Copyright and the Collections".		The copyright terms are defined in http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html under section "About Copyright and the Collections".
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	Fair use does not allow a distribution of the entire work just because the distributor thinks the distribution is fair. You need to read carefully [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Fair use], especially the section "Common misunderstandings". In general, fair use means that you are allowed under US law to copy a '''small''' part, an excerpt, a sample, of the entire work. When copying an entire work, e.g. a picture, the copy must generally be of very low resolution. Anything beyond this is generally pushing it.
		+
		+	Let me give you an example: the english wikipedia allows fair use. You can place content in it, under the US fair use legislation. You can read their policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_free_content here]. Now, if science and culture are two elements of your site, they certainly are two elements of wikipedia. If you place the contents of your site on the english wikipedia, under a fair use justification, will it be allowed?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:05, 1 August 2011
Line 111:		Line 111:

	A copyright deposit print is a legal deposit of a copy of a copyrighted work (usually books). In some countries, the Copyright Law requires that a copy be sent to the National Library of the country. This does in no way affect copyright, it's a simple requirement so that the National Library of the country has a copy of every book published. It exists, for example, in the US. You can read more about it in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit Legal deposit]. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)		A copyright deposit print is a legal deposit of a copy of a copyrighted work (usually books). In some countries, the Copyright Law requires that a copy be sent to the National Library of the country. This does in no way affect copyright, it's a simple requirement so that the National Library of the country has a copy of every book published. It exists, for example, in the US. You can read more about it in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit Legal deposit]. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	The copyright terms are defined in http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html under section "About Copyright and the Collections".

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 26 July 2011
Line 107:		Line 107:

	In Europe, Article 5, point 1 of [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:en:HTML Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council] specifically allows caching as an exception to copyright. This is covered in [[Commons:Commons:Licensing#International law\|Commons:Licensing#International law]]. But I believe that you'd have to review the Copyright Law of the countries involved (i.e. the country where the server is located, the country of whoever puts the file on the site, and the country of origin of the contents that are being cached). -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 22:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)		In Europe, Article 5, point 1 of [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:en:HTML Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council] specifically allows caching as an exception to copyright. This is covered in [[Commons:Commons:Licensing#International law\|Commons:Licensing#International law]]. But I believe that you'd have to review the Copyright Law of the countries involved (i.e. the country where the server is located, the country of whoever puts the file on the site, and the country of origin of the contents that are being cached). -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 22:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	A copyright deposit print is a legal deposit of a copy of a copyrighted work (usually books). In some countries, the Copyright Law requires that a copy be sent to the National Library of the country. This does in no way affect copyright, it's a simple requirement so that the National Library of the country has a copy of every book published. It exists, for example, in the US. You can read more about it in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit Legal deposit]. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:45, 25 July 2011
Line 103:		Line 103:

	Well, regarding the interests of others as negligible, is ''not'' a valid justification. A breach of copyright is a breach of copyright, independently of who the copyright belongs to and of what the copyrighted work is or represents. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 19:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)		Well, regarding the interests of others as negligible, is ''not'' a valid justification. A breach of copyright is a breach of copyright, independently of who the copyright belongs to and of what the copyrighted work is or represents. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 19:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	In Europe, Article 5, point 1 of [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:en:HTML Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council] specifically allows caching as an exception to copyright. This is covered in [[Commons:Commons:Licensing#International law\|Commons:Licensing#International law]]. But I believe that you'd have to review the Copyright Law of the countries involved (i.e. the country where the server is located, the country of whoever puts the file on the site, and the country of origin of the contents that are being cached). -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 22:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 21 July 2011
Line 99:		Line 99:

	Regarding international norms for copyright, you should really sit down and read carefully the link I gave you the other day: [[Commons:Commons:Licensing\|Commons:Licensing]]. The link states the Wikimedia Commons policy for licencing. But it contains much more, and very useful, information. For example, the international norm for copyright is the Berne Convention, that almost all countries in the world are signatories. Read the section "International law". But for a person to place a file on a server and make it available to others, you must consider the copyright laws of: the country where the server resides, the country where the person placing the file resides, and the country where the work was published. Read the section "Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law" -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)		Regarding international norms for copyright, you should really sit down and read carefully the link I gave you the other day: [[Commons:Commons:Licensing\|Commons:Licensing]]. The link states the Wikimedia Commons policy for licencing. But it contains much more, and very useful, information. For example, the international norm for copyright is the Berne Convention, that almost all countries in the world are signatories. Read the section "International law". But for a person to place a file on a server and make it available to others, you must consider the copyright laws of: the country where the server resides, the country where the person placing the file resides, and the country where the work was published. Read the section "Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law" -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	Well, regarding the interests of others as negligible, is ''not'' a valid justification. A breach of copyright is a breach of copyright, independently of who the copyright belongs to and of what the copyrighted work is or represents. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 19:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 21 July 2011
Line 95:		Line 95:

	[[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 22:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)		[[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 22:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	Regarding international norms for copyright, you should really sit down and read carefully the link I gave you the other day: [[Commons:Commons:Licensing\|Commons:Licensing]]. The link states the Wikimedia Commons policy for licencing. But it contains much more, and very useful, information. For example, the international norm for copyright is the Berne Convention, that almost all countries in the world are signatories. Read the section "International law". But for a person to place a file on a server and make it available to others, you must consider the copyright laws of: the country where the server resides, the country where the person placing the file resides, and the country where the work was published. Read the section "Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law" -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)