>The point seems to be that one has to take measures to prevent copyvios =
advance* And this is not really possible=20
>for wikis, or is it?=20
A nice first solution to this problem would be a functionality that =
- 10 random sequences of words of a sufficient length and make an =
google query for hits. This would of course not detect infringements =
on offline work or such that is available for members only, but it would
already spot a great deal of abuse.
martin.hepp@..., phone: +43 512 507 6465
http://www.heppnetz.de / http://www.deri.org
[mailto:swikig-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Markus =
Sent: Samstag, 10. Dezember 2005 01:46
Cc: swikig@...; =
Subject: Re: [swikig] [Semediawiki-user] AW: [SMW-devel] Wiki's
becomingillegal in France?
I fully agree with the various answers below. There certainly is no need =
expect that wiki users/developers/hosters will be sued, and it is =
a stupid thing to do (the whole law, anyway). But it could be useful to =
So the question rather is: Is there any legal security, or do you rely =
people being "nice" to wikis? The question of whether copyright issues =
be resolved quickly in my understanding is not the point of the law.=20
Is there any expectation towards the concrete implementation of the law?
Might it be declared void by some supreme court (does this work in =
or will it just come into effect without much practical consequences? I
guess we cannot do anything but wait and see anyway (well, I am not in
France ... ;-).
On Saturday 10 December 2005 00:37, Johann Dirry wrote:
> I'm not sure about this - Wikipedia has already a very powerfull=20
> mechanism for eliminating copyright-abuse:
> -- Peer-Review
> If someone sees such a thing, he can mark it and solve the problem as=20
> fast as sending an e-mail. Warnings by lawers are senseless, because a =
> simple delete of the article while marking it as copyright-abuse is=20
> cheap and easy.
> True, it's not possible to avoid copyright-abuse at all - but the=20
> response time to such things is very low. At least better than many=20
> other techniques.
> > If I understand this correctly, this law - especially with the=20
> > amendment proposed by the industry - is absulutely ridiculous!
> > This law only makes some kind of sense when interpreted in terms of=20
> > "Any software that is suited to disable copyright mechanisms" or=20
> > similar.
> > > Now, obviously, any wiki can be used to publish copyrighted
> > material,
> > Sure, but if they would really take it that strict, they woult have=20
> > to ban all eMail clients and servers too.
> > And FTP-Software. And the Apache web server aswell.
> > And telephones. Because you could still play a copyrighted song over =
> > a telephone.
> > This law is - in it's strict sense - practically unobeyable.
> > Or did I get something wrong there?
> > How is the common practice on laws like this in France?
> > Would Wiki devellopers really have to fear getting sued, as long as=20
> > they don't include special DRM removal features?
> > Cheers - Heiko *uncomprehendingly shaking his head on the crazyness=20
> > of laws like this and the world in general* %-)
> > --
> > Heiko Haller
> > Institut AIFB, Uni Karlsruhe (TH)
> > http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/hha/
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log =
> files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that=20
> makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD
> Semediawiki-user mailing list
Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe
mak@... phone +49 (0)721 608 7362
http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/ fax +49 (0)721 693 717