Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Copywright Paranoia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was close. Since the author has deleted the essay and turned the nominated page into a soft redirect, discussion right now is, as Doug notes, pretty much moot.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Copywright Paranoia
(Now User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Copywright Paranoia) When disturbing Wikipedia to make a point, at least get your grammar wrigth. --Damiens .rf 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Who is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? You've lost me. EJF (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- You made the nomination. Do everyone the courtesy of giving a civil, substantive justification for this deletion -- one that is based on wikipedia policy.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Should this just be a soft redirect to the meta essay/page? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfied - I've moved the page to User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Copywright Paranoia, maintaining both the spelling error and the naming convention violation (the P should be lower case). I have also tagged the page with user essay.  Neither of these in itself ends the discussion, but they certainly may affect the course of debate.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The page was recreated after your userfication, and without the deletion tag. I have readded the deletion tag. The newly created version is in a completely different tone. I see it as going contrary to the current Copyright paranoia. --Damiens .rf 12:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For clarification for those not following, the deletion was the deletion of the cross-namespace redirect, created during the userfication process. I was unaware that the article name is also confusing due to the existence of a redirect at the properly spelt name.  With respect to the Project space page, my !vote is now firmly Delete (see below) .  With respect to the userfied page, keep as userfied.  (I do not advocate userfication of the new project space page, it has the same author and was created after userfication of the original, simply delete it).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, that doesn't really clarify things does it. There are now two pages, both of which are up for deletion.  The first was the subject of the initial nomination, it was moved to userspace after the nomination and resides at User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Copywright Paranoia.  The second is in project space at the same address where the original used to be which is Copywright Paranoia.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am extremely disappointed that nominator still hasn't seen fit to offer a substantive justification for deletion. So far the nominator's only stated justification is that the essay's grammar is not "wright"  [sic].  There is a very unfortunate phenomenon, both in real life, and here on the wikipedia, where some people interpret any question, any challenge, to their established opinions, as a personal attack -- no matter how tactfully it is phrased.  I am finding it hard not to conclude that what we have here is a nominator who is a quality control volunteer who has taken this essay as some kind of personal attack.  Don't kill the messenger.  The essay, I believe, complies with the wikipedia's civility policies.  If the nominator doesn't agree with it, the nominator should either ignore it, because it is now just a User-space essay, or the nominator should comply with the wikipedia civility policies, and discuss the issues in a calm, reasoned manner.  Trying to get essays one disagrees with deleted is a violation of WP:NOT -- wikipedia is not censored.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "When disturbing Wikipedia to make a point? Heheh. "I'm sorry Damien but what is the reason this time? Is it copywrighted or owned by a news agency which would qualify it for deletion? Lighten up for Heaven's Sake it is not meant to be even remotely serious and most people are aware of my dark humor. Try looking through Category:Wikipedia humor and you'll find hundreds of far worse things. It is however a real problem that exists nonetheless with the difficulty and disagreement that we seem to get over copywright and the very strong feelings that some editors seem to show towards it. I don't think direct copywright is acceptable either but the lengths that some people go and focus purely on it and as the major flaw of wikipedia amazes me and many of the deletionists seem to stalk the activities of other editors as clearly shown here to delete anything controversial. What happened to freedom of speech and no censorship? Some of the other wikipedia essays or jokes about our most productive editors who have made this site what it is are equally as "offensive" but does anybody delete them?. Generally I think wikipedia essays are a waste of time but Copywright Paranoia should be written in the same as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all those other "policies" that people bring up in every dsiagreement on wikipedia. Deleting that page only illustrates the general paranoia that is prevalent in the community which takes itself far too seriously.  I thought a page would have already existed as there are many people who feel the same way about deletionism as I do-a redirect would be very appropriate if the page Avoid_Copyright_Paranoia if it exists.

Seriously now, I think the page should be created as a serious discussion in the way it has been addressed on Meta on wikipedia. Views such as this "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1996 basically acts as a shield for online service providers. The law basically says that a service provider (and I believe Wikipedia can be loosely classified as an online service provider, most websites are) cannot be held liable for the copyright infringement of its users if it follows a notice and take down procedure. The provider (or website) has to register an agent with the Library of Congress to receive copyright complaints. As long as quick action is taken to remove offending works the provider is generally not liable." The justification of deleting images and possibilities that we could be sued for using certain images needs serious discussion but not in the light-hearted way I started.

Even practicing lawyers have expressed their frustration with excessive paranoia of being sued on wikipedia. Here is a comment left on meta wiki: "I hate all the incredibly over-the-top "copyright paranoia" as you've so elloquently put it. I've taken copyrights, I've taken trademarks, I've taken international IP (so a bit of patents ;-) ) all while a law student.  Infringing uses are easy to see and easy to remove on Wikipedia --yet people here get caught in such absurd legal minutia, seriously compounded by their often half-baked legal knowledge, that has such a small likelihood of becoming a problem.  And what's the biggest joke of it "becoming a problem"?  Simple: any of us can "erase" the problem material in a few keystrokes.  Honestly people, to quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002). --Bobak 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bald One      White cat 10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this might be fine as a user essay, but as it stands this basically just says "Hey, safe harbor means ignore policies set by the foundation on the inclusion of non-free content". This is a remarkably hazardous course of action given that the scope of safe harbor protection is not at all settled.  It is also terrible advice with regard to how one should run the encyclopedia.  the foundation sets the expectations for inclusion of copyrighted material, NFCC is based on foundation legal advice.  All we do is follow that advice in administering the encyclopedia.  Bobak above admonishes us for "giving legal advice" as the editors but the reverse is true.  this essay offers legal advice in suggesting that users interpret the DMCA to mean that administration of wikipedia should be carried out as though no restriction on inclusion of copyrighted materials exists.  We have no way of knowing why the foundation has the policy on non-free content that they do.  Perhaps they dont' want to hire a full time employee to sift through takedown letters.  Perhaps they don't want to have to convince donors to keep giving money while under the threat of lawsuits (or the impression of a threat of lawsuits given by very public DMCA notices).  We don't know.  What we do know is that dealing with fair use images PROPERLY gets much harder when opposition to the correct use of FU images becomes ideological.  This essay pushes that view explicitly.  the one on meta is bad enough. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've asked another editor with a demonstrated history of concern over non-free content in wikipedia to comment here. I don't consider it canvassing, but in the spirit of transparency, I've made this note. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable userspace material.  Not to be confused with Copyright paranoia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- for the reasons I stated above. Geo Swan (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I doubt anyone wil confused it with the standard view. DGG (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close as Moot - the author has deleted the userpage and redirected the projectspace page to the meta page. I expect those last three keeps are commenting based on this change.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.