> > Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests > solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who > merely link to it. That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for > example (not host them, just link to them).
> Why read an article on Wikipedia about say.... Shirley Temple, if someone > else has an identical article AND video streaming as well so you can watch > one of her movie or a newsreel interview. > > Re-hosters will eventually figure this out, grab all of our content and > improve upon it. We should get there before they do. > > Strongly disagree. Wikipedia is built on the principle that freely licensed content rocks and is the future. Making use of non-freely licensed content makes that goal hypocritical and awkward. (by the way; there is not necessairily an issue with linking to Youtube content - if it is correctly licensed, then it is fine) Besides; no one has managed to make use of Wikipedia content and build on it in a way that you suggest - if it were so clear an advantage I am sure someone would have done it by now! Wikipedia but with extra non-free images and videos is not a Wikipedia with significant extra value. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but we have millions :) Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l