User:Souldogs/Arxhive.js

--24.128.217.192 21:25, 7 August 2006 (PDT)Do you understand the concepts of 'fair use' and 'parody'? Do you understand that this is a new site, meant as a satire of Wikipedia, and as a homage to the Colbert Report? Do you understand that we are in the process of altering these pages to represent satirical versions of their Wikipedia counterparts? Do you represent Wikipedia? Are you their legal counsel? Before you go off removing every page you deem in 'violation', perhaps you should consider researching what you claim to be defending. We are making no attempt here to 'steal' Wikipedia's information. We are in a creative process, and would appreciate a little common sense and understanding. Or does the fact that we simply exist bother you so much that you feel compelled to remove the site from existance, one page at a time. Many pages that you have 'removed' contained original content that substantially transformed them from their original format, creating a critical and satirical new work. Under the 'parody' interpretation of the 'fair use' defense upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, such work is inherently protected. ComebackShane 20:59, 7 August 2006 (PDT)


 * What he said. XD --Paranoia 21:01, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

You're wrong, and I am in direct communication with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal council. Your work does not qualify as "fair use" or "parody." A mere find and replace for text on a page certainly does not constitute parody. You could escape all these problems by licensing under the GFDL. Then, no one will care how much you modify the content, and you don't have to hide under fair use or parody. --24.128.217.192 21:04, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * Believe me, if I were the founder of this site, or an administrator for it, that is precisely what I would do. And I am certain that in a few days time, we will make some form of arraignment with Wikipedia. We have no desire to claim this all as original work, we simply want to create something entertaining. So please, just leave us be while we get this page together, we've been in existence for less than a week, and have spent the vast majority of the weekend fighting off vandals (I'm sure you've seen some of the pages). Just give us some time before you go removing all of our works-in-progress. When the site owner comes back from wherever he went for the weekend, I promise you we will implore him to follow proper channels with Wikipedia, or I will personally remove all Wikipedia-copyrighted material. ComebackShane 21:13, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * Thank you. I'll leave it in your hands now. You are, however, still obliged to keep the content inaccessible until it is licensed properly. I suggest you clean up the front page so you're not sending users to blanked pages. And there is no reason to communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation directly. They do not hold the copyrights, and so all they can tell you is "use the GFDL." Wikipedia editors hold the copyrights. Best wishes. --24.128.217.192 21:25, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

Are you saying that the Wikimedia Foundation sanctions your systematic vandalism at this site?
 * The Wikimedia Foundation does not officially sanction any editorial actions. --24.128.217.192 21:25, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

Funny -- this isn't how Wikimedia deals with copyright and licensing issues created by users in its space, now is it? Obviously, the people posting Wikimedia material here are Wikimedia users, just like yourself. You no doubt are aware that the site's owner is not avialable right now, so there is no way to establish a process for dealing with such violations. IF he cares to. You have no right to decide that for him.
 * This is actually how Wikipedia deals with copyright violations. The policy is to delete content that is irreparably copyvio. --24.128.217.192 21:25, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

Your vigilante vandalism is not different in kind from the damage done to Wikimedia by clueless Colbertians, stop pretending it is.
 * Actually, it is. License under the GFDL or give up copying from Wikipedia. --24.128.217.192 21:25, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

Bull. USERS are not encouraged to delete copyvio on sight.

Again, does the Wikimedia Foundation sanction your systematic vandalism at this site? doggies 21:29, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

fair use quotation from Wikipedia:

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text. doggies 21:32, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

A better quote from Wikipedia policy: "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there." --24.128.217.192 21:35, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

rank-and-file Wikipedians are not advised to make articles unavailable. That quote comes directly after they are told not to make such decisions. doggies 21:41, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * Reread the policy. You're wrong. --24.128.217.192 21:45, 7 August 2006 (PDT)


 * "It is not the job of rank-and-file" doesn't mean exactly that? Wht does it mean in your Wikiality?


 * Anyway, I hope you realize that this nice little transcript with someone claiming to represent the legal team of Wiki, attempting to justify his hooliganism because other Wiki users have posted a few Wiki articles here, all while the actual site op is unavailable could come in very handy if any legal actions ever come down. doggies 22:20, 7 August 2006 (PDT)


 * Also, I believe I pointed this out at some time earlier in the talk pages (Talk:Main_Page I think), we have no way to keep track of who posts what or what the copyright status is. Go see how the YouTube lawsuits are going. It's the same damn thing. --Paranoia 21:46, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * Wrong again. As a host of content, you're obligated to remove material you're aware is illegal. Why do you think Wikipedia cares so much about acting on infringement? --24.128.217.192 21:47, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * See that disclaimer under every edit box? That makes it the user's problem if it's in violation of copyright. The webmaster/website cannot be held accountable if they don't know that it's a violation. The message saying "Don't post copyrighted materials" is sufficient enough to protect the website. We cannot go through every single entry and cross reference it with Wikipedia - it is assumed that the user posting it has agreed that it is not copyrighted. It's exactly the same thing going on with YouTube. As I keep saying. --Paranoia 21:55, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * That disclaimer does jack squat when the site operator knows about the infringement. This site's censorship of my warnings is evidence of such knowledge. --24.128.217.192 21:57, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * How can you prove the sysop knows about the infringements? He hasn't been here for a week, pretty much since the site opened. Listen to what I'm telling you: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the sysop from what people post here, whether he knows about it or not. Get it? --Paranoia 22:03, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * It doesn't once he gets the DMCA Takedown Notice we will send if he doesn't fix this problem. --24.128.217.192 22:12, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * So, basically, you just admitted that you don't have a leg to stand on as of yet, and that people from Wikipedia have vandalised our website pointlessly? And, about the vandals, how can we be certain that it wasn't vandals FROM Wikipedia that put the alleged infringing materials here just so this would happen? --Paranoia 22:15, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * Wikipedia would gain nothing from posting its content to your site. --24.128.217.192 22:19, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * They would gain the ability to shut us down, as they are doing now. Wikipedia has been proven to have no sense of humour at satire and it may have very well been sabotage to shut the site down. Prove it wasn't. --Paranoia 22:22, 7 August 2006 (PDT)


 * Also, if they're gonna shut us down for not showing the correct copyright info, what do you make of my nice picture over there ->



Seems to me that if they don't care about all of those sites, they're not going to start caring now because we're pokingn fun at them. And if they did, they'd be obligated to shut those sites down so as to not show favouritism. --Paranoia 22:29, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

no it isn't. Durin is the sole site operator. He isn't here. Stop dissembling. doggies 22:00, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

Again, does the Wikimedia Foundation sanction your systematic vandalism at this site? doggies 22:02, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

Protection
Does no one realise I protected us somewhat in this event? Go Check --Paranoia 21:42, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * That doesn't comply with the GFDL at all. --24.128.217.192 21:45, 7 August 2006 (PDT)


 * How about we go through Wikipedia and point out all the copyright violations not tecnically in terms with the "Fair Use" clause. Wikipedia cannot prove that they are educational because not everything there is true. The website can be edited by anyone at any time, raising questions about the veracity of its legitimate educational use. It's exactly like Colbert said, if enough people agree, it becomes true - does this mean that Wikipedia/Wikimedia are educational, or merely a proxy for the opinions of the masses? If it's the latter, they have no right to anything on there. --Paranoia 21:51, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
 * Have a party. Wikipedia welcomes your input for improving its copyright compliance. You should know, however, that fair use doesn't require educational merit. --24.128.217.192 21:55, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

They've aggregated the material, that means they own the aggregation, if not the material itself. Doesn't matter whether its truthy or facty. doggies 21:56, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

I saw that but it no protection at all, in fact it shows awareness that we are expected to comply with a license.

The required text is:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". Content on Wikipedia is covered by disclaimers.

in addition:

* your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL, * you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B), and * you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material (section 4J).

Do what you want with that, but I really think that decision should be left to Durin.

durin is the only party who could run into real problems...better to refrain from any steps than do anything that affects his legal status without his say-so.

Buh-bye
I'm not going to argue with people so stubborn that they refuse to put up a simple GFDL notice (or at least stop copying stuff until the site owner can). Enjoy the takedown notice on the way. If you guys won't take it down, I'm sure Dreamhost will. The U.S. is a really crappy place for you cowboys to host your anti-copyright crusade. --24.128.217.192 22:22, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

>>I'm not going to argue with people so stubborn that they refuse to put up a simple GFDL notice

Durin owns this site, no one else -- it is within no one else's authority to dictate license policy.

>>(or at least stop copying stuff until the site owner can)

You can see the edit history, you know damn well we aren't doing that.

>>Enjoy the takedown notice on the way.

Shit happens. No one here has anything to do with that.

>>If you guys won't take it down, I'm sure Dreamhost will.

How do you propose we take Durin's site down? YOU ARE THE ONE HERE WITH THE PIRATE MENTALITY.

>>The U.S. is a really crappy place for you cowboys to host your anti-copyright crusade.

Enjoy living in "wikiality."

At least we kept you distraccted from vandalism for a half-hour or so. Here's hoping you are really gone.