, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As Tvccs has pointed out on Nick's talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#For_the_life_of_me...and at EL, Jimmy Wales has said the DMCA covers You Tube on Wiki. Get the Foundation attorney or Wales to make a statement in favor of the YT projectthey've been silent, but oft-invoked by the tiny minority of deleters, to inflate themselves with self-importance. The completely idiotic "hypothetical civil case"potential copyviobeing used to violate wiki's own copyright policy/procedure for suspected copyvios holds no water. In fact, the hypothetical civil case of libelfalse accusations of copyvio when a copyright holder asserts permissionIS somthing to actually be concerned about. For example, if someone's copyright were being infringed, we would take a complaint from them seriously. When someone says their right to post under GDFL is being infringed and they are being libelled, we should take that seriously toocall up the Foundation lawyer. The actual fact is that any hypothetical cases of either kind, with no compliant, and which there are unlikely to be damages are cases no lawyer in the world would argue. But someone *could* get pissed off enough to sue, and that is more likely if they are being treated badly/their requests ignored re copyright either way. (Re B-town, I think you just completely misunderstood the disussion at B-town/it went over your headread the last part between Arg and I....)
 10:42