As opposed to any other type of property's classification as "property"?

He does seem to suggest the RfCs are part of the normal legislative process.

Its not just about movies, cds, books. Scroll to the bottom of this page:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ugg+boots+cheap

it is affecting large parts of industry. Including automotive spares, medical, watches, fashion, perfumes, and food stuffs. The company I work for creates CADCAM software that is used by many of the worlds designers and manufacturers. Our website gets spam every day from knock off manufacturers offering counterfeit products.

Who first envisioned this copyright, and where did s/he write about how s/he envisioned it?

"I do not know, nor can I comprehend any property more emphatically a man's own, nay, more incapable of being mistaken, than his literary works." - Justice Aston, Millar v. Taylor, 1767

I think you're relying on a revisionist history here. The debate over whether or not copyright is a property right / natural right / common law right, is at least as old as the Statute of Anne itself.

And so the transformation from encyclopedia to political organization continues. Is Jimmy going to run for office soon?

They're lobbying for anti-lobbying legislation?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ance_initiative

And on the slippery slope.

I like how they claim " that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession", and then quote the Constitution where it talks about "securing for limited Times...the exclusive Right".

IOW all property is an artificial concession of society. So their point is?

Indeed, although by one logic one has more claim on intelectual property than, say, to a field.

If I write a song, I wrote it, I am its creator.

Cows, sheep, goats, forests, hills, gold and re-estate I cannot make.

+5 that

Ownership is evil. Shut up, get on the gurney, and gimme that damn kidney.

You can't?

So much of Wikipedia is comedy......

Seen the "Ideas" page yet?

At the top:


Then a little further down:


And below that:


You can't make this shit up.

Ok, honestly, I just have to ask, even though the answer may be obvious; is that page a joke or meant as a send up?

I mean Fifelfoo always talks crazy shit, I always have a hard time understanding what the hell he's saying and I always half suspect he's taking the piss. But I'm pretty sure that an "important wikipedian" like Jehochman doesn't usually go for the comedy.

They really ARE that insane, aren't they?

Quote of the day.

A G+ acquaintance informed me a couple days ago that, apparently, the driving force behind the Wikipedia blackout was none other than James Forrester.

And presumably gave some sort of evidence...

Comment was made in a public thread. Make what you will of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdforrester

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jdforrester

This guy?

IIRC, Jimbo had a real hardon for this guy, Mr Forrester. He was overwhelming voted down for arbcom but Jimbo kept him anyway. If this is the guy I'm thinking of.

Correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...er_2004#Results

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/026675.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamesF

Just noticing, my wont, the structural defects. Using pure Approval voting for multiwinner elections is interesting, but was the system Yes/No? If only Yes, people may simply vote for their favorites and leave it at that; the method then reduces to Plurality, in effect.

This is not a method, neither Plurality nor Approval, to produce anything like fair representation of a community. For the same reasons, supermajority election of administrators produces a highly warped representation of the community, it's quite possible for a majority position to end up unrepresented, and that result, over years, will then begin to bias participation. When people don't feel that the results represent how they voted, they stop participating.

Jimbo made an appointment because it was felt that more numbers would increase the depth of analysis. That's not necessarily true, and it became quite clear to me, in my tangles with ArbComm, that arbs were simply voting knee-jerk, often. People are going to do that, it's inevitable, but sane process will make sure that those voting are, at least, *presented* with clear evidence and argument. If they ignore it, they can then be held responsible. But three-year terms militates against responsibility. If you are going to have long terms, then the election process should be far deeper, aiming to gain the most careful and thorough participants as arbitrators. Or at least those who are truly most representative, who *collectively* represent a maximized percentage of users.

Best would be a process which creates a panel that truly represents the community, so that the votes of the panel can be, usually, how the whole community would vote if informed adequately. Asset Voting could do it (an element in Asset Voting could be the proxy method proposed experimentally as WP:PRX. That alone would not be enough. What would then be needed would be a process whereby the *community* and *staff* present organized and coherent evidence and argument for consideration by the panel. Combining the roles of investigation with decision is structurally unwise, likely to burn out the participants. "Staff" here means that there would be a class of user which does investigation and reporting. They might be given tools that, for example, allow them to read deleted posts. Each arbitrator might be able to appoint this "staff." The purpose of staff is to advise the arbs!

With an Asset-elected ArbComm, everyone who participates in the election could know whom they elected, "their arbitrator." With secret ballot, the arbs would not know who elected them, not the primary voters. They would know who transferred votes to them, that part must be done publically.

It could be done. I'm not holding my breath.

Yes. James is also the origin (albeit with support from David Gerard) for Jimbo's notion of himself as a constitutional monarch.

Jimmy gave him an enormous hug when they met last May. I wonder if Jimmy was confusing Westminster City School, Forrester's alma mater, which is a rugged state comp, with nearby Westminster School, alma mater of the elite, including at least seven British prime ministers? How would we find out?

Did you get wood?

Jimbo's always got wood.

Call him Twig-Man.

Jimbo reports that he's


Also note the thread on masturbation videos in Commons further up on that page. A lady has founded a "Stop pornography on Wikipedia" Facebook group, and Jimbo says there will be news about the fate of the image filter later this week.

"While I believe that they have been arrogant and overbearing in the past..."

Jimbo sure does know how to butter 'em up, doesn't he?

I'm gonna remember that one for next time I address Jimmy on his talk page. (Almost) everyone deserves a second chance.