"Wikipedia, Thou art Villain!" says David Slater

[moneypenny]

You're talking about provisions in The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). That's really a matter for lawyers. We could have a discussion here where we attempt to intelligently reason some of that, but there's also a risk of us looking like some armchair attorney apes opining on what we don't quite understand.

DMCA is for US copyright. However, this is an English (UK) work which has entirely different standards (eg. European standards of originality) and laws based on Directive 2001/29/EC etc.

[moneypenny]

The commons pirates Odder and Crisco1492 are not pseudonymous now, their identities are known, and they can be sued.

"Odder" is self-declared as Tomasz Kozlowski and WMF staff [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:TKozlowski_(WMF)].

So was Odder hired as a WMF contractor as quid pro quo for pirating an extremely valuable piece of photograhic art. Incidentally he lives in Manchester, England so it should be really easy for Slater to sue him there.

[Flip Flopped]

The commons pirates Odder and Crisco1492 are not pseudonymous now, their identities are known, and they can be sued.

"Odder" is self-declared as Tomasz Kozlowski and WMF staff [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:TKozlowski_(WMF)].

So was Odder hired as a WMF contractor as quid pro quo for pirating an extremely valuable piece of photograhic art. Incidentally he lives in Manchester, England so it should be really easy for Slater to sue him there.

There's no reason to think the WMF hired him. The crazy Wikipedians think they are liberating knowledge when they steal other people's work.

[ericbarbour]

I wonder if they will soon allow more information about the Rachel Marsden mess....in the past that was always muy verboten....

Isn't Marsden also kind of out there?

Of course, but Wikipedia has an unofficial remit to defame Marsden. They hate her because she's a semi-successful conservative commentator, and because she had an affair with Their Glorious Leader. The ugly editwar on her article after the Jimbo affair hit the media was heavily censored---dozens of edits were oversighted. Because they were inserting mean, stupid, petty things. They knew it was risking a libel suit but they did it anyway--and then had to talk an oversighter into covering it up. Not to mention other areas where they've been shitting on her head since 2003. Marsden is amazingly tolerant of this--guess she realized it wasn't worth pursuing.

See for yourself. They had an ugly war over this article--BEFORE the Jimbo affair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fra ... ontroversy

Most of it was the work of this pathetic (and totally anonymous) Canadian twat, who left WP in 2013 after doing many shit things to the articles about Canadian conservatives. Need an example of a WP admin abusing his power to defame? Here you go. And he was defended by insiders like Guy Chapman and SlimVirgin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bucketsofg

He's got a blog where he has been shitting on Gurmant Grewal's head since 2004, well before he showed up on Wikipedia. Yeah, that's a "quality Wikipedian". Apparently his fans don't know he used to be a WP administrator--who abused his authority to defame people on WP. Marsden fell into his turdpot because she used to work for Grewal.
http://bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com

This is what Grewal's WP article looked like after Buckets got done with it in 2006. A pure hit-piece. It has changed a lot since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=52591321

[Flip Flopped]

I wonder if they will soon allow more information about the Rachel Marsden mess....in the past that was always muy verboten....

Isn't Marsden also kind of out there?

Of course, but Wikipedia has an unofficial remit to defame Marsden. They hate her because she's a semi-successful conservative commentator, and because she had an affair with Their Glorious Leader. The ugly editwar on her article after the Jimbo affair hit the media was heavily censored---dozens of edits were oversighted. Because they were inserting mean, stupid, petty things. They knew it was risking a libel suit but they did it anyway--and then had to talk an oversighter into covering it up. Not to mention other areas where they've been shitting on her head since 2003. Marsden is amazingly tolerant of this--guess she realized it wasn't worth pursuing.

See for yourself. They had an ugly war over this article--BEFORE the Jimbo affair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fra ... ontroversy

Most of it was the work of this pathetic (and totally anonymous) Canadian twat, who left WP in 2013 after doing many shit things to the articles about Canadian conservatives. Need an example of a WP admin abusing his power to defame? Here you go. And he was defended by insiders like Guy Chapman and SlimVirgin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bucketsofg

He's got a blog where he has been shitting on Gurmant Grewal's head since 2004, well before he showed up on Wikipedia. Yeah, that's a "quality Wikipedian". Apparently his fans don't know he used to be a WP administrator--who abused his authority to defame people on WP. Marsden fell into his turdpot because she used to work for Grewal.
http://bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com

This is what Grewal's WP article looked like after Buckets got done with it in 2006. A pure hit-piece. It has changed a lot since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=52591321

Marsden came onto The Jester via Twitter and lost it when he rejected her advances. Still she doesn't deserve to be treated worse than other people by Wikipedia.

Bucket cited his own blog post going after Grewal in the Wikipedia article. That's some moxy!