Wikipedia Sucks!

Ramaphosa should sign Copyright Amendment bill
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Graaf Statler [ Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:51 am ]
Post subject:  Ramaphosa should sign Copyright Amendment bill ... 28#p237208

Thanks Poet.

President Ramaphosa should sign Copyright Amendment bill by Douglas Scott

He gives the example Sweden. In 2017 Wikimedia Sweden lost always cause what costed them $89,00. Very logical, because in all that continental copyright issues it is the same, a judge follows blind the local laws and you have to pay the lost of the licence, a fine and the costs of the court. A complete useless law case because the judge has not any possibility other than to follow the law, and a CC licence makes the original licence worthless. So you have to reimburse the original license plus, plus, plus. It is a kind of supermarkt bill, when you are outside shop you are always thinking so much money? But what did I buy?

And wiki political terms as free knowledge creators such as Wikipedia editors, Sweden where the copyright law should be out of date doesn't help anyone forward. Or of unintentional censorship through bureaucracy. Because that is nice for the people at home but for the rest of the people including lawmakers just a opinion. And I really doubt if it is allowed to clame faire use if you put something under a CC license with a commercial part in it. But as far asI understand South Africa has just like Europe no far use, wonder if they will change that.

But maybe it is a idea to send Julia Reda, Mdd, Romaine and the complete Brussels Advocating Group to Cape Town. Yeh, change it in the "Cape Town Advocating Group". Take all the superfluous pirate flags to Cape town, Start a South African Pirate Party, a few SanFanBans, a bit of Twitter power of a few Wiki leading persons, and a few blog post of the talented legal department of WMF, and you will be supriced how that works out!
And, not to forget to mention, those wiki guys don't return to our social system, and that is really good news for the tax payers here! They have found a new employment! A win-win situation!

Author:  Graaf Statler [ Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ramaphosa should sign Copyright Amendment bill

Midesize Jake wrote:
Mostly though, I'm just happy that it doesn't make a specific fair-use exception for "online encyclopedia" operations, like the recent EU Copyright Act did.

They didn't Somey. There is in no way a fair-use excepting in the new EU Copyright regulation. All the time you try it, just to push that little piece of hidden disinformation, Somey.

Copyright is on a national level and no, we have no fair use in Europe. The only exception for Wikipedia is the obligation to pre check there content. Wikipedia has to follow the copyright rules just like anyone has to. But on the other hand Wikipedia users have not any protection what users of other sites have because of this new regulation. And in this sneaky way you are trying to spread desinfo between the lines, Somey.

And, something else you never will mention, what about the re-use? If someone uses that lovely liberated Wikipedia content, where is his protection? Not by the platform WMF! And where is the protection of all that Wikipedia users? In the capable hands of the legal department of WMF, Somey? Fuck off Somey, maybe you can fool a other but not me with your bullshit. If something went wrong anyone is on his one.

Author:  Graaf Statler [ Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ramaphosa should sign Copyright Amendment bill

Poetlister wrote:
I believe that "fair use" is an American notion little used elsewhere. It certainly does not exist in English copyright law. But of course it's a gift to "knowledge must be free" advocates.

I said it many times before, it is a much better idea to steal bicycles than copyright protected material in Europe. Because of that leak of "fair use" and the "pay or I sue you system", and the compensation of the lost of a license plus, plus, plus. Special with a CC license because you even give the licence away for commercial use!
And that "knowledge must be free" advocates can claim anything they want, but as we have seen in Sweden and in Germany if the hammer of the judge falls down you can advocate what you want, but it won't help you. Out of date copyright laws or not. Je kunt dan nog geen deuk in een pakje boter slaan, you can't even beat a dent in a package of butter if the hammer of the judge falls.

I entered the wikipedia house 21 mrt 2009 02:09 and on 5 april I started to ask questions about this item and we all know how it ended up. Before I even had never heard about Wikipedia, other than other people. A quick tool, but from the world behind I had not even a clou. Only with the simple theory in mind you can't give away what is not yours. Is that so hard to understand? Didn't your mammies tell you that?

I mean, besides three years primary school I also went one year to the kindergarten when I was four years old. It was really the nicest school I have ever vist in my life, it was on the end of De Westland Gracht in Amsterdam where we where living in that time. You got glue, paper, clay, paint, two very nice lady's where the teachers, really perfect! It is exacte how schools and educational institutes in heaven must be, I am still using the same materials and that school must have been the base for the rest of my life! Properly the only school what gave me any benefit in my whole life! Because the rest was rubbish and the hell on earth. You have no idea how often I dreamed that damned school burned down in that time.

But that two nice lady's, our teachers learned us other things too my mother had told me long before except how to clay. What is yours is yours, and what belongs to a other is not yours. Why is that so hard to understand for the wiki movement? Is that so hard to understand that you can't left copyright, just like you can't left speed limits or alcohol limits in the traffic? Or advocate that? Of course you can try to go to court with your Mike Tyson, a super lawyer, to a court room if you have made a accident speeding and drunk and have the illusion you will crumble the other party. ,But I think Bee, vigilant and Ming and the other wikidiots are the only persons in this world who believe you can win such a law case with one uppercut of your super lawyer.

Should it not a better idea to send them back to there social workplace and institutions where they belong? Because that is what I am wondering Somey.
And when do you stop to give them a podium and when does your shit canon stops? Because I think it is about time Somey, because your for ever Wikipediocrazy is getting complete rediciles. Even more than it already was.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ramaphosa should sign Copyright Amendment bill

Poetlister wrote:
I believe that "fair use" is an American notion little used elsewhere. It certainly does not exist in English copyright law.
In a word, bollocks....

Author:  CrowsNest [ Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ramaphosa should sign Copyright Amendment bill

There was this too....
Why not abolish copyright entirely? That would make life even easier for Wikipedia editors. :sarcasm:
Not sure what the sarcasm was for, but I suspect it was not added out of a realisation of how absurd it would be for Wikipedians to actually advocate for the abolition of copyright. They need it for their own ends.

Wikipedia actually gives you the option to literally abolish the copyright on your own uploads, just slap {PD-self} on it. Hardly any of them do. Genuinely giving away shit for free, really isn't their bag. They want credit, both personally and for their cult overlords.

In addition of course, a lot of them are frankly too stupid to even know the difference between CC-BY, CC0 and PD-self, so the idea these fuckwits are making informed decisions about copyright and it's implications, is laughable. But those that do, definitely want credit. So much for altruism.

Author:  Stierlitz [ Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ramaphosa should sign Copyright Amendment bill

CrowsNest wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
I believe that "fair use" is an American notion little used elsewhere. It certainly does not exist in English copyright law.
In a word, bollocks....

I never heard of the term "fair use" until it was waved around like a banner by YouTube TV and movie reviewers, all of whom are independent. From what I can tell, it was allowed for audiovisual and book reviews, so the reviewer could show short clips (or quote sections of a book) without having to deal with a copyright lawyer. Without it, American TV shows like Sneak Previews (aka the second* Gene Siskel-Roger Ebert film review show, 1982-1986; later known as At the Movies, 1986-2010), where all the show is are two film reviewers rating whatever is running in national multiplexes or the art house theaters while arguing over where cinema is going**, those sorts of programs would have been impossible on a timely basis due to rights issues. And the Siskel-Ebert example is not the only one - for a long stretch of time, the local TV news shows in America would do the occasional short film review, usually on Thursdays or Fridays, and minute-long clips were part of that.

More than copyright issues, what will kill Wikipedia is the outdated software, a crazy userbase of egomaniacal loons, and the growing linkrot between the system and the rest of the Internet (I think they have a 'bot that searches for Internet Archive replacements for dead links.) Wikipedia is becoming a museum of itself.

*They did a version titled Opening Soon to Theater Near You on Chicago public broadcasting starting in 1975.

** They hated it, especially Roger Ebert on the slasher movies of the 1980s. Which is ironic because he assisted in writing an adaption of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls for Russ Meyers, and that was a schlock genre movie.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group