| |||||||||||||
Security quotes of the weekSecurity quotes of the weekPosted Aug 17, 2012 0:44 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: Security quotes of the week by Seegras Parent article: Security quotes of the week
They are talking valid copyright takedown notices. I very much doubt Wikipedia, the FSF or other open content sites will get very many of those...
(Log in to post comments)
Security quotes of the week Posted Aug 17, 2012 11:23 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It is trivial to make Wikipedia the target of valid copyright takedown notices: copy some proprietary stuff on a random page from a shared IP, send the takedown notice.
Security quotes of the week Posted Aug 17, 2012 14:08 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] The chance of getting caught is non-zero. If you get caught, then none of the possible scenarios end well for you. If it isn't your material, then you don't have standing to issue a DMCA takedown in the first place and you are probably violating the copyright yourself. If it is your own material, then the following text found on the editing page of Wikipedia is of interest: By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Which is to say: If it's your material, then by posting it you gave Wikipedia a license. Hence, a DMCA takedown would not be valid unless you can show that Wikipedia's subsequent distribution of the material violates the terms under which you agreed to license it. There's also the matter that going straight to the "file a DMCA notice" step when dealing with Wikipedia makes you look like a jerk.
Security quotes of the week Posted Aug 20, 2012 20:19 UTC (Mon) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]
That kind of viral licensing hasn't held up in court that I'm aware of.
|
|||||||||||||