Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material

message: For the record, CSD proposal #14 read "Articles consisting entirely of material copied from an existing web page, if such text is an advertisement, or unverifiable." (should be speedily deletable). It was voted down because this phrasing was redundant with the copyvio process. Radiant_>|< 17:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal V (Copyright violations), where a similar proposal was rejected in January. —Cryptic (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 14

message: The line that currently reads:
:The article contains only copyright violation material.
should probably be clarified to specify that the article's entire history (aside from ,  and other meta-templates) is copyvio.  -Sean Curtin 21:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
:How about The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags and templates thanks Martin - The non-blue non-moose 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested clarification 

message: This is a good proposal.
The answer to most objections is simply that violators know what they are doing. Not allowing copying without explicit permission is not some weird idiosyncrasy of Wikipedia; it is standard practice all over the world. This stuff is taught in elementary school. There is no excuse for not knowing about it, and if you know about it, there is no excuse for doing it.
Another point: I think such a policy is necessary, to protect Wikipedia from legal troubles. If you put up a copyvio notice, the violated material is still there, and the copyright is still being violated. When there is some uncertainty, then by all means deal with it the slow way; when there is not, we need a way to get rid of the offending material quickly.
— Nowhither 23:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that a copyvio tag normally repalces the offending content except in the page history. This makews it vanish for msot purpsoes, and makes it invisible to search engiens. Note also that we can't generally get into legal trouble until after a copyright owner has made a specific request for the content to be removed. The current procedure is perfectly adaquete to protect wikipedia for any legal liability for copyright infringment. the only reason for teh new procedure is to reduce the load on the current process, and on out volunters. (I am not a lawyer, but i am a moderately serious student of US copyright law, and I am pretty sure of this. Also the foundfation's legal people have not indiacted that our current procedures are inadaquete in any way.) DES (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And it may be culpable ignorace, but I think that many violaters in fact do not realize what they are doing. i also think that many of those who post copied content to which they do have rights have no idea of what the need to do to make the source and copyright situation clear on wikipedia. DES (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for the proposal 

message: :"An article or image that is a patent copyright violation and meets these parameters:"
:* Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service, porn site).
:* The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits.
:* Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none seems likely.
:* The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to avoid mirror problem).
This is a version that I would be happy with.  I've made a few changes which I would explain as follows:
#Add "or image": both IFD and CP see a significant share of copyrighted images, no small share of which is misappropriated porn.
#Incorporate Martin's suggestion to Sean's concern about full history, with the mild addition of "minor edits", since even copyvios may see spelling corrections and the like.
#Add "commercial content provider":  As discussed above it is good to have a clear boundary between what might be okay and what is not okay.  I prefer "commercial content provider" to "commercial website" for a couple reasons.  First, commerical content providers covers the very broad class of people that are trying to make money on their work (and hence are unlikely to give them away).  However, it excludes enterprises which, while commercial, may want to  provide free content to Wikipedia for the purposes of free "advertising".  For example, if Apple wanted to freely post images and descriptions about a new super-duper iPod surely we would want to incorporate that into iPod rather than delete it.  I've heard it said that roughly 10% of advertisements added to Wikipedia are for products notable enough that they end up getting rewritten and preserved as their own article.  I have no idea if it is true, but as it has been a major objection to other anti-advertising speedy proposals, I would like to draw a distinction here that this is about copied content and not advertising.
#Add "or fair use", self-explanatory.
#Change the phrase about "no chance": The first item now does a good job of spelling out what is intended.  I'm leaving a back door open for things which may be fair use, though I would imagine that being rare.
This isn't necessarily perfect, and won't cover everything, but I think it addresses the major objections while still being good enough to both be likely to be accepted and be useful in combating copying.  Comments?  Other Objections?  Dragons flight 02:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
:I like it, thanks. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 08:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the argument about mirrors holds water: there's nothing to stop the mirror catching in seconds if they happen to go crawling just after the creation. I think DES's suggestion of adding a mention to the uploader's talk page is good: we already have  for that very purpose. As to two people, well, a lot of speedies get that already and no more harm will be done with this new speedy having a single pair of eyes than there is with any current speedy. Things can always go to VfU or, more likely, simply be re-created by the original editor who will have learnt they need to assert permission. There should be a clause saying "if the assertion is disputed, it should be taken to WP:CP instead".-Splash 19:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 48 hours was just to make it less likely that mirrors would catch it, obviously it isn't 100% watertight (although it would surely make it very unlikely), I am however starting to think that scrapping it and requiring a warning on the uploaders talk may be a better idea though, as you suggest. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 19:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think all of the changes by Dragons flight are improvements, except the switch to "commercial content provider". I do not think that is good at all. Why should we treat someone's rights with more respect simply because they charge for their content? This sets a particularly bad example, since we want people to respect Wikipedia's licensing, and of course WP does not charge (but does place restrictions on copying). — Nowhither 03:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reson behind the "commercial content provider" is not that we treat their rights with more respect (althopugh if their rights aare infringed they could probably calim larger damages) but becsue it is far less likely that a commercial source will agree to reelase content under the GFDL. On WP:CP it is not uncommon for an uplaodeer to state that they have permission. In those cases where it is ultimately established that proper permission is available, it is usually from a private, personal site, and less frequently from the site of a non-profit org. it is almost never from the site of a "commercial content provider". The origianl language "no chance that we have permission" is IMO so vague and prone to debate/argument that I could never support a proposal containing that language, no matter what else is included. If yopu don't like this standard, propose some other language for the purpose. It should 1) Avoid pretty much all false positives: i.e. if the criterion is true ther is pretty much no chance of GFDL permission being given (or content being PD), and 2) it must be obviuous and objective. It must be possible from the face of the page and the site from which it is copied whether the criterion is true, with litttle or peferably no research, and there must be no room for argument -- and two sane uninvolved admins must come to the same conclusion in pretty much all cases. The requirement that the site be a "commercial content provider" fits both of those conditions. Note that copyvios that don't fit the proposed conditions will still be dealt with -- via our current procedure. DES (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A version I'd like 

message: I have severe problems with the proposal, having a few times come close to putting material up for copyvio when it was merely bad written and had been mirrored. The safeguards against some admin speedying through the same natural error are these:
*No mirror will mirror us within 48 hours. 
*:Why not? It's perfectly feasible,
*Mirrored articles will be wikified
*:Not necessarily; not if the original article isn't.
I intensely dislike discretionary forms of CSD, since they amount to almost unreviewable reliance on the judgment of an admin who has been wading through the slushpile of new articles. I wouldn't trust my own judgment if I'd been doing that. Septentrionalis 13:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted about 10 articles on the spot for a variety of reasons, I blocked a user yesterday, I am trusted to do that, there is no reason not to trust an admins judgement on whether it is a mirror or not. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 14:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are in doubt about whether a site is a mirror or not, AIUI Wikipedia:Mirrors and Forks maintains a list of known mirrors. Thryduulf 10:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mirrors

message: Thew proposal page now says "The wording of the proposal is fixed, since voting has started". Has it? where? if it hasn't I advcise removign thsi wording for now. i also advise announcing in advance the start of voting so that people are not taken by supise, and have a last chance to suggest changes in the wording. That was a seerious problem with the last set of CSD proposals. DES (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that was because i copied it from another proposal, I have ammended it now. Any suggested changes should be mentioned now! It is advertised in quite a few places, although we could set a date to start the vote, how about the 6th of september? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: The current proposal uses the term "patent copyright violation" but does not define it. Either the term should be defined or it should be removed as redundant with the other parameters (which it probably is). Eric119 20:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isnt it self defining? how would you define it? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 21:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, uh, how is it different from a non-patent copyright violation? Eric119 02:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isnt a lagal contract, we don't need to spell it out. It is just as well defined as other criteria for speedy deletion. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 09:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I guess that's all right then. Eric119 02:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: If we are limiting this to commercial content providers, does that make the clause about mirrors/48 hours/wikification redundant?  I guess I am wondering how likely one of the wiki mirrors would be mistaken as a commercial content provider?  Dragons flight 16:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Until I saw this, I was baffled about the mirror business. It seems unlikely that someone here would mistake a mirror for a site with original content. Many of them have even have "wikipedia" or "gnu" or "creative commons" on the page, which allows them to be more easily identified. -- Kjkolb 12:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
::Yes I think it is unnecessary now. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find that a number of non-compliant mirrors do look remarkably like commercial content providers - look through Wikipedia:Forks and mirrors for some examples. DES (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For example compare This link with Bird flu. DES (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For another example, see this link. DES (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: For a third example compare Normalized number with this link. This site looks a lot like a commercial site, it has a .com address and a copyright notice. Only if you follow the "terms of use" link do you get any reference to wikipedia, adn i underdstand that even thsi was not present when this site first started mirroring wikipedia content. DES (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've convinced me, the 48 hour/wikified rule will deal with these kind of problems very well. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirrors 2 

message: Doesn't look like a good idea to me, for there are enough admins here who do not respect copyright law as it is and claim that things which are ineligible for copyright protection or are fair use are copyright infringments. Regrettably, in some cases, even repeated education with case cites and legal references hasn't changed the actions concerned, so I conclude that it's deliberate practice. In the face of such conduct and the unwillingness to remove the admin capability, the current process seems like the way to go. Jamesday 06:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How often are cut n' paste jobs from commercial websites fair use or ineligible? Martin 08:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This seems unwise

message: I'm not particularly comfortable with a 250 edit requirement before being eligable to vote.  I think it's quite possible to be a valid contributing member of wikipedia well before the 250 edit mark.  I personally was caught by this rule for the previous CSD vote, and I couldn't quite see why my opinion was less valid simply because I hadn't made as many grammatical corrections to articles as some others.  I understand wanting to weed out sock puppets, but 250 seems a little excessive to me.  For VfD, isn't the policy to consider sockpuppetry if they have fewer than 20 edits?  20 sounds a lot more reasonable to me, possibly 50.  With 250, it also penalizes those who make fewer but more substantial edits, as some have been known to do. Fieari 21:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
:I copied and pasted it from the other proposals which is why it was 250, there was some disagreement though looking back, I've changed it to 50 now. thanks Martin 21:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no single policy on AfD/VfD. In some cases anon users with a single edit get counted, in other cases the closer enforces a rule of 100 edits or more, and in several cases the closer only decided what the rule would be when closing the debate. This is IMO worse than any clearcut rule would be.   I think 50 is enough to weed out socks, in this case. DES (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  250 edits 

message: So that is patents and copyrights covered.  What about other forms of intellectual property such as trademarks?  Seriously, could we call it "obvious copyright violation" or "blatent copyright violation"? --Henrygb 21:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, blatant copyvio sounds best and means same thing, i can't move it right now because it just says there was no response, i'll try later unless someone beats me to it. Martin 22:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  patent copyright violation 

message: ~~ N (t/c) 20:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we vote on this now? 

message: :* ...an admin should verify that the page creator has been notifed -- if not, the admin should so notify.
:sounds archaic if not wrong. propose change to
:* ...an admin should verify that the page creator has been notifed -- if not, the admin should do so.
:--Zanaq 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *As the drafter of this phrase, i would argue that it is in no way wrong. I do tend to use soemwhat more formal and perhaps even old-fashioned turns of phrase in soem cases, and I don't object to the change (I think this is partly due to the result of editing a previous longer version at the same time that notification was changed from "must" to "should"). DES (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I went ahead and made the change, since it shortens the text and may improve its readability, and in no way changes the meaning. DES (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: It seems like we have agreed on a new CSD (might I suggest A8?), since the vote goes 100 support/2 neutral/6 oppose. So, do we close the vote now? It has about an hour to go before the end date of October 1 comes, and unless a sock-flood comes, it won't dip under the 70% approval cut-off line. Titoxd 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as though we do, as it's currently 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm going to put up a notice saying that the voting has closed. --Blackcap | talk 05:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go for it. Just write the final tally on there (Still 100/2/6). Titoxd 06:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been done. :) --Blackcap | talk 06:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: By the way: It's actually 98/2/6—votes 27 and 87 are discounted. I'm going to go check and see if there are any others. --Blackcap | talk 06:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks like that's it—I thought that support #64 (User:S.M.) was going to be cast out, but I was wrong. Not that it matters, this proposal clearly passes. --Blackcap | talk 06:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we close it now?